What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Please give at least a short translated summary.
After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.

The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.

File photo from my collection.
_RSY-fynfvar4883548.jpg
 
Last edited:
After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.

The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.

File photo from my collection.
View attachment 481452


Thanks ... even if the mist ironic part of that sentence is that this "achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts" is not to a small percentage relying to the acquisition of the German Kuka robotics.

https://www.kuka.com/de-de/über-kuka/unternehmensstruktur/kuka-roboter
 
After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.

The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.

File photo from my collection.
View attachment 481452
Are the robots in that image the same ones used in the production of the J20? If so, then I must admit that they are a bit embarrassing since they are German tech and it took the team supposedly 15 years to develop.
 
After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.

The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.

File photo from my collection.
View attachment 481452
Can you clarify what you mean by R&D? Are your referring to domestic Chinese robots or assembly lines? If it is the latter, what is the R&D behind it ... assuming they use imported robots. Couldn't they just replicate foreign assembly lines given the robots are similar?
 
Thanks ... even if the mist ironic part of that sentence is that this "achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts" is not to a small percentage relying to the acquisition of the German Kuka robotics.
Do you have any evidence of this or is it just your speculation?
As you constantly like to ask of members who post links in Chinese: translation, please.
LOL @ the hypocrisy of you posting a non-English link without a translation.:omghaha:
 
Can you clarify what you mean by R&D? Are your referring to domestic Chinese robots or assembly lines? If it is the latter, what is the R&D behind it ... assuming they use imported robots. Couldn't they just replicate foreign assembly lines given the robots are similar?
There is no mention of which robots they used, so we really don't know about that. As for the my file photo of a Kuka robot, it is actually a robot deployed in Boeing as shown by Cybrnetic's video posting. If there is confusion on the robot, I apologise.

I am sure the R & D involves both software and hardware, but it is a company secret so we may have to wait for declassification later. There is no detail of what they had done on R & D.

Anyway, I was just translating the Chinese statement.

As for the use of robots in Chinese military and aircraft building, pls go to this US government intelligent site:
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/...ustrial and Military Robotics Development.pdf
 
Last edited:
The original one:
234310ja3oaow6bbkeaa5q-jpg.481119

One thing that has really peaked my curiosity about the weapons bay doors on the J-20 and particularly the upper side bay doors, are the notches on the doors for the missile rack brackets. Its fascinating that the Chinese engineers went through all the trouble of designing those notches which must have their own separate door for each notch. That seems such a complex set of mechanisms involved in order to give the pilot the ability to close the doors once the missile is extracted.

So instead of what we've seen on the F-22 and the F-35 so far with the idea of weapons bays is that the lock on target occurs, pilot presses the 'fire' button and the door opens, missile extracts and fires in succession, then bay door closes.

In this case here with the J-20, with those additional notches and smaller door panels for the notches, I'm guessing the idea is that the pilot has the luxury of pulling the missile out of the bay, then door closes leaving just the brackets and missile protruding until he decides to fire and then weapons bay door opens again, bracket retracted and bay door closes.

Am I right in this assessment? If so, did the Chinese designers & engineers figure this was a better way to deal with the firing of the missile so that it maintains low observability more so than the American method, or is there a different reason? It seems like quite the bit of engineering and process involved which makes me wonder what advantage were they trying to get out of that?
 
One thing that has really peaked my curiosity about the weapons bay doors on the J-20 and particularly the upper side bay doors, are the notches on the doors for the missile rack brackets. Its fascinating that the Chinese engineers went through all the trouble of designing those notches which must have their own separate door for each notch. That seems such a complex set of mechanisms involved in order to give the pilot the ability to close the doors once the missile is extracted.

So instead of what we've seen on the F-22 and the F-35 so far with the idea of weapons bays is that the lock on target occurs, pilot presses the 'fire' button and the door opens, missile extracts and fires in succession, then bay door closes.

In this case here with the J-20, with those additional notches and smaller door panels for the notches, I'm guessing the idea is that the pilot has the luxury of pulling the missile out of the bay, then door closes leaving just the brackets and missile protruding until he decides to fire and then weapons bay door opens again, bracket retracted and bay door closes.

Am I right in this assessment? If so, did the Chinese designers & engineers figure this was a better way to deal with the firing of the missile so that it maintains low observability more so than the American method, or is there a different reason? It seems like quite the bit of engineering and process involved which makes me wonder what advantage were they trying to get out of that?
The side weapon bay houses short range AA missiles meant for within visual range, thus the low observation characters becomes minimum relevance as the pilots should have little difficulties in detecting opposing fighter jets by eye sight or radar signature returns during dog fight.

The slight increase in radar signature of the short range AAM would not give the opponent any significant advantage. On the other hand, the time taken from pressing the "fire" button to the ignition of missile motor is shorter than the opponent who need to open the weapon bay door before the missile is dropped off and its motor ignited.
 
Last edited:
The side weapon bay houses short range AA missiles meant for within visual range, thus the low observation characters becomes minimum relevance as the pilots should have little difficulties in detecting opposing fighter jets by eye sight or radar signature returns.

The slight increase in radar signature of the short range AAM would not give the opponent any significant advantage. On the other hand, the time taken from pressing the "fire" button to the ignition of missile motor is shorter than the opponent who need to open the weapon bay door before the missile is dropped off and its motor ignited.

That is what I thought made the most sense but wasn't sure if that was really the main idea. It seems to be the most logical.

In other words, it's basically having the missile on a pylon ready to be fired in that rapidly needed instance and bypassing the amount of time it would take to open the doors and fire it, since at short range, low observable isn't important at all, but rather the speed of firing the missile.

That is actually excellent and brilliant design and engineering. I'd say well worth the additional effort & mechanisms.

1+ for China vs America on this one! :-)
 
One thing that has really peaked my curiosity about the weapons bay doors on the J-20 and particularly the upper side bay doors, are the notches on the doors for the missile rack brackets. Its fascinating that the Chinese engineers went through all the trouble of designing those notches which must have their own separate door for each notch. That seems such a complex set of mechanisms involved in order to give the pilot the ability to close the doors once the missile is extracted.

So instead of what we've seen on the F-22 and the F-35 so far with the idea of weapons bays is that the lock on target occurs, pilot presses the 'fire' button and the door opens, missile extracts and fires in succession, then bay door closes.

In this case here with the J-20, with those additional notches and smaller door panels for the notches, I'm guessing the idea is that the pilot has the luxury of pulling the missile out of the bay, then door closes leaving just the brackets and missile protruding until he decides to fire and then weapons bay door opens again, bracket retracted and bay door closes.

Am I right in this assessment? If so, did the Chinese designers & engineers figure this was a better way to deal with the firing of the missile so that it maintains low observability more so than the American method, or is there a different reason? It seems like quite the bit of engineering and process involved which makes me wonder what advantage were they trying to get out of that?
520dad68gy1frw3eylu7mg206o050x09.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom