Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

litzj said:
If width of the black line is whole gap between the IWB door and fuselage, it is too wide for the most aircraft.
Click to expand...

You can literally see the black line on the ventral weapons bay door panel when it's open, so it obviously isn't a gap...
 
Blitzo said:
litzj said:
If width of the black line is whole gap between the IWB door and fuselage, it is too wide for the most aircraft.
Click to expand...

You can literally see the black line on the ventral weapons bay door panel when it's open, so it obviously isn't a gap...
Click to expand...

Oh, now I could understand
 
seruriermarshal said:
From TFX video
Click to expand...

I like how the missile comes out of the weapons bay and then the bay doors shuts, first time that I have seen it in action. B)
 
mockup up some kind, doesnt look good enough to be a movie prop
 
Yes, a training mock-up of some type would seem to be the logical explanation.

EDIT: It looks like our own Andreas Rupprecht was called in.

Finally, we sent the photos and information to subject matter expert and author Andreas Rupprecht.

Rupprecht has authored some of the most authoritative books on Chinese military aircraft (including “Flashpoint China” and “Modern Chinese Warplanes”) and written articles for many media outlets.

This is how Andreas Rupprecht responded to our questions about what appears in the photo:

“In my honest opinion at second glance, at least in my opinion, it quickly becomes clear that this is just a model: the whole proportions do not fit, the surface looks wavy, just as if some thin material was stretched on or over a frame or at least mated in parts that do not fit correctly – especially since the J-20 has an impressive manufacturing and surface quality. Also, the engines – and the AL-31FN are very characteristic – are completely wrong: they sit too deep and do not have the typical shape of the afterburner nozzles, even more the main landing gear is not right.”

Rupprecht went on to write, “The clearest indication in my opinion however in addition to the wobbly surface is that always on the J-20 on the ground as soon as the hydraulic pressure is gone, the rudders on the tail “fall” to the inside in that most characteristic angle. And since the cockpit canopy is covered, which would be the case, this simply does not fit.

So, in essence it would be most interesting to know the true background of this “thing“, who made it for what purpose and why does it stand at this location, but it’s surely not a real J-20.”

Author, analyst and subject matter expert Andreas Rupprecht is convinced this is not a real J-20. His analysis makes sense since getting a J-20 to the United States without other images appearing would be extremely difficult. Even more significant, why would a new Chinese combat aircraft be in the United States at all?
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
Yes, a training mock-up of some type would seem to be the logical explanation.

EDIT: It looks like our own Andreas Rupprecht was called in.

Finally, we sent the photos and information to subject matter expert and author Andreas Rupprecht.

Rupprecht has authored some of the most authoritative books on Chinese military aircraft (including “Flashpoint China” and “Modern Chinese Warplanes”) and written articles for many media outlets.

This is how Andreas Rupprecht responded to our questions about what appears in the photo:

“In my honest opinion at second glance, at least in my opinion, it quickly becomes clear that this is just a model: the whole proportions do not fit, the surface looks wavy, just as if some thin material was stretched on or over a frame or at least mated in parts that do not fit correctly – especially since the J-20 has an impressive manufacturing and surface quality. Also, the engines – and the AL-31FN are very characteristic – are completely wrong: they sit too deep and do not have the typical shape of the afterburner nozzles, even more the main landing gear is not right.”

Rupprecht went on to write, “The clearest indication in my opinion however in addition to the wobbly surface is that always on the J-20 on the ground as soon as the hydraulic pressure is gone, the rudders on the tail “fall” to the inside in that most characteristic angle. And since the cockpit canopy is covered, which would be the case, this simply does not fit.

So, in essence it would be most interesting to know the true background of this “thing“, who made it for what purpose and why does it stand at this location, but it’s surely not a real J-20.”

Author, analyst and subject matter expert Andreas Rupprecht is convinced this is not a real J-20. His analysis makes sense since getting a J-20 to the United States without other images appearing would be extremely difficult. Even more significant, why would a new Chinese combat aircraft be in the United States at all?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If it were an actual J-20 it'd be as big as Belenko's Mig-25 delivery.
 
If it was real it wouldn't be there. And as Andreas correctly points out, the quality isn't that good. There might be some uses for such a thing but I'm loath to speculate.

As for the Diplomat piece - congratulations on catching up with the state of the art from four years ago.
 
LowObservable said:
If it was real it wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

I guess it would depend on how it got there. Victor Belenko's Mig-25 didn't exactly land at Area 51. As for the quality maybe it's for the inevitable Top Gun 2 direct-to-video knock off. ???
 
Deino said:
A most interesting read and brilliant summary;

https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/chinas-stealth-fighter-its-time-to-discuss-j-20s-agility/
Click to expand...

Once it gets the more powerful engines with TVC. . .well, the X-31 didn't exactly want for maneuverability.
 
Deino said:
A most interesting read and brilliant summary;

https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/chinas-stealth-fighter-its-time-to-discuss-j-20s-agility/
Click to expand...
Eh. I have allergy on any more than short news reporting articles about military hardware in non-specialized MMs. That "RUSSIA ADMITS DEFEAT FROM F-35, SU-57 IS CANCELLED" still buggers me and I still see echoes of that in net. I bet Diplomat is somewhat better in that regard, but I still won't put my lunch money on it.
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
If it was real it wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...
As for the quality maybe it's for the inevitable Top Gun 2 direct-to-video knock off. ???
Click to expand...

If they were training some kind of sensors with AI and form recognition, they wouldn't need more quality that the sensor have. Hence tarp and frames would have done the trick.
 
GARGEAN said:
Deino said:
A most interesting read and brilliant summary;

https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/chinas-stealth-fighter-its-time-to-discuss-j-20s-agility/
Click to expand...
Eh. I have allergy on any more than short news reporting articles about military hardware in non-specialized MMs. That "RUSSIA ADMITS DEFEAT FROM F-35, SU-57 IS CANCELLED" still buggers me and I still see echoes of that in net. I bet Diplomat is somewhat better in that regard, but I still won't put my lunch money on it.
Click to expand...

I deliberately write my pieces on the diplomat by trying to avoid the kind of short form National Interest or Business Insider style articles they are known for.

The word limit for my monthly features is capped at 2000 unfortunately, so I'm unable to go into as much detail as I would like.
 
Blitzo said:
I deliberately write my pieces on the diplomat by trying to avoid the kind of short form National Interest or Business Insider style articles they are known for.

The word limit for my monthly features is capped at 2000 unfortunately, so I'm unable to go into as much detail as I would like.
Click to expand...
My though is that short, fact checked news are okay for most MMs, at least when they are trying to stay objective, and big pieces are better to be placed on dedicated platforms. Not sure that Diplomat fits second, albeit fast look gave me impression of far better objectivity and technical adequacy than both NI and BI. Still not really good to my taste, but indeed not bad.
 
I found this photo on airliners.net


Pretty cool to see the lerx and the canards used to increase the lift of those small wings, where the lifting body is not enhanced too much. The latter probably to decrease drag and keep the flow laminar longer. Also interesting to see the opposing direction of the vortexes to ensure that no stall and control loss occurs.
 

Attachments

  • 5324733.jpg
    5324733.jpg
    350.1 KB · Views: 411
malipa said:
I found this photo on airliners.net

https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Air-Force/Chengdu-J-20/5324733

Pretty cool to see the lerx and the canards used to increase the lift of those small wings, where the lifting body is not enhanced too much. The latter probably to decrease drag and keep the flow laminar longer. Also interesting to see the opposing direction of the vortexes to ensure that no stall and control loss occurs.
Click to expand...

I think lifting body contribution to overall lift might depend on the angle of attack, as shown in the pic below. The J-20’s vortex coupling method seems to work in stages, with vortex strengthening from the forebody camber being the last one. This would also seem to be consistent with the level of camber the forebody has.
 

Attachments

  • 45295705635_f98a6a36a0_o.jpg
    45295705635_f98a6a36a0_o.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 380
indeed. Nice photo! I wish we could also see a speed vector and have more data than these very raw indications. @latenlazy It would also be quite logical to have such a system. Do you have more of such photos
 
malipa said:
indeed. Nice photo! I wish we could also see a speed vector and have more data than these very raw indications. @latenlazy It would also be quite logical to have such a system. Do you have more of such photos
Click to expand...
These photos are all from the latest Zhuhai aerospace convention, which happened a month and a half ago. There are many more photos, but more importantly we have video for most of the performances the J-20 did during the convention, and there’s one or two in particular that show the full set of different phases the J-20’s vortex generation system goes through.
 
Partly J-20 related but more related to Chinese 6th gen efforts. An interview with Wang Haifeng, Chief Designer at Chengdu/611 institute

账号已迁移

mp.weixin.qq.com mp.weixin.qq.com

This part is probably most important:

美国发布了未来的2030 空中优势飞行计划，欧洲也公布了未来战斗机作战概念和方案，有一些技术方向是普遍认可、比较明朗的，比如说有人/ 无人协同技术、人工智能技术、极高隐身技术、全向探测全向攻击技术等，也有一些不太确定的创新颠覆性技术，像激光武器技术、自适应发动机、高超音速武器、蜂群作战，这些技术可能会改变未来的战争模式。

我们根据自己设计的战争，选取、补充了一些技术方向，根据其特点和成熟度的不同采取不一样的组织模式开展预研攻关，相信在2035 年或者更近的未来，会看到，现在的努力正转化成守护海天的利器。


... Basically, it translates to Wang acknowledging efforts in the US and Europe for next gen fighter technologies, and states that various trends can be seen like manned/unmanned pairing, high stealth, application of AI, and other aspects that may also see application like lasers, adaptive engines, hypersonic weapons, swarming.
Afterwards, he expects Chinese efforts to develop such a weapon (6th gen fighter) will see a weapon emerge to enter service by 2035 or earlier ("defending the seas and skies").
 
As a replacement for J-20 there's no chance new fighter would come by 2035. That being said, if J-31 doesn't see widespread service in PLAAF, a replacement for J-10 may indeed enter service by 2035, and it's plausible such a plane in such a timeframe might have some features that touch upon the so-called 6th generation plane. But the guy is basically just sharing his own private thoughts/expectations/wishes, most likely.
 
Considering the timetables and fleet age, I can't imagine a 6th gen fighter by 2035 would have the job of replacing J-20s. Even the oldest J-20s by then would only still be under 20 years old.

However by 2035 I imagine large numbers of 4th gen fighters would still need replacing. By 2035 a meaningful number would've been replaced by J-20s, many would've been replaced and still continuing to be replaced by a medium weight fighter that may be FC-31 derived... however there'll likely still be hundreds of 4th gen fighters left.

I imagine those older 4th gen fighters would get transitioned over to existing 5th gen aircraft, while existing 5th gen units would then get transferred to 6th gen.


After all, in terms of years elapsed, the time between J-20 entering service and a PLA 6th gen entering service in 2035 is more than the time between J-10 entering service and J-20 entering service. That said I wouldn't be surprised if the real schedule moved to the right a little or if the initial model of PLA 6th gen is not 100% full spec (like how initial J-20s don't have WS-15).



But considering the Dr Wang's role in doing research and development for next gen fighter applications as stated in the article, I think his schedule is pretty credible. Back in the early 2000s we know a fighter development study was led by Gu Songfen (ex-SAC chief designer among other many other titles) that made some predictions for 5th gen requirements and schedules that turned out fairly accurate for J-20 (http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=7379.msg285086#msg285086)

By the interview I wouldn't be surprised if a similar study has already been well underway for 6th gen for a little while, and that important people involved like Dr Wang would have a grasp of a realistic timeline by now.

I mean, one of his roles as stated in the opening paragraph is "[主持]下一代战斗机研制等多项“十三五”未来发展重点预先研究项目" -- presiding over pre-research for systems related to the next gen fighter aircraft, so his personal opinions should be pretty well informed.
 
Blitzo said:
I mean, one of his roles as stated in the opening paragraph is "[主持]下一代战斗机研制等多项“十三五”未来发展重点预先研究项目" -- presiding over pre-research for systems related to the next gen fighter aircraft, so his personal opinions should be pretty well informed.
Click to expand...

So would the people who built the F-22/F-35/Rafale/Eurofighter. How'd those timelines pan out?
 
sferrin said:
Blitzo said:
I mean, one of his roles as stated in the opening paragraph is "[主持]下一代战斗机研制等多项“十三五”未来发展重点预先研究项目" -- presiding over pre-research for systems related to the next gen fighter aircraft, so his personal opinions should be pretty well informed.
Click to expand...

So would the people who built the F-22/F-35/Rafale/Eurofighter. How'd those timelines pan out?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if things moved to the right. But Totoro was challenging the usefulness of his opinion and I was suggesting that his opinion should be considered rather authoritative and not just a personal view.

And the development of J-20 followed the early projections for a 5th gen fighter done in the 2000s quite closely if that is worth anything. But there are always unforeseen external factors that can't be accounted for.
 
stealthflanker said:
So, do we have real confirmation that J-20 doesn't have gun ?
Click to expand...

So that would mean that the J-20 is the only fifth generation fighter that has been built without a gun as standard.
 
FighterJock said:
stealthflanker said:
So, do we have real confirmation that J-20 doesn't have gun ?
Click to expand...

So that would mean that the J-20 is the only fifth generation fighter that has been built without a gun as standard.
Click to expand...

Well you could sort-of count the F-35B andF-35C with their optional external gun pods only :)
 
stealthflanker said:
So, do we have real confirmation that J-20 doesn't have gun ?
Click to expand...

It was stated by an insider a while back that current J-20s have space for a gun but are yet to be fitted with one. I think it was suggested that a new gun was under development for J-20.

It'll be interesting to see if they bother backfitting guns to current J-20As in future.
 
Blitzo said:
stealthflanker said:
So, do we have real confirmation that J-20 doesn't have gun ?
Click to expand...

It was stated by an insider a while back that current J-20s have space for a gun but are yet to be fitted with one. I think it was suggested that a new gun was under development for J-20.

It'll be interesting to see if they bother backfitting guns to current J-20As in future.
Click to expand...

So what size of gun would they fit to the J-20A 23 mm or 30 mm? I would think that the best option would be 30 mm.
 
If the new gun is high-velocity (case-telescoped for example) with IFFC at least and preferably a guided round...
 
LowObservable said:
If the new gun is high-velocity (case-telescoped for example) with IFFC at least and preferably a guided round...
Click to expand...

Or a more modest and logistically simpler derivative of GsH 30 series of their flankers. It may have longer barrel for better trajectory.
 
Not directly related to J-20 at present but related to next generation powerplants; Liu Yongquan of AECC confirms variable cycle engine development from June last year. Reposting here for a record of it.


Relevant sentence being this

"国内首次完成变循环特有的关键技术整机验证，构建了自适应发动机关键技术体系，取得了自主研发航空发动机技术的重大突破。"
 
If you compare the HUD upfront controller visible in the recent J-20 pics, it seems to be different to the model seen on early J-20, FC-31 and J-10B, much less vertical space taken up, leaving room below for a panoramic F-35 style cockpit display.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom