China's J-31 Stealth Fighter Version 2

[Figaro]

Why are you being impatient?

That response is not directed towards you and I have edited it.

J-20 cannot be as maneuverable as F-22 due to the reasons I pointed out, let alone exceed it in this aspect.

My bad ... I just saw
.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I am sorry but you offer nothing to challenge his points.

I understand the purpose of delta canards but you are expecting them to somehow make J-20 match F-22 in the matters of maneuverability and agility. This isn't a sound argument; J-20 is too large to match F-22 in these matters. You can expect J-20 to have decent maneuverability for its size at most.

Even in other aspects, J-20 is equipped with relatively weaker engines and stealth capabilities. We also have no idea how it fares against F-22 in the matters of avionics and sensor-suite.

with weaker engine its definitely less maneuverable and agile but in future with a pair 40000+lbs engine its maneuverable as F-22 and as for your information Delta Canard design is Alternate of TVC engine which is maintenance prone and no one knows that real avionics and sensor-suite capabilities of J-20 which is lot newer than F-22

 

[LeGenD]

with weaker engine its definitely less maneuverable and agile but in future with a pair 40000+lbs engine its maneuverable as F-22 and as for your information Delta Canard design is Alternate of TVC engine which is maintenance prone and no one knows that real avionics and sensor-suite capabilities of J-20 which is lot newer than F-22

Your point has "amateurish" written all over it, bro.

In the domain of electronics, specifications can easily fool you into believing that a product (in focus) is high quality. Speaking with experience, specifications are not everything; it is the efficiency of the internal circuitry and design that makes tremendous difference in the output. Think about the difference between P4 @3 GHz and Core i5 @ 2GHz. The latter would smoke the former due to its much superior design.

1. When China will develop engines on par with American and Japanese, then we will talk.
2. Delta canards have their drawbacks.
3. Newer means better? This is like saying Toyota Corolla 2017 is better than Mercedes Benz 2010. I can pinpoint scores of older cars that literally smoke much of the newer stuff in performance.

China and US do not sit on the same plane in regards to aeronautical and space-based engineering. China is in "learning" mode whereas US is pushing boundaries. Recently, they were able to maneuver an exploration vehicle around Pluto which is a monumental achievement in technological respect. Can China pull it off at present? US have also deployed some drones in space that can spend years gathering valuable intel from such heights and land when instructed to.

In the case of F-22, every aspect is kept up-to-date by the way.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Your point has "amateurish" written all over it, bro.

In the domain of electronics, specifications can easily fool you into believing that a product (in focus) is high quality. Speaking with experience, specifications are not everything; it is the efficiency of the internal circuitry and design that makes tremendous difference in the output. Think about the difference between P4 @3 GHz and Core i5 @ 2GHz. The latter would smoke the former due to its much superior design.

1. When China will develop engines on par with American and Japanese, then we will talk.
2. Delta canards have their drawbacks.
3. Newer means better? This is like saying Toyota Corolla 2017 is better than Mercedes Benz 2010. I can pinpoint scores of older cars that literally smoke much of the newer stuff in performance.

In the case of F-22, every aspect is kept up-to-date.

whatever you think bro but facts doesn't change radar on F-22 was late 80- 90s design can you give me links what avionics changes on F-22 with the exception of software up-gradation
1. yes China is relatively new on the engine development fields but they develop WS-10 same class as F-100 and F-110 series of engine and developing WS-15 (thrust = 40000 lbs expected intriduction date =2023), WS-13 (thrust= 19000 lbs - 22000 lbs expected date = 2020- 2021) "WS-13 was already tested on JF-17 in 2016"

2. so does tail cropped delta wings like F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35 have their own drawbacks

 

[Ultima Thule]

Why are you being impatient?

That response is not directed towards you and I have edited it.

J-20 cannot be as maneuverable as F-22 due to the reasons I pointed out, let alone exceed it in this aspect.

provide the solid source like flight global, Jane's, aviation weekly said that J-20 is not maneuverable and agile as F-22

China and US do not sit on the same plane in regards to aeronautical and space-based engineering. China is in "learning" mode whereas US is pushing boundaries. Recently, they were able to maneuver an exploration vehicle around Pluto which is a monumental achievement in technological respect. Can China pull it off at present? US have also deployed some drones in space that can spend years gathering valuable intel from such heights and land when instructed to.

don't divert the topic these achievement of USA nothing means that China is not able to invent and innovate better than USA your argument is "amateurish" intelligent is not USA or western heritage

 

[gambit]

...avionics and sensor-suite capabilities of J-20 which is lot newer than F-22

You can build a Ford Model T with the latest materials, from composites of metals to plastics, and it would still not be better than the average assembly line automobiles designed and built for the average person. Even the Ford Pinto would be better than this Model T.

The F-22's avionics were designed and built according to the F-22's mission, its airframe, aerodynamics, propulsion, and weapons. Same with every other aircraft out there. You cannot put a 21st century Airbus flight controls computer into a 20th century Boeing and expect compatibility, let alone improvements.

Let us say that the J-20 with its canards outmaneuvered the F-22 with its engine thrust vectoring. Does it mean canards are superior to TV ? No, it does not. It simply means that the J-20's avionics exploited the canards better than the F-22's avionics exploited TV, even if the F-22's avionics uses the latest materials in its electronics. Everything, from hardware to software, must be made for each other.

 

[gambit]

...Delta Canard design is Alternate of TVC engine...

And an inferior alternate.

The advantage of thrust vectoring is -- thrust. There is no substitute for thrust. Whenever an aircraft make an attitude change, it loses forward momentum, or in the language of fighter pilots -- energy. Thrust vectoring combines the best of both -- attitude change without losing energy.

 

[BON PLAN]

China's J-31 middle-weight stealth fighter is progressing nicely in development. There is a new prototype J-31 Version 2 (see photo below), which is larger than the original J-31 Version 1.

The J-31 is designed to be China's main export stealth fighter aircraft.

J31 is a beautifull plane.
A kind of F35, but far better designed....

 

[LeGenD]

whatever you think bro but facts doesn't change radar on F-22 was late 80- 90s design can you give me links what avionics changes on F-22 with the exception of software up-gradation

Did it ever occur to you that US is miles ahead of other countries in developing advanced aircraft and it managed to develop a 5th generation combat aircraft 20 years earlier?

Or

You think that J-20 is 6th generation?

US developed (and fielded) ballistic missiles with range in excess of 6000 miles over 30 years ago and Pakistan is sitting at 2750 km range with Shaheen III in 2017.

J-20 is a breakthrough for China, not for the US which has fielded relatively superior aircraft decades ago.

Please apply common sense in your assertions.

1. yes China is relatively new on the engine development fields but they develop WS-10 same class as F-100 and F-110 series of engine and developing WS-15 (thrust = 40000 lbs expected intriduction date =2023), WS-13 (thrust= 19000 lbs - 22000 lbs expected date = 2020- 2021) "WS-13 was already tested on JF-17 in 2016"

What do you know about the quality of those engines? Merely stating thrust figures does not prove anything.

FYI:-

China has built a potent military machine over the past 30 years but is struggling to develop advanced engines that would allow its warplanes to match Western fighters in combat, foreign and Chinese industry sources said.

The country’s engine technology lags that of United Technologies unit (UTX.N) Pratt & Whitney, General Electric (GE.N) and Rolls-Royce (RR.L), said Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

China’s Defence Ministry, in a brief statement to Reuters, said there was a “definite gap” between Chinese military technology and some developed countries, adding Beijing would continue to strengthen its armed forces.

Western restrictions on arms exports to China prohibit the sale of Western engines for military use, forcing China to rely on homegrown designs or engines Russia has agreed to sell.

“Chinese engine-makers face a multitude of problems,” said Michael Raska, assistant professor in the Military Transformations Programme at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

Among the issues, China’s J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters cannot super-cruise, or fly at supersonic speeds like their closest rivals, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT.N) F-22 and F-35 stealth planes, without using after-burners, said two industry sources who follow Beijing’s military programs closely.

After-burners remove a warplane’s stealthiness, a capability that allows them to escape radar detection.

Even the warplane engine that experts consider to be China’s best has reliability issues, said the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...with-warplane-engine-technology-idUSKCN0V7083

Learn more from here: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/chinas-j-20-set-to-receive-indigenous-engine-435075/

Chinese sources (openly) admit their shortcomings in developing high quality engines.

---

We chose Russian RD-93 engine for JF-17 because we were not satisfied with Chinese offerings.

2. so does tail cropped delta wings like F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35 have their own drawbacks

I am talking about frontal delta canards only.

A canard looks great on paper; but as you can see, it adds a lot of design complexity to an aircraft. Rutan's mastered the concept on the VeriEze and the Long-EZ series of aircraft; but for many designs, the complexity outweighs the benefit.

Source: http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/canards/

Emphasis mine. Since J-20 doesn't rank very high in stealth aspect and it is a huge bird on top, it makes sense to equip it with frontal delta canards in order to improve its maneuverability. However, this is a "compromised" design in comparison to F-22 which has top-notch stealth, designed for maximum situational awareness, and relatively small size to ensure a fantastic mix of stealthiness and maneuverability.

2. Delta canards are not necessary to ensure excellent maneuverability as F-22 and MiG-29 have demonstrated.

What surprises me is that you continue to put lot of weight on delta canards without looking at an aircraft design on the whole. Once again, delta canards on J-20 do [not] suggest that it will match F-22 in the matters of maneuverability pound-for-pound because J-20 is a massive bird in comparison and also equipped with a relatively inferior engines. Even with mature engines, parity is not guaranteed because F-22 is a fundamentally different (and more maneuverable) design in comparison.

FYI:

Well, it’s because:

1. Canards are more effective for maneuverability and trim authority the smaller the airframe is. The smaller the aircraft, the cheaper it is. European aircraft, especially modern ones, go for cost effectiveness more than anything else. The USA is not as cost restricted, so going smaller is never considered a need since the US budget can afford larger more expensive designs.
2. Stabilators are better for trim control in mach+ flight. Unlike canards, which are typically smaller in surface area and forward of the center of mass, Stabilators are better suited to dealing with Mach Tuck and high speed maneuvering.
3. Stabilators do not obstruct pilot view from the cockpit. Situational awareness is paramount in US design doctrine. Just on the F-22, the process from YF-22 to F-22 had some of the biggest changes in the design JUST for pilot visibility, including moving the whole cockpit forward and moving the intakes back, JUST to increase pilot view.
4. Stabilators are better at counter acting large shifts in load. Trim authority on stabilators are far higher performing when dealing with center of mass shifts, such as when a fighter released some but not all of it’s ordinance.
5. Stabilators have better control authority at high alpha (Angle of Attack). This is a huge requirement in USAF doctrine for low level ACM. The NAVY also requires high AoA control due to CATOBAR requirements.
6. Lastly - Thrust Vectoring. The thrust vectoring provides more control than the canards ever could, making them moot.

When we use the F-22 for an example, we get these typical reasons:

The Aircraft is big because it’s expensive - don’t need canards.

The Aircraft is supposed to Super Cruise faster than anyone else - don’t need canards.

The Aircraft is supposed to be stealthy - don’t need canards.

The aircraft has vector thrust and a canted twin tail - don’t need canards.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-American-fighters-incorporate-canards-like-other-countries’

provide the solid source like flight global, Jane's, aviation weekly said that J-20 is not maneuverable and agile as F-22

Bro, have you ever studied physics? Why you need those brands to convey to you the obvious?

The jet’s large size and lack of thrust vectoring, however, suggest it lacks the manoeuvrability of US fifth generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22. This has led some observers to speculate that one mission is the long-range, high-speed interdiction of pivotal enemy support assets, such as air-to-air refuelling tankers and airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) aircraft.

From one of the sources I cited above.

Essentially, a combination of:

1. Huge size
2. Inferior engines
3. Additional differences in design

don't divert the topic these achievement of USA nothing means that China is not able to invent and innovate better than USA your argument is "amateurish" intelligent is not USA or western heritage

My point is that US is miles ahead of any country in developing advanced technologies. What US accomplished like 20 years ago, China is demonstrating today and calling it a breakthrough.

 

[Silicon0000]

Kindly change the thread title from "China's J-31 Stealth Fighter Version 2" to "F22 vs J20"

 

[Ultima Thule]

I am talking about frontal delta canards only.

A canard looks great on paper; but as you can see, it adds a lot of design complexity to an aircraft. Rutan's mastered the concept on the VeriEze and the Long-EZ series of aircraft; but for many designs, the complexity outweighs the benefit.

Source: http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/canards/

Emphasis mine. Since J-20 doesn't rank very high in stealth aspect and it is a huge bird on top, it makes sense to equip it with frontal delta canards in order to improve its maneuverability. However, this is a "compromised" design in comparison to F-22 which has top-notch stealth, designed for maximum situational awareness, and relatively small size to ensure a fantastic mix of stealthiness and maneuverability.

2. Delta canards are not necessary to ensure excellent maneuverability as F-22 and MiG-29 have demonstrated.

What surprises me is that you continue to put lot of weight on delta canards without looking at an aircraft design on the whole. Once again, delta canards on J-20 do [not] suggest that it will match F-22 in the matters of maneuverability pound-for-pound because J-20 is a massive bird in comparison and also equipped with a relatively inferior engines. Even with mature engines, parity is not guaranteed because F-22 is a fundamentally different (and more maneuverable) design in comparison.

FYI:

Well, it’s because:

1. Canards are more effective for maneuverability and trim authority the smaller the airframe is. The smaller the aircraft, the cheaper it is. European aircraft, especially modern ones, go for cost effectiveness more than anything else. The USA is not as cost restricted, so going smaller is never considered a need since the US budget can afford larger more expensive designs.
2. Stabilators are better for trim control in mach+ flight. Unlike canards, which are typically smaller in surface area and forward of the center of mass, Stabilators are better suited to dealing with Mach Tuck and high speed maneuvering.
3. Stabilators do not obstruct pilot view from the cockpit. Situational awareness is paramount in US design doctrine. Just on the F-22, the process from YF-22 to F-22 had some of the biggest changes in the design JUST for pilot visibility, including moving the whole cockpit forward and moving the intakes back, JUST to increase pilot view.
4. Stabilators are better at counter acting large shifts in load. Trim authority on stabilators are far higher performing when dealing with center of mass shifts, such as when a fighter released some but not all of it’s ordinance.
5. Stabilators have better control authority at high alpha (Angle of Attack). This is a huge requirement in USAF doctrine for low level ACM. The NAVY also requires high AoA control due to CATOBAR requirements.
6. Lastly - Thrust Vectoring. The thrust vectoring provides more control than the canards ever could, making them moot.

When we use the F-22 for an example, we get these typical reasons:

The Aircraft is big because it’s expensive - don’t need canards.

The Aircraft is supposed to Super Cruise faster than anyone else - don’t need canards.

The Aircraft is supposed to be stealthy - don’t need canards.

The aircraft has vector thrust and a canted twin tail - don’t need canards.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-American-fighters-incorporate-canards-like-other-countries’

I'm already stated you that fact future air to air war will rely on BVR arena first then for a last resort they built maneuverability and agility for last ditched effort with IR and guns, and eliminate F-119 and put the F-100-229 engine on F-22 then you will see F-22 is as maneuverable agile as currently as J-20

What do you know about the quality of those engines? Merely stating thrust figures does not prove anything.

FYI:-

China has built a potent military machine over the past 30 years but is struggling to develop advanced engines that would allow its warplanes to match Western fighters in combat, foreign and Chinese industry sources said.

The country’s engine technology lags that of United Technologies unit (UTX.N) Pratt & Whitney, General Electric (GE.N) and Rolls-Royce (RR.L), said Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

China’s Defence Ministry, in a brief statement to Reuters, said there was a “definite gap” between Chinese military technology and some developed countries, adding Beijing would continue to strengthen its armed forces.

Western restrictions on arms exports to China prohibit the sale of Western engines for military use, forcing China to rely on homegrown designs or engines Russia has agreed to sell.

“Chinese engine-makers face a multitude of problems,” said Michael Raska, assistant professor in the Military Transformations Programme at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

Among the issues, China’s J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters cannot super-cruise, or fly at supersonic speeds like their closest rivals, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT.N) F-22 and F-35 stealth planes, without using after-burners, said two industry sources who follow Beijing’s military programs closely.

After-burners remove a warplane’s stealthiness, a capability that allows them to escape radar detection.

Even the warplane engine that experts consider to be China’s best has reliability issues, said the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...with-warplane-engine-technology-idUSKCN0V7083

Learn more from here: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/chinas-j-20-set-to-receive-indigenous-engine-435075/

Chinese sources (openly) admit their shortcomings in developing high quality engines.

---

We chose Russian RD-93 engine for JF-17 because we were not satisfied with Chinese offerings.

I am agree with you sir but remember GE and P&W has a vast experience to build jet engine at-least they have 50-60 years of experience but Chinese develop WS-10 series of engine already in mass production for their J-10, J-11 series of jets above 500+ is being built, chinese is a fast learner they closing the western engine gap at the astonishing spped in 2050-2060 they will on par with USA and Europe

 

[BON PLAN]

• Canards are more effective for maneuverability and trim authority the smaller the airframe is. The smaller the aircraft, the cheaper it is. European aircraft, especially modern ones, go for cost effectiveness more than anything else. The USA is not as cost restricted, so going smaller is never considered a need since the US budget can afford larger more expensive designs.

• Stabilators are better for trim control in mach+ flight. Unlike canards, which are typically smaller in surface area and forward of the center of mass, Stabilators are better suited to dealing with Mach Tuck and high speed maneuvering.

• Stabilators do not obstruct pilot view from the cockpit. Situational awareness is paramount in US design doctrine. Just on the F-22, the process from YF-22 to F-22 had some of the biggest changes in the design JUST for pilot visibility, including moving the whole cockpit forward and moving the intakes back, JUST to increase pilot view.

• Stabilators are better at counter acting large shifts in load. Trim authority on stabilators are far higher performing when dealing with center of mass shifts, such as when a fighter released some but not all of it’s ordinance.

• Stabilators have better control authority at high alpha (Angle of Attack). This is a huge requirement in USAF doctrine for low level ACM. The NAVY also requires high AoA control due to CATOBAR requirements.

• Lastly - Thrust Vectoring. The thrust vectoring provides more control than the canards ever could, making them moot.

It's not true.
All depend if you are speaking of long arm canards, like Eurofighter or close coupled canards like Rafale or Gripen.

Remember the 2009 UAE encounter between a Rafale and a F22 in WVR : Rafale match F22. That means that canard delta without thrust vectoring but enough power (15T versus 31T !!!) is very agile. So is the Gripen (but lacks of thrust...). Eurofighter is a little bit less agile in subsonic but more in supersonic.

Don't forget that Dassault, thanks to FBW and a high and old skill in delta fighter, was able to make what everybody though impossible : create a very good naval delta (with canards) plane.

Among the issues, China’s J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters cannot super-cruise, or fly at supersonic speeds like their closest rivals, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT.N) F-22 and F-35 stealth planes, without using after-burners, said two industry sources who follow Beijing’s military programs closely.

F35 can't supercruise !!!
LM supercruise definition is : "more than mach1.4 or 1.5 without AB". F35 has all the difficulties to reach mach 1.6 with full AB and fall under mach1 without.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Bro, have you ever studied physics? Why you need those brands to convey to you the obvious?

The jet’s large size and lack of thrust vectoring, however, suggest it lacks the manoeuvrability of US fifth generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22. This has led some observers to speculate that one mission is the long-range, high-speed interdiction of pivotal enemy support assets, such as air-to-air refuelling tankers and airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) aircraft.

From one of the sources I cited above.

Essentially, a combination of:

1. Huge size
2. Inferior engines
3. Additional differences in design

1. not huge size 1-2 meter larger than F-22
2. inferior you would say interim engine wait for WS-15
3. you want to Chinses do exact copy of F-22 design or what

My point is that US is miles ahead of any country in developing advanced technologies. What US accomplished like 20 years ago, China is demonstrating today and calling it a breakthrough.

this doesn't mean that china can't invent, innovate better than US and Europe

F35 can't supercruise !!!
LM supercruise definition is : "more than mach1.4 or 1.5 without AB". F35 has all the difficulties to reach mach 1.6 with full AB and fall under mach1 without.

F-35 uses High bypass ratio turbofan can supercruise, whereas F-22 uses low bypass turbofan which is super-cruise capable

 

[BON PLAN]

F-35 uses High bypass ratio turbofan can supercruise, whereas F-22 uses low bypass turbofan which is super-cruise capable

So?
You mean F35 can or can't supercruise ?
We all know that the aerodynamic sugar shape F35 cannot supercruise : too fat, not enough power (18 T still !!!).

 

[gambit]

So?
You mean F35 can or can't supercruise ?
We all know that the aerodynamic sugar shape F35 cannot supercruise : too fat, not enough power (18 T still !!!).

Why do you worry about the F-35's inability to supercruise ? Who else can do that ?