What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Well said.

I want to add one more point to the benefit of the 4th generation jets' supercruise ability . When air-to-air missile is launched from the 4th generation jets at supercruise speed, it will have a initial supercrusise speed as well, which makes the non-4th generation targets impossible to escape.

In relation to registering all flight maneuver envelope of the J-20, the use of WS-10B/G at prototype testing stage first and changing to WS-15 at LRIP later on may not cause too much problem as along as the thrust gap is not too large. I think the incremental maneuver envelope resulting from the use of more powerful engine can be added to the envelope of the former's without the need of going it over again from scratch. In fact F22 first used YF119-PW-100L/N Prototype engine rated for 30,000 lbf thrust and later changed to F119-PW-100 Production engine with larger fan and increased bypass ratio (BPR) rated for 35,000 lbf thrust.

Compared to the F-35's more than 7 millions lines of flight control codes in C++, it is said J-20 has 5 millions mainy in Ada plus some C++. Any clues about the pros and cons of the two?

I think Ada is language developed by Pentagon for military use. I have no experienced with it. The problem of Ada is that it is not use outside of the military so you don't have a large pool of experienced programmers to rely on. Schools are not going to teach it, if its too specialized. And if your new grads don't know it, they won't have the skills to be hired. That is a huge problem for the employers. No wonder Software development and testing in F-35 lacks so far behind the whole program.
 
Last edited:
In realty Mr Asok no fighter jets can fly with a full tank of gas and with a full combat load, thrust to weight ratio of that particular jet is too low to fly but it can run on the tarmac, at best in war situation fighter jets fuels 3/4th of there gas tanks
and as for fully combat load there not such thing fully combat loaded jet, they armed for specific mission, for example F-15 and Su-27 might carry 10 air to air missiles but restricted to carry 8 air to air missiles for aerodynamic and thrust to weight restrictions
From your above post J-20 can easily super-cruise with your stated 35,000 lbs WS-10G

5th Gen. Fighters (F-22, T50, J-20) can take off with a full tank of gas and full combat load and do Supersonic Cruise, without burner, as well, because their weapons are stored internally. At Supersonic Speed, the externally loaded weapons and gas tanks create a great deal of drag, hence older jet CAN"T stay supersonic very long even with the use of afterburner.

If jets can't take off with full tank of gas and full combat load, they can refuel aerially to fill up the tank. You are right that you don't see older jets going to combat with full loaded because that would too low of Thrust to Weight Ratio, and Trust to Drag ratio. That is the difference between 5th Gen. and older jets. 5th Gen. has a vastly more powerful engine and much and much superior aerodynamic design.

If you are suggest J-20 is using WS-10G, you are contradicting people like Deino, who has insisted J-20 don't have TVC nozzles. WS-10G has Thrust Vectoring and stealthy nozzles that have jagged edges and tiles.

Let's see if J-20 could use WS-10G for Supercruising as you have suggested.
WS-10G has a maximum thrust of 155kN, which is similar to F-22. And that is 15.8 Tons. Dry thrust or military thrust is usually 60% of that, so it is around 9.48 Ton for each engine, or 18.96 Tons for both.

F-22's empty weight is 19,700 kg or 19.7 ton, plus a tank of gas (9 ton) is 28.7 Tons. It is widely accepted that J-20 is longer than F-22, so J-20's weight is probably near 20 Ton, plus a tank of gas (12 ton) is 32 ton. The long range missiles
AIM-120 AMRAAM weights 152 Kg each, so 6 is 912 kg, nearly a ton. Plus 2 short range missiles, and the full weapon load is over 1 ton.

So combat weight for F-22 is 30 Ton, and for J-20 is 33 Tons. Not much difference. Since F-22 could easily do Supersonic Cruise with its combat weight, it's possible that J-20 could also do it, since at Supersonic speed, it is the total DRAG that mostly determine its performance. Unlike older jets, both J-20 and F-22 are optimized for Supersonic Cruise by storing their weapons internally.

So I do agreed that J-20 could do Supersonic Cruise with WS-10G. The question of is J-20 actually using it? That depends on WS-10G's state of development. I haven't heard much about it. Does it even exist at all?

Remember, WS-10A passed the acceptance test only on 2005, but has run into a lot of trouble since then. In 2009, the whole J-11 that uses WS-10A was grounded due to quality control problem of WS-10A and PLAAF returned the engines to the Factory.

So in conclusion, it is possible for J-20 to use WS-10G (if it actually exists) to do Supersonic Cruise, simply because F-22 could do that too with similar weight and similar thrust engine. This actually makes more sense because I have noticed the nozzles of J-20 could Vector not very obviously. Others have disagreed it got TVC.

That, however, do not EXCLUDE the possibility that J-20's engine uses WS-15 core mated with the WS-10G vector nozzle. That 3D TVC nozzle was demonstrated on CCTV on 2004. There is no reason to believe it could not be installed on any other engines, other than WS-10G (if it exists at all). Also, WS-10G is only internet rumored to have existed. There is no confirmed/unconfirmed picture of any kind, nor any official/semi-official announcements.

Screen Shot 2016-12-22 at 11.16.09 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Do You have an image of this TVC-equipped WS-10G ??? As far as I know it is also only a rumour...
 
Do You have an image of this TVC-equipped WS-10G ??? As far as I know it is also only a rumour...

No confirmed image of TVC-equipped WS-10G that I know of. Only picture of this TVC nozzle demonstrated to President Jiang in 2004.

Not even confirmed/unconfirmed image of WS-10G without TVC. This engine is even more mysterious than WS-15.

upload_2016-12-22_11-20-37.png
 
Last edited:
It is premature to assume WS-10G even exists. There is absolutely no official/semi-official announcement at all. There only news report is this Russian Magazine's report, which I think started this "rumour". It quoted no sources, mentioned no origin of this report." It simply said China is developing a WS-10G engine with 150kN.

"据俄罗斯《外国军事评论》杂志,中国军事政治领导层十分重视加强航空工业研发和生产作战飞机的能力;得益于正在推行的目标明确而平衡的军事技术政策,北京在近期将可能完全摆脱对进口或仿制国外全功能装备(武器)系统的依赖。中国已研制成功歼-10B和歼-10S双座型飞机,前者采用国产WS-10(太行)加力双路涡喷发动机和独特的进气道形状,布局改动不大。目前正在研制新改型——推力达150千牛的WS-10G发动机,它将装备先进的数字控制系统,具有出色的单位工作参数和更低的可探测性;未来推力可达180千牛的WS-15发动机开始试验可能不会早于2015年。"

This brief comment on a Chinese Forum said WS-10 has three version WS-10A, WS-10B, WS-10G. J-20 uses the WS-10G, which is a special high power version used to satisfy the basic flight envelope.

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2273397-1-1.html
"太行3个路线: WS10--WS10A; WS10A--WS10B; WS10-WS10G(特制高功版本), J20用的就是WS10G特制高功版本,尽可能提高推力,满足基本的包线飞行需求。"

"WS-10G is developed at the same time as WS-15, the later version of WS-10G will use some of the technology of WS-5."
"WS15是全新第四代大推发动机,研制时间上几乎并进, WS10G后期改进型应该会有WS15技术反馈"

J-20's white nozzle engine is the WS-10G engine.
殲-20的白菊發動機是WS-10G發動機

"J-20's engine is WS-10G, with 150,000kg thrust, near TWR of 10. The engine has 7 stages and has TVC nozzle."
殲-20的動力裝置是WS-10G發動機,最大推力為15000公斤,推比接近10(注意,只是說接近,沒說就是10),發動機的級數為7級,並具有軸對稱矢量噴管。
http://stock.hexun.com/2014-06-12/165633071.html
2014-06-12 11:58:24

I, sure, believe China got a 3D TVC nozzle that is different from the Russians. It's demonstrated on TV with a joy stick, when President Jiang visited the Institute in 2004.

So there you go, folks. Very very little, skimpy "information" is available that is about WS-10G.

So I put it down as Rumor-ware.

Well said.

I want to add one more point to the benefit of the 4th generation jets' supercruise ability . When air-to-air missile is launched from the 4th generation jets at supercruise speed, it will have a initial supercrusise speed as well, which makes the non-4th generation targets impossible to escape.

In relation to registering all flight maneuver envelope of the J-20, the use of WS-10B/G at prototype testing stage first and changing to WS-15 at LRIP later on may not cause too much problem as along as the thrust gap is not too large. I think the incremental maneuver envelope resulting from the use of more powerful engine can be added to the envelope of the former's without the need of going it over again from scratch. In fact F22 first used YF119-PW-100L/N Prototype engine rated for 30,000 lbf thrust and later changed to F119-PW-100 Production engine with larger fan and increased bypass ratio (BPR) rated for 35,000 lbf thrust.

Compared to the F-35's more than 7 millions lines of flight control codes in C++, it is said J-20 has 5 millions mainy in Ada plus some C++. Any clues about the pros and cons of the two?

The problem of WS-10G, with supposed thrust of 155kN and TVC nozzle, is that we don't even know it exists at all. There is no official/semi-official announcements of any kind. Even rumor is very very few. Frankly, I just heard of it, when you guys mentioned it yesterday.
 
I think Ada is language developed by Pentagon for military use. I have no experienced with it. The problem of Ada is that it is not use outside of the military so you don't have a large pool of experienced programmers to rely on. Schools are not going to teach it, if its too specialized. And if your new grads don't know it, they won't have the skills to be hired. That is a huge problem for the employers. No wonder Software development and testing in F-35 lacks so far behind the whole program.
@Asok, you took it inversely... based on Tiqiu's info, it's said that J-20 uses Ada language in its programming (plus some C++) while F-35 is solely in C++.
 
@Asok, you took it inversely... based on Tiqiu's info, it's said that J-20 uses Ada language in its programming (plus some C++) while F-35 is solely in C++.

OK, those guys working with F-35 have learned the hard lesson. I would expect LM and the rest, keep using ADA till the end of time, because the investment already put into it.
 
I think Ada is language developed by Pentagon for military use. I have no experienced with it. The problem of Ada is that it is not use outside of the military so you don't have a large pool of experienced programmers to rely on. Schools are not going to teach it, if its too specialized. And if your new grads don't know it, they won't have the skills to be hired. That is a huge problem for the employers. No wonder Software development and testing in F-35 lacks so far behind the whole program.
Say what...??? :lol:

http://www.adacore.com/training
http://www.adacore.com/customers

No wonder I do not take you PDF Chinese seriously when it comes to military related subjects.
 
Say what...??? :lol:

http://www.adacore.com/training
http://www.adacore.com/customers

No wonder I do not take you PDF Chinese seriously when it comes to military related subjects.

I mean not many Universities offer ADA classes for their curriculum requirements, I do not mean there is no places that offer ADA training course at all. The customer list show mostly military/aerospace related, where you can't get a job without secret clearance.

And why do you think F-35 use purely C++, instead of ADA, a language developed by Pentagon for the military?

So relax. Take a deep breath. And stop pretending to be a Vietnamese to deflect racism charges. No one believes you.:nhl_checking::nhl_checking::nhl_checking:
 
Last edited:
I mean not many Universities offer ADA classes for their curriculum requirements, I do not mean there is no places that offer ADA training course at all. The customer list show mostly military related.
Do any of you PDF Chinese even done basic research on why ADA was selected to be the preferred programming language for avionics ?

No, of course not. That would be too much intellectual work.

First...We have to look at the nature of the industry in the first place.

Where does aviation operate ? In the air, of course.

In aviation, if there is something wrong, assuming a flying aircraft, the odds of that 'something wrong' to become GLOBALLY catastrophic is not abstract but very real.

The word 'globally' does not mean the planet or the world at large. If you have an aircraft, your world is that aircraft. From this context, the word 'globally' mean the whole aircraft. The word 'global' actually mean 'total' and it is the totality of an object, whether that object is a ship, a house, or an aircraft.

Second...Because of such an extreme risk of a catastrophic (global) failure, avionics require a programming language that must be with high verifiability.

Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e.verifiable or falsifiable).

ADA has proven itself to be the programming language with the highest 'verifiability' factor when used in avionics components.

Who else uses ADA ? How about high finance where billions -- probably includes your pension -- are moved every second ?

https://www.ansi.org/news_publicati...rticleid=4eb194f6-7e31-4b30-b524-fa692f247163
The Ada programming language is widely used in the aviation, railway, satellite, financial services, and healthcare sectors,...

Universities do not offer ADA ?

http://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html

ADA is not widely known simply because there are money making programming languages out there, but that does not mean one cannot get formal instructions in the language. Plus, programmers are usually self taught besides their first paycheck earning programming language, so many avionics engineers learn the ADA skills on-the-job.

https://gcn.com/articles/2008/04/11/the-return-of-ada.aspx
Ada can offer assistance to programmers with many of these tasks, even if it does require more work on the part of the programmer.

'The thing people have always said about Ada is that it is hard to get a program by the compiler, but once you did, it would always work,' Dewar said. 'The compiler is checking a lot of stuff. Unlike a C program, where the C compiler will accept pretty much anything and then you have to fight off the bugs in the debugger, many of the problems in Ada are found by the compiler.'

That stringency causes more work for programmers, but it will also make the code more secure, Ada enthusiasts say.

https://hackbrightacademy.com/blog/ada-language-links/
In civilian airspace, Boeing’s 777 airplane, which revolutionized airliner avionics, was software largely built on Ada. The newer 787 Dreamliner, and Airbus’ A380 and A350, are also programmed largely with Ada. Aircraft makers choose Ada both for safety and for scalability of the project itself — some 10,000 people worked on the 777 project.
 
Do any of you PDF Chinese even done basic research on why ADA was selected to be the preferred programming language for avionics ?

No, of course not. That would be too much intellectual work.

First...We have to look at the nature of the industry in the first place.

Where does aviation operate ? In the air, of course.

In aviation, if there is something wrong, assuming a flying aircraft, the odds of that 'something wrong' to become GLOBALLY catastrophic is not abstract but very real.

The word 'globally' does not mean the planet or the world at large. If you have an aircraft, your world is that aircraft. From this context, the word 'globally' mean the whole aircraft. The word 'global' actually mean 'total' and it is the totality of an object, whether that object is a ship, a house, or an aircraft.

Second...Because of such an extreme risk of a catastrophic (global) failure, avionics require a programming language that must be with high verifiability.

Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e.verifiable or falsifiable).

ADA has proven itself to be the programming language with the highest 'verifiability' factor when used in avionics components.

Who else uses ADA ? How about high finance where billions -- probably includes your pension -- are moved every second ?

https://www.ansi.org/news_publicati...rticleid=4eb194f6-7e31-4b30-b524-fa692f247163


Universities do not offer ADA ?

http://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html

ADA is not widely known simply because there are money making programming languages out there, but that does not mean one cannot get formal instructions in the language. Plus, programmers are usually self taught besides their first paycheck earning programming language, so many avionics engineers learn the ADA skills on-the-job.

https://gcn.com/articles/2008/04/11/the-return-of-ada.aspx


https://hackbrightacademy.com/blog/ada-language-links/

I am not saying ADA is no good. I was just saying not many new grads learned ADA at University. So its hard for employers to find qualified programmers.

This post discusses why F-35 software "Seems like most of it is written in C++, while some parts reused from F22 is in Ada 83. This was done "due to programmer availability".

"The F-35’s Software Is So Buggy It Might Ground the Whole Fleet"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11582616

That's all. Relax and pop a pill.
 
Last edited:
... and show us some more images of operational J-20As !!!!
 
That's all. Relax and pop a pill.
It is YOU who needs to relax. Just like your ignorance about the HUD issue, now you showed your ignorance about avionics programming. Your China have yet to produce anything even halfway like the F-35 and here you are making pronouncements about its components. Just like your fellow PDF Chinese, I doubt if you can tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.

No one cares whether you take whoever seriously or not. Our engineers will take it seriously.
And if any of them reads the PDF Chinese, they would probably weep in embarrassment for their countrymen.
 
Back
Top Bottom