What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.

Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.

And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.

Deino
You don't enlarge the size of your aircraft design due to a current lack of sufficient air-fueling tanker. That is a strategic mistake that could prove fatal if those said lack of capability becomes more available. Why can't the simple assumption be our PLAAF want a longer range stealth and so the designer is force to enlarge the plane? It is that simple.
 
.
But You have to consider these are 6 J-8s ... I think the fuel volume for a J-20 is at least comparable to a MKK and the HU-6 is simply too small to support even one MKK.

Deino

Well good, because that means when they designed the J-20 they already had in mind another new air tanker that will be capable of fueling the J-20. J-20 was designed from the ground up to not be fueled by HU-6 . This also means HU-6 is only supposed to be used with older aircraft models, such as the J-8s. Six J-8s have considerable destructive power and certain advantages in their own rights. So the USAF's conclusion that typically the HU-6s are to fuel J-8s is pretty relevant.
 
.
Regarding the image above. How many fighters can another fighter serviced ?

Answer: It depends on the situation at hand.

The F-18 Super Hornet external load is 17k lbs. An F-18 Super Hornet internal fuel load is 14k lbs.

In other words, an F-18 air refueler can refuel only one F-18 to full load. It can refuel two F-18s to half load. Or it can refuel more than two F-18s at various loads. Are you going to tell me that based on your own image, a fighter can refuel more than two fighters to their full internal fuel loads ? Are we talking about 'Indian physics' here ?

As you have mentioned, it depends on the situation at hand. The Flankers, and obviously its replacements, have been designed to fight at lower fuel loads as well. For example, due to the proximity of the border, MKIs need to be refueled only up to 50% of their fuel load after take off.

Another point is, a fighter can refuel another fighter very close to the front line. A tanker is hundreds of kilometers away from the front line. So you can have a flight of 4 Flankers refueling a flight of 4 J-20s over the East China Sea. But your jets are going to have to do the same all the way behind the First Island Chain. And most of your pilots are going to spend most of their flying time shuttling to and from tankers. If necessary, the buddy refuelers can also join the fight if they are Flankers.

The Chinese are going to have over 500 J-20s, and they are going to have more than 500 J-11+cousins. All these J-11s can be used for refueling and all these aircraft can refuel J-20s in tactically advantageous conditions. Let's not forget that these J-11s are going to be useless in most other roles once the F-35 comes in.

It's funny how you categorize anything you don't agree with as 'Indian' or 'Chinese' physics. When you speak to naval aviators, do you also mention 'American' physics when they bring up the advantages they have with the probe and drogue system?

Strike tankers, like the F-18 Super Hornet version, accompanies the strike package and refuel the other fighters, not to top them off, but to extend their flight time so they can make the trip back to the carrier. That mean the amount of fuel each client receives must be carefully calculated so that no one in the strike package is unrefueled.

When buddy refueling, the J-20 doesn't need a top up. It is very rare situation that they need one.

A Su-35's loaded weight is with 70% fuel. That gives it far more range than the F-15 with full load of fuel while giving it a significant increase in T/W ratio. So buddy refueling is designed to give an aircraft a fuel to performance advantage when it enters the fight. When it returns, it can be refueled again if necessary.

Your tankers are so far away that by the time the fighter comes back to join the battle, it would have finished a considerably large amount of fuel during transit. That means, you will need a larger fuel load transferred, so you don't become useless the minute you enter the battle.

More importantly, the J-20 or the Flankers don't need refueling, only the USAF and USN do. The Chinese need refueling only for particular missions, but your jets need refueling for practically every mission. That's not an advantage for you. Switch the jets of both sides, still nothing will change.

Regarding the J-20. This jet supposedly have an internal fuel load of over 20k lbs, up to 25k lbs. Show me which buddy air refueler can refuel a near empty J-20.

Can you imagine a Flanker with external tanks?

Stick these drop tanks on a Flanker, and you have your fuel.
C0iQ92iUoAAfYc5.jpg



Ah, yes. This is exactly how the British Generals looked at Churchill when he asked them about the possibility of war after Hitler entered Sudetenland.

Experts go wrong too, especially when they have to speculate, like you are doing right now. How dumb your entire aviation community must have looked when they speculated incorrectly about the Mig-25.

the HU-6 is simply too small to support even one MKK.

Deino

That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.
 
.
....
That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.


Ähhhm, the problem is that:

Its maximum fuel capacity is 34t, out of which 18.5t is available for refueling, but that number drops down to 10t at the maximum 2,200km radius, which is only enough to refuel two J-8Ds.

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/transport-tanker.html

Deino
 
.

That's okay, considering its size at that range. Even the IL-78's refueling capacity is much lower at max radius. At 2500Km, it is 30 tons. Notice they don't mention the on station time.

Stick two 2k L tanks on a Flanker and you add 800Km. The Chinese don't need anymore than that. The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption.

Let the Americans worry about refueling.
 
.
That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.

That's for sure, the cutting-edge 3D-print titanium alloy main frame technology, better than F35, not to mention F22, which is a product of 20 years ago. :china:


Chinese military fans call F35 "肥电", which means "fat lightning", from these pics, we can see J20 is also very fat. someone said that the max range of J20 can reach 4000~5000km, ferry range with drop tanks can exceed 6000 km. :woot::woot::woot:
 
.
Sure...

bi-static_sys_001_zpsxsetwqhs.jpg


First...We find the active transmitters.

bi-static_sys_002_zpszdl3yxkd.jpg


Then...We destroy them.

Even if each station is dual purpose, meaning it can be both transmitter and receiver when convenient, the disruption in the radar net will be enough for our 'stealth' fighters to slip thru.


Subs can take care of them.

You forget that in a distributed AESA system, there will be many transmitter and receivers working as one, with graceful degradation capability, like the T/R transmitters in the current AESA.

So your tactic of destroy them one by one, doesn't work. Your stealth plane will be seen as they are not stealthy at all.

Plus, there are anti-stealth radars that are completely passive, using only the radio waves that are already out there. Why there is a complete blackout on such anti-stealth radars in western MSM?

Because it is frightening to the Military-Industrial Complex.

If they hype up these anti-stealth radar threat, they can't seriously claim radar stealth works as they advertised. No one will buy their B.S. anymore.

Plus, there are Quantum Radar, just reveal by the Chinese, which Locked Martin actually are already researched. It went black, probably DARPA think they will work, so they are just working on it quietly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/06/usa.science
US defence contractor looks for quantum leap in radar research

And patented by the European.

European patent number EP1750145 describes "radar systems and methods using entangled quantum particles".

It says such a device could "visualise useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, [and find] IEDs [improvised explosive devices], mines and other threats - all while operating from an airborne platform". It could also be mounted on a satellite.


"First...We find the active transmitters."

How do you get close to the many transmitters, without being seen by the distributed AESA?
What make you think none of the transmitters and receivers will not be protected by SAMs and fighters anyway?

Your tactic might work against Saddam Hussein, but not against a capable peer competitor.

Your typical American arrogance has lead to a massive investments into F-35, after an easy victory over Iraqi's air-defense system, a third rated power, at best.

Thank you very much for this Trillion dollars mistake, Pentagon.

Keep digging deeper into this bottomless money pit, please.

That's okay, considering its size at that range. Even the IL-78's refueling capacity is much lower at max radius. At 2500Km, it is 30 tons. Notice they don't mention the on station time.

Stick two 2k L tanks on a Flanker and you add 800Km. The Chinese don't need anymore than that. The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption.

Let the Americans worry about refueling.

In the event of a war over Taiwan, all the Japanese air bases will receive blanket coverage from China's Rocket Force. There is no reason to assume Guam will not receive the same treatment either. There is no reason to assume, those American bases will still operational after receiving multiple barrages of assaults.

So, where could the US airplanes fly from?

Alaska and Hawaii.

How far are they from China?

How many times of refueling will be required?

Several of those refueling will be close to China.

How could the Americans protect their fleet of slow moving, big and obvious, fat and juice, oil tankers from the menacing J-20.

"The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption."

Any talk of air-refueling near China's coast is lunatic, when the J-20s is lurking around, defending China's airspace.

The J-20 is not a Game Changer for the American Hubris.

It's Game Over.

However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.

Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.

And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.

Deino

"And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong."

The first Y-20 just delivered to PLAAF in June, 2016, after just 3 years of testing. Do you really think it will take at least "a few years" to produce a dedicated Y-20 oil tankers?

Amazing!

You don't enlarge the size of your aircraft design due to a current lack of sufficient air-fueling tanker. That is a strategic mistake that could prove fatal if those said lack of capability becomes more available. Why can't the simple assumption be our PLAAF want a longer range stealth and so the designer is force to enlarge the plane? It is that simple.

Gambit's thinking is typical American Hubris's (Lack of) Logic.

May be the American haven't realized that relying on air-refueling, near hostile territory, when facing capable peer enemy, is dangerous and foolish.

That's for sure, the cutting-edge 3D-print titanium alloy main frame technology, better than F35, not to mention F22, which is a product of 20 years ago. :china:

Chinese military fans call F35 "肥电", which means "fat lightning", from these pics, we can see J20 is also very fat. someone said that the max range of J20 can reach 4000~5000km, ferry range with drop tanks can exceed 6000 km. :woot::woot::woot:

It is true that 3D printed Titanium parts could save a lot of weight, by creating an internal honeycomb structure, inside the part, thus save a lot of weight.

This is not possible using the traditional molding and machining techniques.

Would this techniques and other techniques enable J-20 to have the same weight as F-22 , despite its body is at least 3m longer (I measured 4m)?

I don't know. We will have to wait and see. I am not that optimistic.

As you have mentioned, it depends on the situation at hand. The Flankers, and obviously its replacements, have been designed to fight at lower fuel loads as well. For example, due to the proximity of the border, MKIs need to be refueled only up to 50% of their fuel load after take off.

Another point is, a fighter can refuel another fighter very close to the front line. A tanker is hundreds of kilometers away from the front line. So you can have a flight of 4 Flankers refueling a flight of 4 J-20s over the East China Sea. But your jets are going to have to do the same all the way behind the First Island Chain. And most of your pilots are going to spend most of their flying time shuttling to and from tankers. If necessary, the buddy refuelers can also join the fight if they are Flankers.

The Chinese are going to have over 500 J-20s, and they are going to have more than 500 J-11+cousins. All these J-11s can be used for refueling and all these aircraft can refuel J-20s in tactically advantageous conditions. Let's not forget that these J-11s are going to be useless in most other roles once the F-35 comes in.

It's funny how you categorize anything you don't agree with as 'Indian' or 'Chinese' physics. When you speak to naval aviators, do you also mention 'American' physics when they bring up the advantages they have with the probe and drogue system?



When buddy refueling, the J-20 doesn't need a top up. It is very rare situation that they need one.

A Su-35's loaded weight is with 70% fuel. That gives it far more range than the F-15 with full load of fuel while giving it a significant increase in T/W ratio. So buddy refueling is designed to give an aircraft a fuel to performance advantage when it enters the fight. When it returns, it can be refueled again if necessary.

Your tankers are so far away that by the time the fighter comes back to join the battle, it would have finished a considerably large amount of fuel during transit. That means, you will need a larger fuel load transferred, so you don't become useless the minute you enter the battle.

More importantly, the J-20 or the Flankers don't need refueling, only the USAF and USN do. The Chinese need refueling only for particular missions, but your jets need refueling for practically every mission. That's not an advantage for you. Switch the jets of both sides, still nothing will change.



Can you imagine a Flanker with external tanks?

Stick these drop tanks on a Flanker, and you have your fuel.
C0iQ92iUoAAfYc5.jpg




Ah, yes. This is exactly how the British Generals looked at Churchill when he asked them about the possibility of war after Hitler entered Sudetenland.

Experts go wrong too, especially when they have to speculate, like you are doing right now. How dumb your entire aviation community must have looked when they speculated incorrectly about the Mig-25.



That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.

Thanks for letting him (Gambit) have it. .. . .
 
. .
I read somewhere analysis that from the design (sleek and relatively smaller wing area compared to F22 and PAKFA), probably J-20 more optimized for penetration and striking fighter with very robust WVR capabiity.

If this is true then the question is why China doesnt build the air superiority fighter competing with Pakfa or F-22? or Does she has third 5th fighter intended for true air dominance fighter which is not revealed yet? I heard J23 and J25 rumour and was thinking that it may be the 5th gen air dominance fighter.?
 
.
I read somewhere analysis that from the design (sleek and relatively smaller wing area compared to F22 and PAKFA), probably J-20 more optimized for penetration and striking fighter with very robust WVR capabiity.

If this is true then the question is why China doesnt build the air superiority fighter competing with Pakfa or F-22? or Does she has third 5th fighter intended for true air dominance fighter which is not revealed yet? I heard J23 and J25 rumour and was thinking that it may be the 5th gen air dominance fighter.?
J-20 is a air superiority fighter:hitwall::blah::devil: don't believe in false analysis,:angry: J-23 and J-25?:what::undecided: o_Otheir no J-23 and J-25 except in a few fanboys minds:disagree::stop:
 
.
I read somewhere analysis that from the design (sleek and relatively smaller wing area compared to F22 and PAKFA), probably J-20 more optimized for penetration and striking fighter with very robust WVR capabiity.

If this is true then the question is why China doesnt build the air superiority fighter competing with Pakfa or F-22? or Does she has third 5th fighter intended for true air dominance fighter which is not revealed yet? I heard J23 and J25 rumour and was thinking that it may be the 5th gen air dominance fighter.?


Since when did smaller wings equate to better penatration and striking capabilities? Smaller wings generally means less maneuverability, less fuel, less range. That is the opposite of a good strike platform.




The J-20 will probably have good range because of its size and fuel capacity. It's striking ability is dependent on weapons and avionics...wings, not so much.
 
.
J-20 is a air superiority fighter:hitwall::blah::devil: don't believe in false analysis,:angry:


I hope so.

Anyway this is where the analysis come from; it still sound plausible for me.


Dave Majumdar

September 16, 2016

The most direct Chinese analogue to the Raptor is the Chengdu J-20. How would such a jet fair against America’s best?

Not much is known about the Chinese jet—it might not even be a fighter in the traditional sense of the word. It could be a specialized aircraft that is specifically designed to attack the sinews of U.S. power projection capabilities in the Western Pacific as part of an overall Chinese anti-access/area denial strategy (A2/AD). Basically, the jet might be optimized to hit support assets like tankers, AWACS, JSTARS or even carry long-range cruise missiles to attack scattered U.S. bases and aircraft carriers in the region.

Here is what we do know about the J-20. It appears to have a stealth airframe and it liberally borrows design cues from both the Raptor and its Lockheed stable-mate, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. That’s not an accident; the Chinese very likely stole a large amount of classified F-35 data.

There are some indications that the J-20 is a primarily a strike aircraft but with a robust air-to-air capability. Like the American F-35, the newest J-20 prototypes appear to have an electro-optical targeting system mounted under the nose. That sensor could be Beijing A-Star Science and Technology’s EOTS-89 electro-optical targeting system (EOTS). A dedicated air superiority fighter wouldn’t need that kind of sensor.

There are also indications that the Chinese jet carries an active electronically scanned array radar (AESA). Allegedly, the J-20 would be fitted with a Type 1475 radar, which is supposedly being tested on a China Test Flight Establishment owned Tupolev Tu-204. However, there is no way to confirm that information because the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) isn’t really all that forthcoming about sharing information about its developmental projects. That being said, given Beijing’s interest in the Su-35—which is mostly likely driven by a desire to harvest that Flanker variant’s radar and engine technology, I have my doubts about how far along the Chinese have gotten on developing an operational AESA.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence that would point to the J-20 being optimized for the strike role is the fact that the airframe is enormous but has relatively small wings. It’s also seems to have huge weapons bays. While such a configuration works well for a fast supersonic strike aircraft, it’s not ideal for an air superiority fighter that needs be able to sustain high rates of turn.

Moreover, China hasn’t demonstrated that it has the requisite engine technology necessary to power an air superiority fighter of that size. The People’s Republic hasn’t perfected its indigenous WS-10, let alone come close to finishing development of the next-generation WS-15. In fact, China hasn’t demonstrated it can build any reliable jet engine—and that’s including designs that it stole from Russia. But a strike aircraft doesn’t need to have a spectacular thrust to weight ratio—thus the jet’s current twin Russian-built Saturn AL-31F engines might be adequate for China’s purposes.

Further, there is a strong argument to be made that short-range tactical fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are ill-suited for operations in the Western Pacific where distances are vast and bases are scarce. The same geographic constraints also apply to the Chinese. That means that jets like the F-22 and F-35 need tankers to operate over those vast distances. The most logical way for the Chinese to tackle American and allied airpower is not to confront those forces head-on but rather by removing their ability to fight. That means going after U.S. bases, tankers and communications nodes. Thus in that sense, the J-20 could be China’s means to establish air superiority if viewed through that lens. In that sense it might have the upper hand against the F-22.

Of course, this is all conjecture. Only the PLAAF knows where the J-20 fits into their order of battle, but it could prove to be a formidable foe.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...er-vs-russias-pak-fa-chinas-j-20-17730?page=2



J-23 and J-25?:what::undecided: o_Otheir no J-23 and J-25 except in a few fanboys minds:disagree::stop:


Nobody knows what China is designing for the future fighter right? ;)
All major power has already made concept or even design 6th gen airfighter (USA, Rusia, Europe, not excluding China).

Since when did smaller wings equate to better penatration and striking capabilities? Smaller wings generally means less maneuverability, less fuel, less range. That is the opposite of a good strike platform.




The J-20 will probably have good range because of its size and fuel capacity. It's striking ability is dependent on weapons and avionics...wings, not so much.


Why striking need so much maneuverability? The maneuverability is highly needed and required for air superiority. As you can see F111 doesnt need very high maneuverability
 
.
Oh come on ... right after reading tis name:


... You can stop reading. It's biased BS of the worst.:hitwall:

Nobody knows what China is designing for the future fighter right? ;)
All major power has already made concept or even design 6th gen airfighter (USA, Rusia, Europe, not excluding China).

Yes, but a J-23 & J-25 is only a fan-boys imagination, we are - and esp. You in Your post - were not discussing any future fighter but an on-going project and so far none of them exist yet.
 
.
Oh come on ... right after reading tis name:



... You can stop reading. It's biased BS of the worst.:hitwall:

Well thanks. But I myself is more interested with the content of the analysis rather than who he is :)

Yes, but a J-23 & J-25 is only a fan-boys imagination, we are - and esp. You in Your post - were not discussing any future fighter but an on-going project and so far none of them exist yet.


What I mean is : if there is no evidence about existence (of J-23/J-25 or any other "J=" of Chinese black project) doesn't mean it is non existence. Except the officials have said so (that china is not doing any other stealth fighter development other than J-20 and J-31).

Without evidence, both who claim existence or non existence are same speculating.
 
.
Well thanks. But I myself is more interested with the content of the analysis rather than who he is :)




What I mean is : if there is no evidence about existence (of J-23/J-25 or any other "J=" of Chinese black project) doesn't mean it is non existence. Except the officials have said so (that china is not doing any other stealth fighter development other than J-20 and J-31).

Without evidence, both who claim existence or non existence are same speculating.

Who he is is rather important here, as he's a liberal arts major with zero experience in either military or engineering. His observation of "enormous airframe and small wings" and "huge weapons bay" are incorrect, and any analyses drawn upon shaky foundations is of course pure crap, like all his articles are.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom