Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[FairAndUnbiased]

Going back to J-20, it really needs a proper 5th generation engine to stand a chance against F-22.

proof?

the engine is only part of aerodynamic performance. the other part is shaping.

actual data:

J-20 thrust:weight is 0.92, F-22 thrust:weight is 1.08
J-20 wing loading: 340 kg/m2, F-22 wing loading: 377 kg/m2
J-20 max speed: M2, F-22 max speed: M2.2
J-20 and F-22: same service ceiling, 20 km
J-20 and F-22: nearly same empty weight, 19000 kg.

F-22 and J-20 have comparable aerodynamic performance.

 

[IblinI]

It appears that Indians were editing this ... naturally they are venting their Galwan anger out on any related Chinese military page lol.

What kind of people we have to deal with,gosh.

 

[UKBengali]

proof?

the engine is only part of aerodynamic performance. the other part is shaping.

actual data:

J-20 thrust:weight is 0.92, F-22 thrust:weight is 1.08
J-20 wing loading: 340 kg/m2, F-22 wing loading: 377 kg/m2
J-20 max speed: M2, F-22 max speed: M2.2
J-20 and F-22: same service ceiling, 20 km
J-20 and F-22: nearly same empty weight, 19000 kg.

F-22 and J-20 have comparable aerodynamic performance.

F-22 engine maximum thrust is classified and US only says 156kn+.
In 15 years it could have been pushed even higher than in-service thrust from 2005.

Also we need to look at dry thrust/wet thrust ratio and F-22 is around 0.7 and WS-10 on J-20 is more likely 0.6-0.65 as that is 4th gen engine.
J-20 cannot use wet-thrust too much as it will use up too much fuel and potentially give away it’s location to IRST systems.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

F-22 engine maximum thrust is classified and US only says 156kn+.
In 15 years it could have been pushed even higher than in-service thrust from 2005.

Also we need to look at dry thrust/wet thrust ratio and F-22 is around 0.7 and WS-10 on J-20 is more likely 0.6-0.65 as that is 4th gen engine.
J-20 cannot use wet-thrust too much as it will use up too much fuel and potentially give away it’s location to IRST systems.

shaping also matters, and the J-20 has canards for additional lift/control surfaces. Eurofighter for instance has similar layout (just smaller due to no internal bays) and is considered highly maneuverable.

T:R isn't the end all be all either. the final judge of aerodynamic performance is the actual maneuverability: climb rate and turn radius.

 

[LKJ86]

Are dozens of newly-built J-20s about to be handed over to the north???

Via @飞扬军事铁背心 from Weibo

 

[Deino]

Are dozens of newly-built J-20s about to be handed over to the north???
View attachment 678129View attachment 678130
Via @飞扬军事铁背心 from Weibo

Overall a new unit makes sense given the 176th Brigade in late 2016, the 172nd Brigade in late 2017 and the 9th Brigade in late 2019 receiving the first J-20s it almost looks like a pattern.

 

[kungfugymnast]

View attachment 678006

This Photoshop taken from F-22, YF-23 and s-37 berkut reminds me of the original planned YF-22 design with forward canard. Lockheed Martin decided to change the design to conventional at last minute to avoid too much effort to put an entire new design to work causing YF-22 prototype unveiled later than YF-23. The original design was adopted by Russian Mig 1.42 and decade later J-20 took the design.

proof?

the engine is only part of aerodynamic performance. the other part is shaping.

actual data:

J-20 thrust:weight is 0.92, F-22 thrust:weight is 1.08
J-20 wing loading: 340 kg/m2, F-22 wing loading: 377 kg/m2
J-20 max speed: M2, F-22 max speed: M2.2
J-20 and F-22: same service ceiling, 20 km
J-20 and F-22: nearly same empty weight, 19000 kg.

F-22 and J-20 have comparable aerodynamic performance.

Thought J-20 maximum speed at Mach 2.5? Its long flat bottom fuselage gives it the speed aerodynamic similar to F-15, Mig-25, Mig-31 that have long flat bottom

 

[kungfugymnast]

I agree that J-20 will become a real threat to F-22 and F-35s when it gets the WS-15 engine.
With upgraded radar, avionics and stealth materials, the J-20 of 2025 with WS-15 should be better than F-35 and somewhat comparable to the F-22 of the time.

We will probably see the definitive version of J-20 around 2030-2035 and then the focus should be on getting the Chinese 6th generation fighter.

J-20B with WS-10X is good enough to take on F-35 and F-22. WS-15 will give J-20C supercruise and extra acceleration.

 

[UKBengali]

J-20B with WS-10X is good enough to take on F-35 and F-22. WS-15 will give J-20C supercruise and extra acceleration.

Nah WS-10X will have poor dry thrust, even if it's wet-thrust is not far off F-119 in F-22.

Too much use of wet-thrust will hamper range and also potentially open up J-20 to being detected on IRST systems.

J-20 needs new engine and probably better stealth materials to take on F-22. It will come but needs some more time.
J-20 will need better radar and avionics to take on F-35 and with the WS-15 engine it should be superior.

 

[Figaro]

Nah WS-10X will have poor dry thrust, even if it's wet-thrust is not far off F-119 in F-22.

Too much use of wet-thrust will hamper range and also potentially open up J-20 to being detected on IRST systems.

J-20 needs new engine and probably better stealth materials to take on F-22. It will come but needs some more time.
J-20 will need better radar and avionics to take on F-35 and with the WS-15 engine it should be superior.

The main downside with the WS-10 is actually not its thrust but the relatively high bypass ratio (~0.60). This means current J-20s most likely cannot supercruise, even if its dry thrust is now pretty high. That and its relatively low lifespan, TIT, and SFC, all limited by the dated design are the largest drawbacks.

Regarding radars, the US is still number one in AESA ... but the Chinese are very close behind and adopted AESA technologies very quickly as well (unlike say the Russians or the Europeans). The US could maintain a lead in this field for the foreseeable future but the gap I think is so small that it will not be any determinant of future BVR fights.

 

[UKBengali]

The main downside with the WS-10 is actually not its thrust but the relatively high bypass ratio (~0.60). This means current J-20s most likely cannot supercruise, even if its dry thrust is now pretty high. That and its relatively low lifespan, TIT, and SFC, all limited by the dated design are the largest drawbacks.

Regarding radars, the US is still number one in AESA ... but the Chinese are very close behind and adopted AESA technologies very quickly as well (unlike say the Russians or the Europeans). The US could maintain a lead in this field for the foreseeable future but the gap I think is so small that it will not be any determinant of future BVR fights.

Actually a low bypass ratio like 0.3- 0.4 as seen in F-22 and Eurofighter is not required to super-cruise.

F-15 can do that with low fuel and carrying some air-to-air ordnance. The GE F110 engine has bypass ratio a little more at 0.7 than the 0.6 of the WS-10 engine.

As regards AESA, yes I agree that US is in the lead but I disagree that China is ahead of the Europeans. Of course the Russians are behind all the rest.

UK has the best AESA technology in Europe as it came out with the SAMPSON AESA radar in the Type-45 destroyer in 2009 and also built the AESA for both the Gripen E and the Eurofighter. The SAMPSON AESA radar was rated the best in Nato at the time of introduction by the USA and others.
UK saw that it's AESA radar for Eurofighter was quite inferior to the AESA radar on the F-35Bs it got from the USA and so is building an even more advanced one for it's Eurofighters that it aims to get into service in the mid-2020s, which it claims will be the best in the world at the time but I doubt that.

I think the order of AESA radar tech probably is from best to worst:

1. USA
2. China = UK, although Chinese are moving ahead a little quicker due to more money and more projects they are working on.
3. France
4. Japan = Israel
5. Russia

 

[S10]

The main downside with the WS-10 is actually not its thrust but the relatively high bypass ratio (~0.60). This means current J-20s most likely cannot supercruise, even if its dry thrust is now pretty high. That and its relatively low lifespan, TIT, and SFC, all limited by the dated design are the largest drawbacks.

Regarding radars, the US is still number one in AESA ... but the Chinese are very close behind and adopted AESA technologies very quickly as well (unlike say the Russians or the Europeans). The US could maintain a lead in this field for the foreseeable future but the gap I think is so small that it will not be any determinant of future BVR fights.

I actually think in its current state, J-20 can supercruise. Pilots interview stated that it can fly at Mach 2.5 as maximum speed. I don't think a sustained Mach 1.5 is too far fetched at dry thrust, especially with the latest WS-10 having 14.5 tons of thrust.

 

[UKBengali]

I actually think in its current state, J-20 can supercruise. Pilots interview stated that it can fly at Mach 2.5 as maximum speed. I don't think a sustained Mach 1.5 is too far fetched at dry thrust, especially with the latest WS-10 having 14.5 tons of thrust.

Unlikely to be Mach 1.5 super-cruise as the dry thrust/wet ratio would be around 0.6 and so maybe Mach 1.2-1.3 would be more nearer the mark

 

[kungfugymnast]

Nah WS-10X will have poor dry thrust, even if it's wet-thrust is not far off F-119 in F-22.

Too much use of wet-thrust will hamper range and also potentially open up J-20 to being detected on IRST systems.

J-20 needs new engine and probably better stealth materials to take on F-22. It will come but needs some more time.
J-20 will need better radar and avionics to take on F-35 and with the WS-15 engine it should be superior.

WS-10X is reverse engineered from F-15 & Su-27 engines plus the long flat fuselage of J-20B could allow it to cruise at higher speed under military dry thrust. Besides, the J-20B will be carrying just air to air missiles internally with lighter weight than F-22 so it should be fine. WS-15 engines will be superb and required if it carries higher payload and having to dogfight.

 

[Figaro]

WS-10X is reverse engineered from F-15 & Su-27 engines plus the long flat fuselage of J-20B could allow it to cruise at higher speed under military dry thrust. Besides, the J-20B will be carrying just air to air missiles internally with lighter weight than F-22 so it should be fine. WS-15 engines will be superb and required if it carries higher payload and having to dogfight.

Nonsense ... the WS-10 is based off a reverse engineered CFM-56 core but that is hardly enough to call it a reverse engineered engine.