Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[ptldM3]

"You showed in Your last posts but if You look closely in all images there is an angle noticeable, which is clearly visible ... and in all images on the J-20 never. Not in the air, not on the gro Ground und, simply never."

View attachment 372135

View attachment 372136

Your fanboyizm is causing you to see something out of nothing. The J-20 has variable nozzles, meaning the diameter of the nozzles changes. So those lines you drew claiming to show thrust vectoring is just one nozzle with a different diameter from the other.

Yes, it is a mystery that the Russian TVC has two sections and moves so much, while other country's TVC moves only the last section, thus moves much less.

There is no mystery. The Russian TVCs do not have two moving sections. That would not even make sense.

It is reported that the Indian's SU-30MKI's TVC has only 26 hours of activation life before maintenance, while China's could last well over 126 hrs of activation, before maintenance is needed.

China does not even have TVC nozzles in any flying aircraft so how do they know that it requires 126 hours before maintenance?





As for Indian media and complaints from Indian officials. No one takes either seriously. I don't know if that 26 hour figure is true but Indian Air Force officials have habits of complaining about everything, case in point MRCA and Rafael. Maintenance figures are also subjective. I can go 10,000 miles without changing my oil even though it is recommended I do so every 3,000 miles. Similar if maintenance is recommended every 26 hours it does not mean you can't push it well past that. Manufacturers give recommendations as to when maintenance should be done, their numbers are always conservative for liability reasons. It would be irresponsible for a manufacturer to recommend an oil change at 15 or 20 thousand miles even although the engine may still be working at those maintenance intervals, the problem is that it may have damage at those maintenance intervals.

China, Russia, the US or anyone can slap any recommendations for maintenance they want. Just because China may recommended maintenance be done at x amount of hours doesn't not mean that Russia or the US would recommend the same maintenance schedule on the same equipment.

I think the Russian 3D TVC is over done, as other 3D TVC nozzles have shown, it don't need that long and complicated to move the plane effectively.

I think aeronautical engineers, scientists and designers know more about designing jet nozzles then someone on PDF that did not know what a vertical stabilizer was.

 

[Asoka]

"No, ... I would bet my membership here at this forum on this issue. It can't be a WS-15 ... this engines was not even tested on a Il-76 and You think - IMO pure wishful thinking - that it even powers a J-20 right now. Honestly, but that is IMO simply naïve."

Somebody made a foolish bet, a while back. Ho ho ho.

No wonder all the hysterical objections, denials and doubts.

Who could that be? I wonder. humm.

How would they wouldnt want to hide the test. They want you to believe what you want to believe. Letting you think China aviation propulsion is weak can be a surprise for enemy.

No info of real test of ASBM ever leak, what we we have seen are just few possible tested site but we do know real ASBM has tested before on real sea. They like to keep you in suspend and keep you guessing China real military depth. It will always be part of the deception doctrine borrow heavily from Art of War.

"They like to keep you in suspend and keep you guessing China real military depth. It will always be part of the deception doctrine borrow heavily from Art of War."

Amen. The Art of Deception, goes hand in hand, with the Art of War. In fact, they are the same, according to Master Sun Tzu.

 

[gambit]

When J20 move its stabilizer, it must have entered into dogfight! If it enters into a dogfight, who cares about RCS? As to the RCS of the shapeshifting DSI, our scientist must have calculate it. If you are Smarter than our engineer, I invite you to be the chief of AVIC.

Wrong...!!!

Even with a stable design, if the flight control system is a closed loop stability augmented, ALL flight control elements are in constant motion, even in level flight. Just because your human eyes cannot make out those motions, it does not mean they do not move. In fact, they must move in order to keep the aircraft stable even while maneuvering.

Do not confuse stable flight with level flight.

Just in case you think I make this shit up...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7322579/?reload=true

...concerned with stability augmentation system...

There are pitch stabaug, roll stabaug, and yaw stabaug.

You do not know what you are talking about.

OR perhaps gambit is the authority thats always right?

When it comes to the technical issues of aviation, odds are better than excellent that I am right...

 

[Taygibay]

It's all in your head.

While the Chinese Military Aviation progress in the last 20 years is commendable, but it's not all that amazing, compared to other countries.

Considering, the F-22 first flew in the 1991 (J-20, first flew in 2010 or 2011), and is operational by 2006, F-35's F135 engine has over 190kN of power, and its developed in the 1990's (WS-15, +200kN, developed around 2006-2015). US and Russia has demonstrated 3D TVC nozzles in the 1990s (China demonstrated in 2004).

China is still playing catching up in many fields, not the leader yet.

Hello Asok mate! Let me start by saying that I disagree with you for now on
the trust vectoring nozzles. Many of the ones you showed are only top of
the art adaptative nozzles that control airflow / pressure output, not directional.
That config is needed to deal with phenomenons behind the plane and studied
a lot as of today as you'll find here and here. But that's not really important.

China is doing fine in aviation research and development and the only reason
why it is still playing catch-up is historical but will be borne out relatively soon.
That lack is prototyping. In the last 110 years, some nations and companies
have made prototype after prototype for decades.
I remember Dassault building G-4/G-8 with variable geometry wings à la F-14
a few years after the ill-fated VTOL Balzac but a few years before the Super Mirage 4000

which led to the Rafale demonstrator

( click us ^^ ).​

All while producing Mirages III/5, F1 & 2000.

Prototypes from France overall are even more varied ( check this tidbit list ).
Having tried all these, including the failures, is a deeper pool of knowledge the
acquisition of which has long reaching consequences in design bureau efficiency.
It just can't be duplicated.
Even today, the US have 2 demonstrators built for every program ... because they
have the cash and know the advantages of exploring design avenues in real life.

This said, aviation design is not an isolated field and progress also comes from
computers that allow simulation of high quality. So that exp. lack of China is getting
compensated as we speak with every new attempt because you can learn more
with better analytic tools of the 21st century. Besides, most nations do less of it.
In short, the gap is closing and will.

Last but not least, I'll also take exception with your characterization of the moderation.
First, Deino is really not bad and he provides and livens up this thread and others.
Second, I have had differences with other title holders and once moderation and found
that pulling back from discussions solves most instances. [ It's easy to do when you're right ]
And third, I don't mind that PDF has a different way of doing things even if it sometimes
seems biased. I'm here for Pakistan's point of view and I don't expect it to be formatted as
that of America or Canada, Sweden or France. I'll adapt to the local conventions as I would
on a physical trip in order to correctly experience that point of view.
Otherwise, what's the use of exchanging with people thousands of kliks away, when one
has millions of clowns of their own persuasion to join in auto-celebration of national greatness?

I guess what I'm saying and suggesting is :
Keep the vivacious curious guy alive and lose the unproductive alacrity.

As for loudmouths, forget the personality & just answer claims and go.
You better learn to sweep them off as they won't learn to speak better?

Have a great day buddy, Tay.

 

[grey boy 2]

Nice HD pictures

 

[gambit]

OK please help us to understand the way you think..

Please explain why variable DSI (if any) need pitot/static sensor while moveable cone or ramp does not?

You claimed to have 'aviation studies'. If so, then you should have been able to deduce the answer to your questions based upon these posts of mine...

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-508#post-9108882

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-514#post-9139345

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-514#post-9139406

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-514#post-9140260

Why variable DSI (if any) need such a complexed calculated air data while movable cone or ramp does not?

It looks like you, just like your Chinese friends, have not done proper research, when you asked about movable cone.

The SR-71's inlet spikes are controlled by the Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System (AFICS), from analog to digital.

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-102.php

The Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System (DAFICS) comprises five major subsystems: stability augmentation system, autopilot/Mach trim system, automatic pitch warning and high angle of attack system, automatic/manual inlet control system, and air data system.

Note the highlighted.

Further...

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-39.php

In automatic control, DAFICS schedules the spike and forward bypass position as a function of Mach...

Note the highlighted.

You cannot calculate Mach without pitot/static air.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/pssi.htm

There is no way a high performance aircraft like the SR-71, which operates at the edge of suborbital altitude, could run its engines without transmitting air data information to the inlet spike control system. One way or another, pitot/static air information should be available for any type of inlet air control system.

Now...Is/are there any aircraft out there that have inlet air control system that does not use pitot/static air data ? Mmmmmmmmaybe...

So the bottom line is this...

For a claimed high performance jet fighter like the J-20, we have claims of a variable DSI bump system.

Where are the components for this system ?

Do not tell me that they are secret. No, the architecture is known, and so are the components when they are installed on an aircraft. My posting about the F-111, F-15, and the SR-71 have not violated any US 'Top Secret' firewall.

 

[grey boy 2]

 

[Deino]

After You round of chest bumping is over, can we again return to the topic !??

 

[Asoka]

This news is not directly related to J-20, but if J-20 has any hope of take off from a Chinese Aircraft Carrier in the future, there must a Catapult system onboard.

This news article say China solved the Electro-Magnetic Catapult problem. It will probably installed on the third domestic Chinese build Aircraft Carrier CV003, probably will be nuclear powered, is currently under design. The US Ford Class Aircraft carrier is the first ship that uses Electro-Magnetic Catapult.

"1月25日，在中央电视台CCTV10频道播出的“2016年度科技盛典”节目中，中国工程院院士、海军工程大学教授、船舶动力与电气领域著名专家马伟明获评为2016年度最具影响力的十大“科技创新人物”。马伟明团队“承包”了中国海军舰艇电力系统技术，使中国在军事科技领域跻身世界一流水平，被誉为世界电气领域的“中国骄傲”。

在节目中，马伟明院士透露了我国电磁弹射技术的最新研究进展情况。他表示，电磁发射技术，将在10年左右取代传统的化学能技术。马伟明介绍，这是由电磁能发射的原理和特点决定的，更快更强更远更高（效率）以及更加安全。"

马伟明称电磁发射10年取代化学能 003航母用电弹成定局
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-01-28/doc-ifxzyxmu8209640.shtml

Here are some fan arts.

 

[Ultima Thule]

This news is not directly related to J-20, but if J-20 has any hope of take off from a Chinese Aircraft Carrier in the future, there must a Catapult system onboard.

This news article say China solved the Electro-Magnetic Catapult problem. It will probably installed on the third domestic Chinese build Aircraft Carrier CV003, probably will be nuclear powered, is currently under design. The US Ford Class Aircraft carrier is the first ship that uses Electro-Magnetic Catapult.

"1月25日，在中央电视台CCTV10频道播出的“2016年度科技盛典”节目中，中国工程院院士、海军工程大学教授、船舶动力与电气领域著名专家马伟明获评为2016年度最具影响力的十大“科技创新人物”。马伟明团队“承包”了中国海军舰艇电力系统技术，使中国在军事科技领域跻身世界一流水平，被誉为世界电气领域的“中国骄傲”。

在节目中，马伟明院士透露了我国电磁弹射技术的最新研究进展情况。他表示，电磁发射技术，将在10年左右取代传统的化学能技术。马伟明介绍，这是由电磁能发射的原理和特点决定的，更快更强更远更高（效率）以及更加安全。"

马伟明称电磁发射10年取代化学能 003航母用电弹成定局
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-01-28/doc-ifxzyxmu8209640.shtml

Here are some fan arts.

View attachment 372544

View attachment 372545

View attachment 372546

Possible but least chance because is too heavy for an aircraft carrier, i think single engine version of J-20 will be fine for an aircraft carrieror J-31 class medium weight jet will be fine

 

[帅的一匹]

Possible but least chance because is too heavy for an aircraft carrier, i think single engine version of J-20 will be fine for an aircraft carrieror J-31 class medium weight jet will be fine

Most probably FC31

 

[UKBengali]

Possible but least chance because is too heavy for an aircraft carrier, i think single engine version of J-20 will be fine for an aircraft carrieror J-31 class medium weight jet will be fine

What makes you say that?

F-14 Tomcat flew off aircraft carriers.

 

[monitor]

J-20

 

[Deino]

A new bird or one of the older ones with a new MLG-door ?

 

[Taygibay]

^^^​

No serial number unless I missed it; should point to new though not necessarily.

Good day to you, Tay.