Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[gambit]

The govt itself has no interest in acknowledging that they bought a regiment of Su-35s. We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it. Even today, their official policy is they did not copy the J-11B. So expecting the general public to acknowledge this is practically impossible.

I am not talking about the government. Am talking about the lay Chinese who are no different than the lay but interested people from other countries that populate this forum. All the Chinese have to do is acknowledge that speculation is normal, and in highly specialized fields like military aviation where domain experts are always on the lookout for new and innovative things, speculations are expected. Granted, some people will make that charge just to mock the Chinese for being a copycat, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to discuss anything.

As for those who post pictures -- post 57 -- of physical differences and declare that no adoption and adaptation took place: they are wrong.

Let us take an extreme example for now. Why are there no delta winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?

Is it technically feasible to design such an aircraft ? Of course it is. But why are these no MASS PRODUCTION of such ? Because the delta wing was developed for high speed and the propeller simply cannot provide enough power for the delta wing to its fullest potential. The propeller certain can provide enough power for takeoff and continuous flight. But if there is a need for Mach or rapid cycling of power for maneuvers, the propeller cannot provide.

Let us move on. Are there any swept (not delta) winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?

Again, we are talking about MASS PRODUCTION. Of course there is: Tu-95 'Bear' bomber from the Soviets. Like the delta, the swept wings are designed for high speed, but not to the extent of the delta. The propeller, if properly designed, can provide enough power for flight. The Tu-95 served the Soviets and Russians well. Still, the straight wings and propeller driven combination is better.

The point here is that just because the J-20 have some physical differences from the MIG 1.44, that does not mean the J-20 could not came from the MIG. China made low radar observable a non-negotiable requirement, so some shaping was necessary to the original design. The Chinese may have a better engine, so the J-20's wings will be shaped differently to exploit that improved propulsion capability. Aerodynamics and Propulsion works closely in designing any aircraft. They are in a push-pull relationship. One's capability can inhibit the final design of the other.

This is the kind of speculation I am talking about. It is experience and knowledge based.

 

[randomradio]

I don't need an Indian to introduce what's Chinese govt official policy. J-11 series is origined from Su-27, China paid patent fee to Russia. We know all the process the cooperation of J-11 project. You post make Indian very arrogant, like to blindly judge what you didn't know clearly. And China bought patent from Ukrain about the European Buffalo Landing Ship, the contract is two ships built in Ukrain and the remaining two built in China shipyard.
"We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it." Provide some of your proof, if you are seriou poster here.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian-roots-revealed-chinas-z-10

Oh come on. We had this discussion already about 100 times ... All physical details hint an AL-31 and none a WS-10. Even more why should these lrip birds use an engine so far not tested on ony prototype?
To pretend thy use a Taihang is maybe nice but simply unlogical ...

The J-20 seems to be going through the same type of changes PAK FA is. Interim engine and then Stage 2.

I am not talking about the government. Am talking about the lay Chinese who are no different than the lay but interested people from other countries that populate this forum. All the Chinese have to do is acknowledge that speculation is normal, and in highly specialized fields like military aviation where domain experts are always on the lookout for new and innovative things, speculations are expected. Granted, some people will make that charge just to mock the Chinese for being a copycat, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to discuss anything.

As for those who post pictures -- post 57 -- of physical differences and declare that no adoption and adaptation took place: they are wrong.

Let us take an extreme example for now. Why are there no delta winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?

Is it technically feasible to design such an aircraft ? Of course it is. But why are these no MASS PRODUCTION of such ? Because the delta wing was developed for high speed and the propeller simply cannot provide enough power for the delta wing to its fullest potential. The propeller certain can provide enough power for takeoff and continuous flight. But if there is a need for Mach or rapid cycling of power for maneuvers, the propeller cannot provide.

Let us move on. Are there any swept (not delta) winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?

Again, we are talking about MASS PRODUCTION. Of course there is: Tu-95 'Bear' bomber from the Soviets. Like the delta, the swept wings are designed for high speed, but not to the extent of the delta. The propeller, if properly designed, can provide enough power for flight. The Tu-95 served the Soviets and Russians well. Still, the straight wings and propeller driven combination is better.

The point here is that just because the J-20 have some physical differences from the MIG 1.44, that does not mean the J-20 could not came from the MIG. China made low radar observable a non-negotiable requirement, so some shaping was necessary to the original design. The Chinese may have a better engine, so the J-20's wings will be shaped differently to exploit that improved propulsion capability. Aerodynamics and Propulsion works closely in designing any aircraft. They are in a push-pull relationship. One's capability can inhibit the final design of the other.

This is the kind of speculation I am talking about. It is experience and knowledge based.

Personally I think you're trying too hard.

 

[nang2]

Personally I think you're trying too hard.

I don't know about you but I do appreciate his effort. I don't have to agree with him but I do enjoy reasonable arguments.

 

[Ultima Thule]

You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?

The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.

When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.

where Russian was accepting that MIG-25 is copy A-5 Vigilante show me?, in your wet dream or fantasy world as usual AMERICAN superiority complex

Oh come on. We had this discussion already about 100 times ... All physical details hint an AL-31 and none a WS-10. Even more why should these lrip birds use an engine so far not tested on ony prototype?
To pretend thy use a Taihang is maybe nice but simply unlogical ...

so why are are so sure that it is not WS-10? give me a accurate logic you are just assuming nothing else

 

[The SC]

Pointing out where you are wrong is not a personal attack.

The logic is clear with the current data.

- There is no indicator that the 229 was designed for low radar observability.

- The Germans had only cursory knowledge of radar and given the status of their war making capability at that time, the Hortens had at best limited access to radars for experimentation. The Allies captured a lot of information and that one prototyp.

- The flying wing design was already well known in the aviation industry, even before WW II. They knew it for its naturally long range capability. The main problem was controllability.

- Hitler placed a higher priority on long range over radar avoidance.

All of this pointed to a logical conclusion that the 229 was more for long range than for radar avoidance. It could not be argued that the B-2 was any copy of the 229 considering the Americans had far more actually flying wing designs than the Hortens had.

I am mad only in your imagination. You wanted to portray me as angry only to boost your own ego that somehow you are able to make me angry. Get a clue.


Please...I busted you guys over and over for your liberal use of 'Chinese physics' for the J-20.

Sir Mr Gambit, you are a too much of I, I, I thing, I did this to you, I am superior to all of you, I am a God...etc think about it deep inside of you, and you'll find that the only one here with an inflated ego is Mr Gambit..

I am sure you are hurt by the comparison of the design between the B2 and the Horton, and as sure that you know that the only thing (innovation) that had saved England from the German Invasion was the invention of the Radar by the Brits, so how come you can't (or don't want to) understand that the Horton had some form of stealth in it, if stealth is to avoid radar detection..

 

[gambit]

Personally I think you're trying too hard.

Actually, it has been the PDF Chinese who have been trying too hard. To debunk their claims, am not working at even half capacity.

The bottom line, and I have said this before, is that the J-20 is a commendable accomplishment for Chinese military aviation. It should not have EMOTIONALLY mattered regarding its origin, but it was. Speculations by domain experts should have been welcomed. What reasons and purposes are there to be hateful against a machine that professionals have to varying degrees contributed to its creation ? If you published a paper for all to see, how do you know you have not contributed, even if just a little, to the creation of an aircraft built by Dassault, Boeing, Bombardier, or China's AVIC ? You do not and probably never will. The lack of information simply made these speculations more fun than malicious. You pull up your education and experience and contribute to the debate. You teach and learn at the same time. All in the public eyes. Who here thinks Chinese engineers are not members of IEEE or any other professional organizations ?

A long time ago, I SPECULATED on why the noses of the these 'stealth' designs are shaped the way they are. They have a ridge on each side, a structure that would create edge diffraction signals. I explained that in wave behaviors on cylinders, there is the 10 lambda principle. Lambda is the symbol for frequency. The 10 lambda principle states that if the cylinder's diameter is less than 10 times the operating wavelength, the creeping wave behavior will occur. Essentially, the radar's wave behavior will literally wraps around the cylinder and return to source direction. It does not matter what is the operating wavelength (freq). What mattered is the ratio of that wavelength to the cylinder diameter.

On a 'stealthy' body, you do not wan that behavior to occur. The radomes (nose) of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 are not cylinders but cones. That means they have tapers. One part of the radome will be greater than 10 lambda, but as the radome tapers (narrows) there will be a point where the creeping wave behavior will occur. In having those pinches or ridges, the edge diffraction signals would be statistically less significant than the creeping wave behaviors signals. It is not a flaw but a tactical trade-off in design.

The PDF Chinese immediately jumped on and accused me of making this stuff up. It was simply unthinkable that a non-Chinese could make ANY technically valid speculation on this Chinese aircraft. They did not use this tool called the Internet to verify what I said. Simply put, they were unreasonably and grossly emotional about it. Immature is another description.

So here it is...

Look at the introduction and see where three Chinese engineers published their paper at a technical conference. What I said about the creeping wave behavior is true, and from that, what I speculated on the shaping of 'stealth' bodies are valid. Whether what I speculated is true or not we may never know, unless the creators of these aircrafts confirm or deny. But for what I speculated, I did not pulled it out of thin air but from personal experience, education, and training.

To this day, not one of the PDF Chinese ever came out and admitted he was wrong. To admit that he is wrong would be unthinkable to national pride. And I would dare say racial pride since I am a member of an 'inferior' Asian stock.

If I sound harsh against the PDF Chinese, it is in response to their historically immature and insulting attitudes whenever any technically valid comment is sent towards the Chinese military.

This is what this forum have to put up with. This is why CDF died, because no one wanted be around the Chinese. And now the PDF Chinese are dragging this forum down.

I am sure you are hurt by the comparison of the design between the B2 and the Horton,..

Yeah...I am so hurt from the likes of you.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

I don't need an Indian to introduce what's Chinese govt official policy. J-11 series is origined from Su-27, China paid patent fee to Russia. We know all the process the cooperation of J-11 project. You post make Indian very arrogant, like to blindly judge what you didn't know clearly. And China bought patent from Ukrain about the European Buffalo Landing Ship, the contract is two ships built in Ukrain and the remaining two built in China shipyard.
"We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it." Provide some of your proof, if you are seriou poster here.

You need NOT to be overly defensive or be disturbed by these personal opinions as truly NOT one of them can confirmed any of their allegations e.g. Kamov was employed to produce a conceptual design but had never participating in any R&D or development of the WZ-10. But Western Media will paint to their readers a different story - a dishonest half truth version. Laugh about it, like I do with many in here.

Let not forget the conceptual drawing of the US Space Shuttle originated from the late Dr. Tsien from China so does that means that USA copied Space Shuttle or Sr Tsien built the Space Shuttle.

 

[Han Patriot]

Actually, it has been the PDF Chinese who have been trying too hard. To debunk their claims, am not working at even half capacity.

The bottom line, and I have said this before, is that the J-20 is a commendable accomplishment for Chinese military




Yeah...I am so hurt from the likes of you.

Personally, I don't give a damn where the technology comes from. The point is whether we can absorb it, develop it and innovate upon it. All I can see now is we are. People were laughing when we said we would build the fastest computer with Chinese chips, Americans thought we can't survive without Intel chips. They aren't laughing now, are they?

 

[Place Of Space]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian-roots-revealed-chinas-z-10



The J-20 seems to be going through the same type of changes PAK FA is. Interim engine and then Stage 2.



Personally I think you're trying too hard.

Please don't troll around. Newspaper report is not proof, I am surprised you don't understand what proof means.

 

[gambit]

Personally, I don't give a damn where the technology comes from. The point is whether we can absorb it, develop it and innovate upon it. All I can see now is we are. People were laughing when we said we would build the fastest computer with Chinese chips, Americans thought we can't survive without Intel chips. They aren't laughing now, are they?

You could be the first.

Do you think that what I speculated, applicable to any 'stealth' aircraft from any country, is TECHNICALLY valid ?

I am not saying that my speculation is true, because unless the creators of these aircraft publicly confirm we will never know. What I am asking from you is if what I speculated came from a solid technical foundation. Remember, I posted proofs of that technical foundation from a Chinese paper. Not US. Not Russian. Not Indian. But CHINESE.

 

[Mugwop]

Chengdu Aircraft Company has already tested delta,canard,twin-tail configuration in the 70's

Which role do you think is best for J-20? Strike,Interceptor,Air superiority?

 

[cirr]

J-20 to test-flight with FWS-15 before the end of the year?

J-2021?

 

[星海军事]

J-20 to test-flight with FWS-15 before the end of the year?

J-2021?

I don't think that's even possible

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

J-20 to test-flight with FWS-15 before the end of the year?

J-2021?

The Prototype B will be tested by 2017.

 

[Deino]

where Russian was accepting that MIG-25 is copy A-5 Vigilante show me?, in your wet dream or fantasy world as usual AMERICAN superiority complex



so why are are so sure that it is not WS-10? give me a accurate logic you are just assuming nothing else

No .. I beg you in return to give us one single evidence. Otherwise go bach thru thrse pages i already posted my conclusions several times. There is simply NO ... Not a single external detail loke nozzle design, pedal length even the sound is so ...

The only ones with wet dreams like you say are fan boys, dreamers ...