Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[SQ8]

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

 

[Zabaniyah]

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

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

 

[S10]

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

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

Beg to differ

 

[Martian2]

J-20 Approaching Heads-on

J-20 "Fires Up" Its Engines

J-20 Low-pass Fly-by

J-20 Landing

J-20 Tests Its Control Surfaces

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

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

 

[Arsalan]

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

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

regards!

 

[Arsalan]

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

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

regards!

 

[Arsalan]

i few video links from flight testing:

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

regards!

 

[gambit]

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

Beg to differ

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

 

[siegecrossbow]

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

regards!

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

 

[Martian2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

My January 22, 2011 post:

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

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

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

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

From Global Security: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

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

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

 

[ptldM3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

My January 22, 2011 post:

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

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

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

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

Radar Cross Section (RCS)

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

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

 

[Martian2]

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

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

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

He's an expert. You're not.

----------

Name Peter Anthony Goon

Date and Place of Birth 1953, Melbourne, Australia

Nationality Australian

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

Post graduate Aeronautical Engineering and Officer training in the RAAF

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

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

Areas of Expertise


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


Preferred Industry Roles


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


Skills/Experience:

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



Background/History:
2002 – Present - Service in the National Interest

1990 – 2005 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES – Managing Director/Director

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

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

17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for structural, electrical and systems design, and Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
AFTS has satisfactorily completed over 1,500 projects, the bulk relating to aeronautical design and aviation matters. Projects included the development of repairs/modifications to address ageing aircraft issues through to the design, development, installation, integration and certification of aircraft modifications, defined as ‘Major’ by the CASA.
Author of Unsolicited Innovative Proposal from Industry entitled “Project Tango Charlie” dated January 2000 for evolving the DHC4 Caribou aircraft through a COTS technology insertion program with inherent cost/capability improvements/savings in excess of AUD$1b.
Co-author of the innovative, cost effective family of risk mitigation strategies and the extant IV&V model for the NACC Project entitled “The Evolved F-111”, circa 2001.
Contributor to the ANAO Performance Audit titled “Test and Evaluation of Major Defence Equipment Acquisitions”, Audit Report No 30 of 2002.
Contributor on T&E and related matters to the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into “Materiel Acquisition and Management in the DMO” of 2002.
Contributor to the Kinnaird Procurement Review 2003 with a primary focus on Defence Capability Systems Life Cycle Management and the importance of capability requirements analysis, operational concept development, functional and performance specification, and the role of Test & Evaluation with various models and recommendations.
Provided Kinnaird Procurement Review Team with results of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on ‘What Ails Defence Today’ and recommendations on T&E models for Defence.
Co-author of the forensic analysis, written for the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled “Review of Defence Annual Report 2002-03: Analysis of Department of Defence Responses” dated 26 Jan 04, and related Parliamentary submissions.
Co-founder of Air Power Australia think tank – http://www.ausairpower.net

1986 – 1990 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES – Manager, Engineering Services Division (ESD)

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

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

1982 – 1986 AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT UNIT (ARDU) – Project Manager/ OIC Performance and Handling

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

 

[ptldM3]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aimarraul]

 

[houshanghai]

self delete

偶刚想贴，被楼上抢先了