Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[LeGenD]

But is the B-52G as capable as a B-1B?

Read this: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20190209.aspx

 

[LKJ86]

Let us go by date of introduction into service:

F-22 - 2005
J-20 - 2017

J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar.

I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.

There is something called Moore's Law.

 

[Figaro]

Let us go by date of introduction into service:

F-22 - 2005
J-20 - 2017

J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar

I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.

Oh come on your argument just simply does not make any sense. We know the first J-20 prototype rolled out in December 2010, which is almost 10 years ago, with the AESA radar on board then. Do you assume there has been no variation in that radar in the 10 years since then? Of course the J-20s produced in 2017 will have improved variants of the AESA radar in the original prototype. Regarding the 5 to 10 years behind ... I don't know but I feel throwing arbitrary numbers around is not a good practice at all. The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used ... think about the capability of an upgraded Type 1475 radar now. Unlike something like aeroengines, which require long term investment and development, radar tech evolves a lot in ten years.

There is something called Moore's Law.

Moore's Law does not really matter here because the chips used in radars do not have to be very small or advanced.

 

[LeGenD]

Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.

Motherboard cannot be replaced?

What F-22A used to be back in 2003, is no longer a valid consideration in the present. The aircraft is being refitted with latest technologies lately.

 

[UKBengali]

The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used ... think about the capability of an upgraded Type 1475 radar now.

No, you are saying my argument does not make sense as it does not fit your narrative.

Of course it makes sense that you start off with the original start of service date of both aircraft.

J-20 started off with production radar version 1 in 2017, like F-22 started off with production radar version 1 in 2005.

Shall we instead go all the way back to 1997 for the F-22 prototype radar then and say it would have been upgraded by 2005 when it came into service?

"The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used"

What does "advanced" mean in this case?

Do you have actual figures for F-22 radar's detection range, multi-target tracking capability, jamming and LPI capability etc and figures for J-20 as a comparison?

Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time in 2017. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.

 

[Figaro]

No, you are saying my argument does not make sense as it does not fit your narrative.

Of course it makes sense that you start off with the original start of service.

J-20 started off with production radar version 1 in 2017, like F-22 started off with production radar version 1 in 2005.

Shall we instead go all the way back to 1997 for the F-22 prototype radar then and say it would have been upgraded by 2005 when it came into service?

"The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used"

What does "advanced" mean in this case?

Do you have actual figures for F-22 radar's detection range, multi-target tracking capability, jamming and LPI capability etc and figures for J-20 as a comparison?

Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.

It is very difficult arguing with you because your underlying assumption is that the J-20s radar does not receive any upgrades from the time it was first developed to now whereas the F-22 receives continually upgrades. Note I am not disputing the latter but I am disputing the former.

If the J-20 production I radar came out in 2017, then why do you keep harping about its radar being designed in the 2000s? Wouldn't the radar which came out in 2017 then itself be a significantly upgraded form over the initial radar developed in the early 2000s and placed on the first J-20 prototype? I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish here.

Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.

So you believe that the J-20 radar that came out in 2017, which itself has already undergone upgrades in the nearly 10 years since its inception, only at the same level as the 2005 F-22 radar? Are you serious? This assumption would only make sense if Chinese technological advancement progressed at equal speed as that of the US and also the Chinese having a large gap in radar to begin with, both of which are faulty positions to say the least. Your radar argument is even less coherent and more mind-boggling than the engine argument you spewed out a couple of weeks back.

 

[UKBengali]

So you believe that the J-20 radar that came out in 2017, which itself has already undergone upgrades in the nearly 10 years since its inception, only at the same level as the 2005 F-22 radar? Are you serious? This assumption would only make sense if Chinese technological advancement progressed at equal speed as that of the US and also the Chinese having a large gap in radar to begin with, both of which are faulty positions to say the least.

No as I already said the 2017 J-20 radar is probably better than the 2005 F-22 radar.

What I think is that the 2020 F-22 radar is a little ahead of the 2020 J-20 radar, especially if the J-20 still has it's original production radar.

If you look at iterations of US fighters like the F-16, the later iterations of the radar in those fighters were some way better than the initial production radar.

 

[Figaro]

No as I already said the 2017 J-20 radar is probably better than the 2005 F-22 radar.

What I think is that the 2020 F-22 radar is a little ahead of the 2020 J-20 radar, especially if the J-20 still has it's original production radar.

If you look at iterations of US fighters like the F-16, the later iterations of the radar in those fighters were some way better than the initial production radar.

I could buy this if the F-22s were retrofitted with the APG-81 but not if its just some variant of the APG-77. Even you said it yourself that the J-20s radar was designed over ten years after that of the APG-77 ... please tell me then how does the APG-77 retain a lead over the Type 1475 (J-20s radar) considering both countries have similar developmental progress of AESA radars? As I mentioned earlier, you can upgrade the B-52 all you want (and maybe to the extent that it is a new aircraft entirely), but is it going to be better than a B-1B?

 

[LeGenD]

@Figaro

The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested

“It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.

AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.

It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”

Get the memo now?

I understand that China want to equip J-20 with best possible technologies at its disposal but what are the claimed performance parameters of NRIET Type 1475 radar system to begin with? There are so many variables to consider outside marketing hype.

The original AN/APG-77 is a 3rd generation AESA radar system in strictly American terms. The AN/APG-77(v)1 is a complete redesign of the original variant to bring it on par with 4th generation AESA radar systems in use.

1st generation AESA = URR (1985)

2nd generation AESA = ATF (1989)

3rd generation AESA = AN/AGP-77 (1996)

4th generation AESA = AN/APG-80; ANAPG-77(v)1; AN/APG-81; SABR

There are further advances in American radar systems – revolutionary advances to say the least.

Coming back to NRIET Type 1475 radar system:

T/R module count = 1856

Maximum detection range = 370 KM

LPI

What else?

Even in crude comparison, it is easy to pinpoint that AN/APG-77(v)1 have superior performance parameters.

Rumors are circulating that China is looking forward to replace Type 1475 with KLJ-7A radar system. True or not?

Appreciate your advances man but do not push the narrative.

There is much more to F-22A Raptor than meets the eye.

This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies. They are not sitting idle.

 

[Figaro]

@Figaro

The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested

“It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.

AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.

It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”

Get the memo now?

I don't think it is fair to compare civilian electronics accessory with AESA radar development. Please tell me how this links to AESA radar?

@Figaro

Get the memo now?

Not at all.

@Figaro



I understand that China want to equip J-20 with best possible technologies at its disposal but what are the claimed performance parameters of NRIET Type 1475 radar system to begin with? There are so many variables to consider outside marketing hype.

The original AN/APG-77 is a 3rd generation AESA radar system in strictly American terms. The AN/APG-77(v)1 is a complete redesign of the original variant to bring it on par with 4th generation AESA radar systems in use.

1st generation AESA = URR (1985)

2nd generation AESA = ATF (1989)

3rd generation AESA = AN/AGP-77 (1996)

4th generation AESA = AN/APG-80; ANAPG-77(v)1; AN/APG-81; SABR

There are further advances in American radar systems – revolutionary advances to say the least.

Coming back to NRIET Type 1475 radar system:

T/R module count = 1856

Maximum detection range = 370 KM

LPI

What else?

Even in crude comparison, it is easy to pinpoint that AN/APG-77(v)1 have superior performance parameters.

I'm not sure where you got the maximum detection range from. Nanjing never released any statistics on that ... the T/R module count was leaked out and that is correct. From the data published, the AN/APG-77 has 1500 T/R modules while the AN/APG-81 has over 1600. Of course, radar performance should not be solely based of T/R module numbers but how does this prove anything?

@Figaro

Rumors are circulating that China is looking forward to replace Type 1475 with KLJ-7A radar system. True or not?

Mistranslation by IHS Janes. The KLJ-7A itself uses technologies in the Type 1475 according to the Chinese report ... but Janes misinterpreted it to be the Chinese are going to use the KLJ-7A into the J-20. And given the size of the J-20s nose, a much more powerful radar than the KLJ-7A would be placed.

@Figaro

Appreciate your advances man but do not push the narrative.

There is much more to F-22A Raptor than meets the eye.

This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies, mind you.

Sorry but what am I pushing here at all? The other poster was the one who started this whole mess. Never did I ever say that Chinese radar technology was equal or exceeded that of the US ... all I said was that they are roughly comparable (i.e. on a similar level). I called him out on making sweeping statements without any solid evidence, whether it be numbers or concrete developments, just as I did on the engine thread. If he came here with solid evidences and numbers, then we can have a meaningful discussion and come to an agreement. But when he says "I will bet my money" on this or that occurring, you know it becomes a poor discussion. Note @LeGenD I do not have any problems with your postings because you provide evidence, which makes the argument/debate substantive. But when someone comes in here with a blanket assertion and no solid evidence (especially numbers) to back up his/her claims, then that is a problem.

 

[Ravenman]

Is there a export version?

And if there is, what is the prize?

 

[Figaro]

Is there a export version?

And if there is, what is the prize?

Not yet at least. And what do you mean "what is the prize"?

 

[Deino]

Guys ... aren't you already a bit too far off-topic? You are discussing radar systems, generations of radars and estimate the capability growth only by guessing and then try to conclude the fighter's capabilities?! Come on ...

And nothing of this is directly related to the J-20 ... at least it is pure speculation.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

@Figaro

The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested

“It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.

AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.

It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”

Get the memo now?

...

This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies. They are not sitting idle.

X86 is a proprietary and closed standard with few competitors thus it is neither fair nor representative of real world capabilities to compare CPU performance on this single standard, since there are only 3 companies in the entire world making X86 chips. When the number of samples are small, random factors abound.

In the much more competitive ARM and RISC-V markets, Huawei made one of the best processor ARM series in the world - Kirin - while Alibaba has the best RISC-V processor in the world right now - Xuantie.

The X86 processors are important at all mostly because of the momentum of Windows.

 

[Grandy]

.
The U.S. military disclosed the progress of the sixth-generation aircraft, and the verification aircraft has flown for the first time! What is the opportunity for the domestic sixth generation?

The United States has always been blindly confident in its technological leadership. Now the US military has disclosed the progress of the sixth-generation aircraft and has entered the stage of actual testing. The US sixth-generation aircraft is about to fly for the first time, so what is the opportunity for my country's domestic-made sixth-generation aircraft?

The sixth-generation American
China's sixth-generation fighter is indeed not far away. As far as the sixth-generation fighter is concerned, just like the difference between the third-generation and the fourth-generation fighters, the true appearance and technical level of the sixth-generation fighters are actually not much better than the fifth-generation fighters. The current standard of the sixth-generation aircraft must exceed the fifth-generation. It pays more attention to stealth and supersonic cruise. It will be equipped with active defense systems such as small lasers or projected interceptor bombs. The radar will use active phased array radar or more advanced technology, with high intelligence. The perception computer can link satellites, a large number of wingmen, and ground battlefield systems for coordinated operations, and has the ability to control multiple UAVs in the small air command. Overall, these new concepts can be used to outline what China's sixth-generation fighters look like.

Sixth-generation aircraft in the United States
Six-generation aircraft in China and the United States are likely to develop in two completely different directions. Why do you say that? At present, the global standards for the fifth-generation aircraft are all proposed by the United States. Our F-20 and Russian Su 57 are all based on this standard. This means that we always let others lead the way and always walk behind others. It may not fall, but it is always impossible to surpass. But the 6th generation machine belongs to the next-generation plan. After all, there are still many problems in related technologies. This gives us the opportunity to overtake. If my country's sixth-generation machine is born first, it will lead the international standard for the next six-generation machine.

J-20
Has reached the sixth generation, because the United States is still in the stage of concept determination, or the concept has been determined to be under development, but in strict confidentiality, we do not know. But our current fifth-generation machine is mature, and the problem of heart disease has been solved. According to China's equipment development, equipment generation and pre-research generation equipment layout, it is very likely that China's sixth-generation aircraft is already under development. And it is very likely that the US is taking a completely different route, because no one knows what the standard of the sixth-generation machine is? Maybe from now on, we and the United States will have completely different technology trees. According to our country’s “national treasure”-level great gods, my country’s six generations of opportunities have the function of automatic repair and transformation. As for the science fiction films mentioned by Mr. Yang, we will also have them. We don’t know what it is. It should be top secret. But it is definitely a great black technology.

The domestic six-generation aircraft model
Judging from the characteristics of the next-generation fighters currently exposed in the United States, the biggest features of the next-generation fighters are unmanned, highly informatized, and ultra-stealth. From the current China’s latest military research and development trends, no one Engines, absorbing materials, high-performance radars, and large thrust ratio engines are the main focus projects. Judging from various signs, my country's sixth-generation aircraft is not far away. I believe that one day China's military industry will keep pace with or even surpass the United States and achieve a great revival. Come on! China.