What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

@Asoka is trying very hard possibly too hard trying to convince some others that the J-20 indeed has higher value than what it's perceived at present; while some other members do not agree at all and steadily keep holding on the J-20's current nominal value as they perceive... and the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood....
...

Agreed, but IMO a nearly-religious belief in "everything has to be superior than others" claim even if contrary proof is on the table while at the same time taking everything else down as "a wish to look these achievements small" does not bode well to get a realistic perception of that fighter. And I'm sure, no-one here not even the biggest skeptics rate the value that low.

Anyway ... where are new images?

Deino
 
.
Agreed, but IMO a nearly-religious belief in "everything has to be superior than others" claim even if contrary proof is on the table while at the same time taking everything else down as "a wish to look these achievements small" does not bode well to get a realistic perception of that fighter. And I'm sure, no-one here not even the biggest skeptics rate the value that low.

Anyway ... where are new images?

Deino
@Deino
why closed the engine thread again?
 
. .
@Asoka is trying very hard possibly too hard trying to convince some others that the J-20 indeed has higher value than what it's perceived at present; while some other members do not agree at all and steadily keep holding on the J-20's current nominal value as they perceive... and the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood....

Only time will be the true testimony which side is right and wrong (overrate; underrate; standard rate --- no one is sure 100%)...and IF ONLY new info is released as time goes by... and as far as concerning the Chinese interests this matter is not relevant at all!! They won't release and disclose all information to tell the world what's the true state of their jet fighter...China does not need such recognition for the crucial assets... the world may just believe whatever they may want to believe regarding these major military stuffs incl. the J-20 and many other prime assets... every one here can only guess guess then guess... thus to be deadly sure of anything about this J-20 let alone ridicule others is rather silly, IMO. Best perhaps to rest the case and switch the focus to other visible aspects

For me and many others perhaps the silent majority here, we are more interested to see the obvious ones and some other developments that can not be hidden... which are open to the many eyes to see.


"the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood"

Somebody is indeed getting the poison of blind faith into their blood. Someone, like @Figaro, repeatedly refered to some individuals as "big shrimps" used their words like gospels, and probably worship them as gods.

At first, I didn't get what "big shrimps" was in Chinese, then it occurs to me, its "大神", literally, it means "Great God". No wonder, some westerners are so worshipful toward those Chinese "Big Shrimps".

They are cult mongers.

They have done the same to the Indian gurus in the 1960's and 1970's, and worshiped them as gods, reincarnated.

"Only time will be the true testimony which side is right and wrong "


I am not sure, the exact value of the empty weight and engine thrust, by just looking at a picture or video, but about the length, width, and size of an aircraft, looking at it and make comparison, is what the experts do all the time.

It's entirely a valid procedure, if done properly. I don't know why some people would rather accept the estimates from an extremely blurry satellite picture, than consider my estimates from two high resolution, very clear pictures.

"Asoka is trying very hard, possibly too hard, trying to convince some others"

That might be true. Guilt as charged, sir.

"They won't release and disclose all information to tell the world what's the true state of their jet fighter"

Not likely, True. Since US hasn't released many sensitive informations regarding F-22, either, even after 25 years. I won't hold my breath on China's secretive military to release any sensitive data. They haven't even officially release engine model yet, except that CCTV program.

"thus to be deadly sure of anything about this J-20, let alone ridicule others, is rather silly, IMO."

Ridicules, laughters, . . . possibly hate and hair pulling, when they read my posts. I get that a lot, here.

Thanks a lot for your moral support, samsara. :smitten:
 
.
Agreed, but IMO a nearly-religious belief in "everything has to be superior than others" claim even if contrary proof is on the table while at the same time taking everything else down as "a wish to look these achievements small" does not bode well to get a realistic perception of that fighter. And I'm sure, no-one here not even the biggest skeptics rate the value that low.

Anyway ... where are new images?

Deino
There’s no need to counter @Asoka. He is clearly delusional and gives absolutely no credence on the facts, instead insisting on his own “observations”
 
.
It seems this picture has not been posted yet.

View attachment 426847

Actually it has already. It is just a cut-out part of this one:

J-20A + WS-10B 2021 - 20170919 - 2.png
 
.
According to Bill Sweetman:

The J-20 is a big aircraft. Although its overall length (around 66 ft.) is not much greater than that of the 62-ft. Lockheed Martin F-22, the main structure from nose to exhaust nozzles is considerably longer.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-does-stealth

So we can conclude that the J-20's fuselage is larger (and heavier) than the F-22. I assume nobody is disputing this.

Deino's estimate puts the J-20's wingspan at 13.47m.

We know the F-22's wingspan is 13.56m.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

We can also see that the leading edges of the J-20's main wings are swept further back than the F-22.

That means the CAC engineers decided to build an aircraft that is considerably larger than the F-22, but with tiny little wings (relative to the J-20 fuselage).

Anyone want to guess why they would do such a thing?
 
. .
From bill sweetman's article below:

"The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel. It is a reasonable estimate that the J-20 could have as much as 40% more internal fuel capacity than the F-22. The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag."

J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Balances Speed And Agility. by - Bill sweetman, Aviationweek
Unique J-20 could fit anti-access role.


Chengdu’s J-20 stealth fighter represents the pinnacle of China’s aerospace engineering, but its existence and development have posed mysteries since the unexpected appearance of the first prototype at the end of 2010, followed in May 2012 by the debut of a second, similar aircraft. The past few months, however, have seen the first flights of a pair of significantly different J-20s, identified by the serial Nos. 2011 and 2012.

The most substantial design change in the new aircraft appears to be that the fuselage aft of the main landing gear is a bit more slender, with a deeper tunnel in the undersurface between the engines. The tailbooms that extend aft of the all-moving vertical tails are longer, and the lower fixed stabilizers are moved aft. The trailing-edge tips of the vertical tails and canards are cropped, and the leading-edge root extensions are straight rather than curved.

The top line of the outer wall of the diverterless supersonic inlet has been drooped, and the landing gear doors changed: The main doors now close after the gear has extended and the nose landing gear door has been reshaped. The F-22-style one-piece frameless canopy on the early aircraft has given way to a separate windshield and canopy, the latter with detonation cord to shatter the canopy for ejection. What appears to be a housing for an infrared search and track system has been added below the nose, and a missile-warning sensor fairing installed below the aft fuselage.

The new variant aircraft appeared slightly more than three years after the first flight of No. 2001, so some of the changes may reflect lessons from flight testing. Other changes represent a move toward a production or pre-production design. So far, there have been few indications as to when the J-20 will enter service: The Pentagon, in its latest annual report to Congress, says it is unlikely to be operational before 2018.

However, the appearance of the new aircraft tends to confirm that the design has proved sound so far; all four prototypes are now reported to be at Yanliang air base in Xian, the Chinese air force’s main test site. The question now is what role the J-20—which is not only the first Chinese stealth fighter but the largest tactical aircraft built in China—will perform in the future force.

Close examination of the J-20 shows it has no direct analogue in the West or in Russia. The dimensions can be estimated accurately from open-source satellite images, but its characteristics are sometimes mis-assessed through a focus on overall size. Details of avionics and materials remain uncertain.

The J-20’s wing and control surface layout is very different from that of the Lockheed Martin F-22, but the body layout is quite similar, with twin main weapon bays under the belly and side bays for rail-launched air-to-air missiles (AAMs), all located under and outside the inlet ducts. On both aircraft, the main landing gear is housed in the fuselage behind the weapon bays and the engines are close together. The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel. It is a reasonable estimate that the J-20 could have as much as 40% more internal fuel capacity than the F-22. The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag.

Despite the larger body, the empty weight of the J-20 may be close to that of the F-22, largely because it has less-powerful engines without the heavy two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles of the F-22’s F119s. The J-20 prototypes are believed to be flying with United Engine Corp. (UEC) AL-31F engines. The thrust difference between the two designs is very large: The F-22 has almost as much power in intermediate thrust as the J-20 does in full afterburner, although newer versions of the UEC AL-31/117S/117 could close the gap in later versions of the Chinese aircraft.

The conventional circular nozzles and the aft-body shape are less conducive to stealth than the F-22, as is the case with the T-50. This is most likely a conscious decision because a fast aircraft can tolerate a higher radar cross-section in the aft quadrant. While some observers have suggested that canards are incompatible with stealth, an engineer who was active in Lockheed Martin’s early Joint Strike Fighter efforts says the final quad-tail configuration was no stealthier than the earlier canard-delta design.

A detailed Chinese technical paper published in 2001 by Song Wencong, designer of the Chengdu J-10, points to key aerodynamic features of the J-20. The paper addresses the design of a fighter with a delta wing, canards and leading-edge root extensions (Lerxes), and discusses how the three interact. The J-20, unlike the J-10, has a broad body and the canard and wing are not close-coupled. However, according to the paper, the Lerx and canard, used together and in combination with a high degree of instability, can achieve maximum lift coefficients that are as high if not higher than those from a close-coupled canard.

The paper also discusses the vertical stabilizer design of a stealth configuration with outward-canted surfaces. Fixed, canted tails are exposed to powerful crossflows at high angles of attack, because of the formation of vortices from the wings and canard. The result is that the tails can develop powerful moments, and because the tails are canted, those forces will include pitch-up moments. One way to resolve this, the paper notes, is to use smaller, all-moving surfaces. The J-20 resembles the Sukhoi T-50 in being directionally unstable, and is actively controlled with the all-moving verticals. Song’s paper also says the canard layout provides positive post-stall recovery, without the use of thrust vectoring.

The paper identifies supersonic cruise as a requirement for a next-generation fighter and often refers to the need to reduce supersonic drag. The J-20’s supercruise performance will nevertheless be strongly affected by engine technology. China may well hope to acquire or emulate the technology being developed by Russia for the Su-35S and T-50. UEC’s 117S engine, developed for the Su-35S, is more powerful than the AL-31F (32,000 lb. maximum versus 27,500 lb. for the basic AL-31F) and has a digital control system. The T-50’s 117 engine is similar to the 117S, but it is further uprated to 33,000 lb. thrust, and according to a UEC engineer, the hot-end temperature limits are increased, to allow the engine to sustain maximum non-afterburning thrust to higher speeds. However, the J-20 will not match the F-22’s thrust-to-weight ratio, even with an engine equivalent to the 117.

The J-20’s weapon arrangement is similar to the F-22, except that the ventral bays are shorter and narrower, and are apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 AAM. However, they do appear large enough to accommodate bigger folding-wing missiles—and China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the T-50.

The side missile bays differ from those of the F-22 in that the doors can be closed after the missile rail has been extended, and have been seen with a missile—or test shape—with low-aspect-ratio wings and folding tails. So far, no gun has been seen on J-20s, nor has there been a sign of provision for one.

The J-20 design, therefore, is an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward-aspect stealth, efficient high-speed aerodynamics and range, with a modest internal payload and more than adequate agility for self-defense. The aircraft has considerable potential for development, because of its currently unsophisticated engines. But it is also large and expensive, and continued development of the J-10B shows that China plans to maintain a high-low mix of fighters for a long time to come.

This concept fits very well into an anti-access/area-denial strategy given China’s regional geography and the fact that the nation’s military and geopolitical ambitions are focused on the China Sea and its surrounding island chains. The U.S. has committed its armed forces to concentrate much of their funding on tactical fighters with a combat radius of 600 mi., much less than the distance from their bases to targets on the Chinese mainland, and has persuaded its allies to do the same.

As a result, operations are almost entirely dependent on two groups of aircraft: tankers and large intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft with long endurance. Under the “distributed control” concept favored by U.S. Air Force commanders as a hedge against electronic warfare, including cyberattacks, the ISR aircraft also have a control-and-communicationsfunction. However, both tankers and ISR aircraft are vulnerable to attack, and maintaining a defensive combat air patrol (CAP) over them at long range is also difficult.

The J-20’s primary mission, therefore, may be to use stealth and speed to break through the CAP and threaten vital tankers and ISR platforms. Its range gives it a “long lance” advantage—if the tankers, ISR aircraft and escorts have to stay out of the J-20’s range, the tactical aircraft that they support will not have the airborne radar cover or range needed to reach their targets.

Also, an anti-radar missile would give the J-20 some capability against shipping, even with internal weapons. China’s new CM-400AKG and YJ-12 high-speed antiship missiles will not fit the J-20’s weapon bays, but could probably be carried under the wings, and future internal weapons will increase its offensive capacity.

In a very broad sense, the J-20 could turn out to be an analogue to the Soviet-era Tu-22M2/3 Backfire bomber—an efficient and practical blend of low-risk technologies that generates options for its users and difficult problems for its adversaries.


- translation of Dr Song's thesis courtesy of siegecrossbow@SDF

"We can also see that the leading edges of the J-20's main wings are swept further back than the F-22.

That means the CAC engineers decided to build an aircraft that is considerably larger than the F-22, but with tiny little wings (relative to the J-20 fuselage).

Anyone want to guess why they would do such a thing?"


They are all done to lower supersonic drag, which increases drastically once approaching Mach 0.8.

"The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag." --bill sweetman
 
.
According to Bill Sweetman:

The J-20 is a big aircraft. Although its overall length (around 66 ft.) is not much greater than that of the 62-ft. Lockheed Martin F-22, the main structure from nose to exhaust nozzles is considerably longer.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-does-stealth

So we can conclude that the J-20's fuselage is larger (and heavier) than the F-22. I assume nobody is disputing this.

Deino's estimate puts the J-20's wingspan at 13.47m.

We know the F-22's wingspan is 13.56m.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

We can also see that the leading edges of the J-20's main wings are swept further back than the F-22.

That means the CAC engineers decided to build an aircraft that is considerably larger than the F-22, but with tiny little wings (relative to the J-20 fuselage).

Anyone want to guess why they would do such a thing?

Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.

However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.

OL3qOwR.jpg

kBZiZ0n.jpg


Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?

Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?
 
.
Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.

However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.

OL3qOwR.jpg

kBZiZ0n.jpg


Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?

Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?
The J-20’s wingspan is roughly the same as the F-22 ... dunnno what ure talking about. You’re just making yourself sound more ignorant with each and every post :hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::crazy::crazy::crazy:. Using words like “tiny” makes you sound like a petty ten year old.
 
. .
We're talking about wingspan right now ... this is perhaps the best way quantifiably to compare how "small" or "large" wings are ... we can also use wing area if you'd like. The J-20 is roughly similar in size to the F-22 ... don't know why you bring this up.

And if you're ranting on and on about the "long" appearance of the J-20's fuselage ... it is to reduce supersonic and transonic drag. Also, it provides the J-20 with more internal fuel.
 
.
Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.

However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.

OL3qOwR.jpg

kBZiZ0n.jpg


Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?

Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?

The J-20's wing span serves better supersonic maneuver, which was purposely decided by the designer. The loss of lift from the relatively small wings, when in subsonic and transonic regimes, is being offset by the lift from the vortex generated by the leading edge root extensions (LERX) behind the canards. One of the design key point of the LERX shape and position is direct the left and right vortex to meet and join together above the fuselage and hence create a low air pressure area to lift up the fuselage further.

Typhoon is well known for its good supersonic maneuver even though it's still inferior to F-22 in regards to supersonic performance. But, same with canard delta configuration, J-20 is even further optimized for supersonic maneuver while trying to maintain acceptable subsonic and transonic performance.
 
.
The J-20's wing span serves better supersonic maneuver, which was purposely decided by the designer.

Yes, I agree. Supersonic maneuver and in my opinion supercruise.

The loss of lift from the relatively small wings, when in subsonic and transonic regimes

Yes.

J-20 is even further optimized for supersonic maneuver while trying to maintain acceptable subsonic and transonic performance.

Yes.

The J-20's inherent design puts it at an advantage at high speeds, and at a disadvantage at low speeds. You can't be optimized for everything. All aircraft design is a compromise.

Furthermore, supersonic maneuver combined with the J-20's large fuselage means MASSIVE ENERGY LOSS. Therefore, high thrust to weight ratio is desired, i.e. you need sufficient engines to make this design work.
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom