Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[TheDarkKnight]

China's J-20 doesn't need F-35 temperature and humidity control hangar.

The American F-22 and B-2 are known as "hangar queens," because they require specialized temperature and humidity-control hangars to protect their stealth coatings. The reapplication of a stealth coating is laborious and time-consuming.

The F-35 is also a hangar queen that requires temperature and humidity control, because it has delicate electronics.

How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35 | Aviation Pros (June 27, 2013)
"With the F-35’s multiple, complex on-board electronic systems, the PCA requirements are very difficult to provide for the F-35. Not too hot … not too cold … it has to be very dry air and at a higher pressure than normal commercial PCA requirements."
----------

The photograph of a J-20 in front of a regular hangar suggests the J-20 does not require temperature or humidity control. This is important, because the J-20 should have quick turnaround times to permit more airborne hours.

China hails its fifth generation J-20 stealth jet fighter | Asia Times (November 20, 2017)

"The hangar in the background of the above photo has also piqued intense interest: It appears that J-20s can be parked in an ordinary hangar rather than one with constant temperature and humidity, while the US Air Force’s multirole F-35 Lightning II fighters are very expensive to maintain as they must be kept in a highly regulated environment to protect their ultra-delicate stealth coatings.

This means J-20s are more economical and easier to manage and can respond to emergencies more quickly than F-35s, noted an observer." (see second photograph below)

What special hangars are required and used for the f35c - the carrier based version for USN? I dont see USN comming up with any new radical carrier designs that have special hangars on them for F35Cs? Carrier based aircrafts will be the most exposed and unprotected to weather conditions - water, salt, humidity etc., as they are parked completely exposed in open space.

F35C for USN

https://flic.kr/p/29286258716

A/C carriers fyi:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS...Sealift_Command_ship_USNS_Spica_(T-AFS_9).jpg

Regards

 

[Deino]

...

I'm trying to make the substantive argument that the J-20 has an operational advantage over the F-22/F-35/B-2 due to less stringent maintenance requirements.

And You deduct this all from one image showing a J-20 in front of a standard hangar???

Come on.

 

[Martian2]

And You deduct this all from one image showing a J-20 in front of a standard hangar???

Come on.

Yes, specialized hangars require humidity and temperature control.

It is well known that the F-22 stealth coating reapplication requires many long hours. Since the J-20 does not appear to require special humidity and temperature controls to maintain its stealth coating, it is reasonable to surmise the turnaround time for the J-20 is substantially less than the F-22.

The F-22 requires a high 42 man-hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time.

F-22 Raptor retrofit to take longer, but availability hits 63% | Flight Global (July 6, 2015)

"On RAMMP, the air force says the Raptor availability improved by 3% since the last report and the average number of 'maintenance man-hours per flight hour' has dropped by 10.1% from 46.6h in 2012 to 41.9h in 2014."
----------

The F-22's delicate stealth coating is a difficult problem to fix.

U.S. Air Force Tackles Repair To F-22 Stealth Coating | Aviation Week (November 30, 2016)

"Just two years after the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter made its combat debut in the skies above Syria, maintainers are tackling an issue with the fleet’s stealth coating that, if left untreated, could cause the radar-evading material to peel off the aircraft. Operators are beginning to see “wrinkles” in the low-observable (LO) coating that renders Lockheed Martin’s F-22 almost invisible to enemy radar. As the 1990s-era air superiority fighter ages, the ..."
----------

'F-22 Raptor stealth coatings are crap' case goes to court | The Register (November 13, 2009)

"A former Lockheed stealth-tech engineer has alleged that radar-invisibility coatings on the USA's F-22 'Raptor' ultrasuperfighter are 'defective', and that Lockheed supplied them knowing that this was the case. It has now been confirmed that Darrol Olsen's whistleblower lawsuit will be heard in federal court.
...
Olsen says that between 1995 and 1999, he witnessed Lockheed knowingly use on Raptors 'coatings that Lockheed knew were defective'. Olsen contends that he was 'one of the top... low observables engineers in the stealth technology industry', having worked on the original F-117 stealth fighter and at Northrop on the B-2 stealth bomber before joining the F-22 team. When he tried to raise the matter with company management, he was told to 'stay out of it'.

The suit goes further, saying that since Olsen ceased to be involved in Raptor development Lockheed has continued to conceal problems with the plane's stealth coatings 'through at least October 2004 and likely to the present date'. He adds that issues with the coatings being washed off by jet fuel or water meant they eventually had to be much thicker than the design called for, compromising the Raptor's aerodynamics and adding as much as 600 pounds of unexpected weight."

What special hangars are required and used for the f35c - the carrier based version for USN? I dont see USN comming up with any new radical carrier designs that have special hangars on them for F35Cs? Carrier based aircrafts will be the most exposed and unprotected to weather conditions - water, salt, humidity etc., as they are parked completely exposed in open space.

F35C for USN

https://flic.kr/p/29286258716

A/C carriers fyi:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman#/media/File:US_Navy_030117-N-9851B-027_The_Military_Sealift_Command_ship_USNS_Spica_(T-AFS_9).jpg

Regards

The F-35 hangars are in the belly of the aircraft carrier. F-35s are not stored on-deck for long periods of time.

 

[Deino]

Yes, specialized hangars require humidity and temperature control.
....

Don't get me wrong and the F-22's issues are well known. My point is, that from a single image showing a J-20 in front of a regular hangar to deduct it has an edge in maintainability or serviceability is very much far fetched; IMO impossible.

Do we know for sure that these are the true and only J-20 hangars?
aybe these are the regular ones we've seen at Dinxing also for the J-16 and other aircraft and the special coating of the J-20 has to be treated with similar care and labour as the F-22's?
maybe the J-20 has indeed an easier to maintain stealth coating (wouldn't be surprising given the age of the F-22) ... but maybe it also has a less stringent requirement?

We simply don't know it ... only from this single image.

Again please don't take this as some sort of anti-Chinese bashing but I remember an image showing a KJ-200 flying over the Liaoning and the PLAN's statement that the C-16 has some sort of AEW-capability and right a moment later a certain fan-boy here claimed "look, the PLAN has a carrier capable AEW based on the KJ-200".

I only try to find facts and not to jump from a vague speculation onto a hyper-optimistic bandwagon.

Deino

 

[cirr]

So Chengdu has done it again.

 

[Martian2]

Don't get me wrong and the F-22's issues are well known. My point is, that from a single image showing a J-20 in front of a regular hangar to deduct it has an edge in maintainability or serviceability is very much far fetched; IMO impossible.

Do we know for sure that these are the true and only J-20 hangars?
aybe these are the regular ones we've seen at Dinxing also for the J-16 and other aircraft and the special coating of the J-20 has to be treated with similar care and labour as the F-22's?
maybe the J-20 has indeed an easier to maintain stealth coating (wouldn't be surprising given the age of the F-22) ... but maybe it also has a less stringent requirement?

We simply don't know it ... only from this single image.

Again please don't take this as some sort of anti-Chinese bashing but I remember an image showing a KJ-200 flying over the Liaoning and the PLAN's statement that the C-16 has some sort of AEW-capability and right a moment later a certain fan-boy here claimed "look, the PLAN has a carrier capable AEW based on the KJ-200".

I only try to find facts and not to jump from a vague speculation onto a hyper-optimistic bandwagon.

Deino

I said the J-20 turnaround time could be substantially less than the F-22 or F-35.

I mentioned it as a distinct possibility based on the photograph of the J-20 in front of a normal hangar.

IF the normal hangar is for the J-20 then the suggestion is the J-20 should have higher operational hours.

I never claimed the J-20 hangar had been established as a fact. We have to wait for more evidence.

I was only suggesting the possibility. I did not declare it as a done deal.

I use the J-20 thread to alert members to developing new situations. They can follow the news story if they choose to. However, I did not declare the J-20 has a clear operational edge. More information is needed, which will be released over time.
----------

The J-20 in front of a normal hangar is newsworthy and exciting, because we expected the J-20 to require specialized hangars.

If it is later confirmed that the J-20 does not need specialized hangars then it would provide an operational edge for the J-20. It would mean the J-20 stealth coating and electronics is more robust than the F-22 or F-35.

We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

 

[Deino]

...
I was only suggesting the possibility. I did not declare it as a done deal.
....

Then I need to apologise for not properly reading. Thanks

I thought You posted this as a fact since some others were already high on emotion.

Deino

So Chengdu has done it again.

Pardon ... each time You post such a message I immediately get a heart attack !!! CAC did what??

Fly a new prototype, fly '2021' again, test another variant, managed to get the first front-line J-20 ready???

PLEASE more....

Deino

 

[Martian2]

Then I need to apologise for not properly reading. Thanks

I thought You posted this as a fact since some others were already high on emotion.

Deino

No problem.

I'm just posting new information.

It's a potentially interesting development.

From my original post: "The photograph of a J-20 in front of a regular hangar suggests the J-20 does not require temperature or humidity control. This is important, because the J-20 should have quick turnaround times to permit more airborne hours."

 

[Deino]

Thanks

 

[SingaporeGuy]

Well the J-20 is designed to be used as a strategic asset unlike the J-31 which is similar to F-35.

I suppose the turnaround times matter more for J-31 rather than J-20 - correct me if im wrong.

The design is made to intercept american warplanes/surface assets from california to guam/midway if possible from a stealth carrier with deep penetration capability in mind if the unthinkable happens.

Alternatively, it is a powerful airspace denial weapon against taiwan.

Anyway, China knows it cannot afford to do a pearl harbour on USA or risk full reprisal from the US armed forces. The determination of american armed forces are dependent on the american public opinion.

Even in the future, even if China can stave off american attacks, the military cost of doing so is simply too high for a pearl harbour kind of attack.

The J-20s can be used to deter off american forces while China retakes Taiwan from separatist forces.

China just needs to create a seemingly real attrition rate of 1:1 with the J-20 versus the F-22 and F-35 hence all combat between USA and China can be avoided, this is the power of the J-20. Where air dominance is guaranteed, everything else is settled thereafter. China needs to keep perfecting the J-20 and to keep the manufacturing lines open.

Until then, China has to keep improving such that taiwanese and mainland chinese cultures blend for easy assimilation.

As of right now, even a successful invasion is pointless because taiwanese think they are japanese.

Back to J-20. @gambit

Not sure if its still suffice to compare J-20 vs F-22

 

[Akasa]

So Chengdu has done it again.

Let me guess, did they win the naval contract with the J-20?

 

[Deino]

Guys ... stay on topic please.

And by the way, what’s that incredible news?

Deino

 

[gambit]

Back to J-20. @gambit

Sure.

No problem.

I'm just posting new information.

No, what you did was dishonest, as your usual self.

You effectively 'pre-loaded' the readers' perception of the F-22 by calling it a 'hangar queen', the worst derogatory label anyone can give to an aircraft even when you do not know when is the appropriate time to use it. What you posted was not information but baseless opinion.

A squadron of 12 jets, no matter what, do not mean there are 12 hangars. Not all jets have the same maintenance schedules. Not all jets have the same flying hrs on their airframes.

Let us look at that silly article...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...ews-discussions.111471/page-667#post-10030857

The comment that the F-22 MUST be stored in a specialized hangar is patently absurd.

Here is an example...

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Sep/18/2000114775/-1/-1/0/120917-F-QZ836-289.JPG

There is nothing specialized about the hangar above, and that image is from Guam, a tropical environment.

When I proved you wrong, you tried to back pedaled by calling the label trivial. If it is trivial, you would not have used it in the first place. But the label is not trivial. It is inflammatory enough and that was your intent.

Saying that the F-22 needs X hrs of maintenance is also misleading.

System complexity is dependent upon the need to win. By that criticism, maybe we should abandon the turbine engine in favor of the piston of WW II ? Maybe instead of complex avionics flying the jet, we should put the burden completely on the pilot like how the WW I pilots did it ? Maybe instead of the machine gun, we should return to single shot bolt action ? Why not bow and and arrow ? After all, with enough skill, the bow and arrow can be literally crafted in the field instead of a factory like the gun.

A specialized facility is for when there is a specialized need. Do you know what is a 'hush house' ? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. I know you do not know such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_house

On any flying base, there is at least one hush house and maybe two. There maybe dozens of aircrafts, but usually only one hush house. That is because the need to run an engine or a jet at full AB under unique testing is rare, so there is no need for any more than one even though the base may have 30 or 40 aircrafts.

Do you know the Top Gun scene where the F-14 were inverted over the MIG ? For experienced people like me, and I had flight training in high school, the article you posted is as nonsensical as that Top Gun scene. It is hilarious that someone could come up with something so outre. The only people who will take it seriously are the ignorant and the gullible.

This is not about changing your mind but about giving the readers out there THE TRUTH from someone who actually spent time in military aviation. Something you do not know.

 

[Han Patriot]

Deino, another essay writing competition on top. Please.....

 

[Deino]

Pardon? I don't understand your post.