Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

Any official news that it is the WS-15 engine on the 2055 J-20 prototype? If it is then the PLAAF will have the engine that they have always wanted to power the J-20.
 
FighterJock said:
Any official news that it is the WS-15 engine on the 2055 J-20 prototype? If it is then the PLAAF will have the engine that they have always wanted to power the J-20.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure and akin to the first two prototypes we won’t get any official confirmation… so day we’ll see them in operational grey with serial numbers and then we know it is ready. Best IMO to hope for are some news and clear images at the Zhuhai airshow in November.
 
FighterJock said:
Any official news that it is the WS-15 engine on the 2055 J-20 prototype? If it is then the PLAAF will have the engine that they have always wanted to power the J-20.
Click to expand...

Well, two WS-15s powered prototype 2052 when it first flew mid 2023 last year (though of course not "officially confirmed" as this kind of news never is), so that milestone was achieved nine months ago.

The pictures aren't quite optimal, but it looks like prototype 2055 is similar to 2052 in terms of engine nozzle geometry, and it would make sense that further prototypes of J-20A would continue to be powered by WS-15s.
 
Interesting Deino, pity the aircraft number was not visible for proper identification. No doubt sombody will release a better photo with the identification number visible in due course.
 
First time that I have seen a J-20 with twin WS-15 engines, I take it that the engine is nearly ready for full scale production? :cool:
 
So how many WS-15s will be produced before the engine enters production? And will all the J-20As that are currently in service get the engine as a block upgrade? Or will it only be fitted to the newer J-20s? I guess I have a lot of questions about this new engine.
 
FighterJock said:
First time that I have seen a J-20 with twin WS-15 engines, I take it that the engine is nearly ready for full scale production? :cool:
Click to expand...

The first J-20 with twin WS-15s was serial 2052 from June last 2023, for those keeping tabs, it was posted here:



FighterJock said:
So how many WS-15s will be produced before the engine enters production? And will all the J-20As that are currently in service get the engine as a block upgrade? Or will it only be fitted to the newer J-20s? I guess I have a lot of questions about this new engine.
Click to expand...

So regarding current nomenclature:
"J-20" refers to the existing in production variants powered by WS-10s (and very early initially by Al-31s for a batch or two)
"J-20A" refers to the new variant with the external differences being the revised dorsal hump, the beaked radome, and the WS-15s (though the first J-20A prototype serial 2051 was apparently fitted with WS-10s, but all other prototypes since then seem to be WS-15s)

I personally suspect WS-15s will only be fitted to J-20A airframes (the differences between J-20A and J-20 being more than merely what is external).
 
So what will happen to the J-20As that only have the WS-10s fitted will they be scrapped or find their way into museums after having all the RAM removed.
 
FighterJock said:
So what will happen to the J-20As that only have the WS-10s fitted will they be scrapped or find their way into museums after having all the RAM removed.
Click to expand...


Why retiring and even more scrapping almost 300 more modern J-20s - even if still powered by two WS-10C engines - when there are still several unit flying J-7, J-8 and old Flankers?
 
J-20A prototype number 2053 is finally confirmed with a clearer image!

The modified version is via Huitong's CMA-Blog.

(Image via @齐天的孙猴子 from Weibo)

J-20 no. 2053 - 齐天的孙猴子.jpg J-20A no. 2053.jpg
 
Deino said:
Why retiring and even more scrapping almost 300 more modern J-20s - even if still powered by two WS-10C engines - when there are still several unit flying J-7, J-8 and old Flankers?
Click to expand...
300 (and counting)? Damn, makes me all warm and fuzzy that we cancelled the F-22 so early.
 
sferrin said:
300 (and counting)? Damn, makes me all warm and fuzzy that we cancelled the F-22 so early.
Click to expand...
Yeah they really ramped up the production 2-3 years ago as in response to the US' F-35 buying spree... As an example, they probably will procure more stealth jets this year than the US. Acc. to our estimates, the annual production rate for this year sits around ~90 units (85>x>10?)
 
snne said:
Yeah they really ramped up the production 2-3 years ago as in response to the US' F-35 buying spree... As an example, they probably will procure more stealth jets this year than the US. Acc. to our estimates, the annual production rate for this year sits around ~90 units (85>x>10?)
Click to expand...

It is a little hard to calculate US production given that they are all being sent to a parking lot, but it seems likely F-35 production drops this year due to lack of space if nothing else.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems much more like an interceptor or fighter bomber. A gun seems a bit superfluous in those roles. I wouldn’t expect an F-111 to put down suppressing fire or an f-14 to gun down an opposing fighter, even though technically the latter was capable of it. But in an era of 180 degree 60G AAMs you have to wonder if there are going to be dogfights that take more than a half turn to resolve.
Click to expand...
The F-35A mounts external AIM-9X. For a capability which _requires them_ to enter into potential threat SAM WEZ with radars all around them, meaning just being there, never mind any yankin' and bankin', simply flashes everything to everyone in Full Monte stupid mode.

Because Americans, I'm pretty well convinced, are stupid.

Now, ask yourself what happens when your PL-17 turns out to be a 700km++ ranged weapon in the same way that the 100km ranged Patriot has morphed into a 300km SASR?

Will an E-2/3/7 see a J-20, head-on, in time or at all, sufficient to turn F-22s, available in tiny, diminishing, numbers from their forward placed BARCAP orbits to engage the WS-15 powered J-20, motoring along at Mach 2 and 70,000ft?

This is where fuel, drag and signature cross the tactical utility threshold line. Not some 'three circles at full power' fight condition in a HOB missile vs. first guns opportunity world.

I am reminded of a story about John Boyd, pioneer of EM theory and all round 'Nobody can stay on my six for more than 10 seconds or a 100 dollar bill is theirs to own...'

Some crayon eater (USMC Steve Canyon) thought he was good enough to grab that Benjamin from The Master's twitching fist and came looking for a fight. Challenge accepted, six engagements worth of face shot at 6nm later and "What the hell was that?! Is there no honor in the USAF?" at the o'club bar.

To which the response was total Cool Hand Luked: "Honor down, Kill Ratio Up, You Lose!"

The world Boyd was speaking to lived in an ALASCA age (albeit SARH at the time) and this would go on to be proven in Vietnam where a combination of stupid, inflexible, tactical formations (Fluid Four, Lead Only Shooter) and the weight/drag/scatter of the SUU-16/23 meant that nobody, when asked, wanted a gun more than the equivalent weight in fuel or working missiles.

Meaning the Old Man knew that the time of proving something, gunzo, was done.

Today, almost 50 years later, if we wanted to design something to pop a canopy like a pimple, we would do so with a laser or an MSDM type weapon, probably similar to a SRAAM/Tail Dog, at scale for a 1-1.5nm engagement. And you would only accept even that much of a system penalty if it was already on the jet, as a last chance 'no chaff, no jaff, no TRD, no problem!' buckler for inbound threat missiles.

Why do you think a UOR was written up for 'stealth tanks and IRST on the rapid!' if the J-20 was not found to be a credible Tanker/ISR/BMC2 killer which could _out range_ the AMRAAM equipped F-22?

It certainly was not an artifact of the PL-15. That missile is a Sparrow class, 500lb, weapon with likely a very real 145km range advantage (compared to a believable 90km AIM-120D3 equivalent, no brochure nonsense...).

Which means your APG-77 is detecting that stealth jet at compatible distances.

Until suddenly it's not.

What changed? HALE based AEW&C as Divine/Soaring Eagles with multi-aperture UHF radar and BTH ranges of over 1,000km for one. The Dragons don't have to detect the Raptors to steer around them. They just have to accept picture data from an asset tracking it's own, opposite number, from many times as far. Assuming onboard systems cannot ALR-94 do so.

No, an LRM pole suddenly becomes a VLM or even ULM as a 'killer of lighthouses' shining all manner of LINK-16, MADL, and other assorted JTRS datalink noise as well as this giant Sauron's Eye primary sensor aperture.

In theory, you could even take this as far as a radar (Luditance) or optical (Teal Ruby) SATWACS cuer as the equivalent to our SBIRS/HBTSS network. At that point, with a decent FPA imager, you can hunt B-21s from beyond AGM-158B2 (JASSM-XR) release points.

And suddenly the F-22 needs both a longwave IRST that can see high-fast targets at ranges beyond the APG-77's ability to tag them and enough gas to cut off the threat before it can sling torpedo spreads of these mega missiles from beyond the range of the Sentry or Wedgetail to even see the launch wickedly coming their way.

AIM-260, which is also likely just a repackaged, Sparrow class, kinematic (8", 500lbs) in a compatible-with-AMRAAM carriage box (strakes not wings), using late model EOM midcourse to do 'steering outcomes based on friction ratios under reduced gravity loads' (microgravity zones at high altitudes may be more common than is admitted) to gain considerable kinematic efficiencies, can likely make up for some but not all of this.

Again, especially if the only threats which are easily spotted at these distances are either RF searchlight equivalents. Or very hot, very fast, supercruising, missileers, designed to engage those HVAA targets at 1,000km.

And suddenly, you have to start wondering what those massive side gondolas on the AARGM-ER really do/mean...

Again, my own take is that we've known how vulnerable AEW&C are to stealth attack for quite awhile, and thus Ukraine and the A-50s is not a surprise but a planned outcome.

Similarly, the PL-17 should not be shocking, in and of itself. What is important here is that the Chinese, like the Russians, are not lost in WWII Glory Daze and thus tend to kill carriers and airbases with ASCM/ASBM as Really Big Missiles. Certainly, that is what they are going to use to wipe out Taiwan's ADGE and ROCAF, on the ground.

So they don't should not give a damn about AWACS as some kind of all-seeing, vectoring, BMC2 platform. Because BMD/CMD is more about location of the defensive HiMADS site relative to the ground track or target footprint which itself may only be 2-3nm across. Go ahead and see those DF-11/15/16/21C/CH-191/CJ-10/CJ-20 coming. Between saturation numbers and kinematic offsets, having an eye in the sky is unimportant.

Yet, in a world where they divide A2AD up their own (ICD) defensive engagement zones as outer: ballistics, middle: bombers/subs, and inner: coastal ASCM batteries; they may worry about OUR ability to penetrate with intelligent ALCM that can plink-plink their battery sites.

UHF multi-static HALE radars, cuing for ULM interceptors, launched from beyond detection range by...anyone really, could be an answer to that. Especially if USAF platforms like the B-21 are not nearly as topside = hotside invisible as they would like to have you believe.

Dumb people invest in stupid ideas. And the Chinese, who are not dumb, would not be spending money looking at very or ultra longrange AAMs and high thermal cycle efficiency engines to enable supercruise in the Mach 2 @ U-2 heights if they didn't think they could get something from it.
 
LEG said:
The F-35A mounts external AIM-9X. For a capability which _requires them_ to enter into potential threat SAM WEZ with radars all around them, meaning just being there, never mind any yankin' and bankin', simply flashes everything to everyone in Full Monte stupid mode.

Because Americans, I'm pretty well convinced, are stupid.

Now, ask yourself what happens when your PL-17 turns out to be a 700km++ ranged weapon in the same way that the 100km ranged Patriot has morphed into a 300km SASR?

Will an E-2/3/7 see a J-20, head-on, in time or at all, sufficient to turn F-22s, available in tiny, diminishing, numbers from their forward placed BARCAP orbits to engage the WS-15 powered J-20, motoring along at Mach 2 and 70,000ft?

This is where fuel, drag and signature cross the tactical utility threshold line. Not some 'three circles at full power' fight condition in a HOB missile vs. first guns opportunity world.

I am reminded of a story about John Boyd, pioneer of EM theory and all round 'Nobody can stay on my six for more than 10 seconds or a 100 dollar bill is theirs to own...'

Some crayon eater (USMC Steve Canyon) thought he was good enough to grab that Benjamin from The Master's twitching fist and came looking for a fight. Challenge accepted, six engagements worth of face shot at 6nm later and "What the hell was that?! Is there no honor in the USAF?" at the o'club bar.

To which the response was total Cool Hand Luked: "Honor down, Kill Ratio Up, You Lose!"

The world Boyd was speaking to lived in an ALASCA age (albeit SARH at the time) and this would go on to be proven in Vietnam where a combination of stupid, inflexible, tactical formations (Fluid Four, Lead Only Shooter) and the weight/drag/scatter of the SUU-16/23 meant that nobody, when asked, wanted a gun more than the equivalent weight in fuel or working missiles.

Meaning the Old Man knew that the time of proving something, gunzo, was done.

Today, almost 50 years later, if we wanted to design something to pop a canopy like a pimple, we would do so with a laser or an MSDM type weapon, probably similar to a SRAAM/Tail Dog, at scale for a 1-1.5nm engagement. And you would only accept even that much of a system penalty if it was already on the jet, as a last chance 'no chaff, no jaff, no TRD, no problem!' buckler for inbound threat missiles.

Why do you think a UOR was written up for 'stealth tanks and IRST on the rapid!' if the J-20 was not found to be a credible Tanker/ISR/BMC2 killer which could _out range_ the AMRAAM equipped F-22?

It certainly was not an artifact of the PL-15. That missile is a Sparrow class, 500lb, weapon with likely a very real 145km range advantage (compared to a believable 90km AIM-120D3 equivalent, no brochure nonsense...).

Which means your APG-77 is detecting that stealth jet at compatible distances.

Until suddenly it's not.

What changed? HALE based AEW&C as Divine/Soaring Eagles with multi-aperture UHF radar and BTH ranges of over 1,000km for one. The Dragons don't have to detect the Raptors to steer around them. They just have to accept picture data from an asset tracking it's own, opposite number, from many times as far. Assuming onboard systems cannot ALR-94 do so.

No, an LRM pole suddenly becomes a VLM or even ULM as a 'killer of lighthouses' shining all manner of LINK-16, MADL, and other assorted JTRS datalink noise as well as this giant Sauron's Eye primary sensor aperture.

In theory, you could even take this as far as a radar (Luditance) or optical (Teal Ruby) SATWACS cuer as the equivalent to our SBIRS/HBTSS network. At that point, with a decent FPA imager, you can hunt B-21s from beyond AGM-158B2 (JASSM-XR) release points.

And suddenly the F-22 needs both a longwave IRST that can see high-fast targets at ranges beyond the APG-77's ability to tag them and enough gas to cut off the threat before it can sling torpedo spreads of these mega missiles from beyond the range of the Sentry or Wedgetail to even see the launch wickedly coming their way.

AIM-260, which is also likely just a repackaged, Sparrow class, kinematic (8", 500lbs) in a compatible-with-AMRAAM carriage box (strakes not wings), using late model EOM midcourse to do 'steering outcomes based on friction ratios under reduced gravity loads' (microgravity zones at high altitudes may be more common than is admitted) to gain considerable kinematic efficiencies, can likely make up for some but not all of this.

Again, especially if the only threats which are easily spotted at these distances are either RF searchlight equivalents. Or very hot, very fast, supercruising, missileers, designed to engage those HVAA targets at 1,000km.

And suddenly, you have to start wondering what those massive side gondolas on the AARGM-ER really do/mean...

Again, my own take is that we've known how vulnerable AEW&C are to stealth attack for quite awhile, and thus Ukraine and the A-50s is not a surprise but a planned outcome.

Similarly, the PL-17 should not be shocking, in and of itself. What is important here is that the Chinese, like the Russians, are not lost in WWII Glory Daze and thus tend to kill carriers and airbases with ASCM/ASBM as Really Big Missiles. Certainly, that is what they are going to use to wipe out Taiwan's ADGE and ROCAF, on the ground.

So they don't should not give a damn about AWACS as some kind of all-seeing, vectoring, BMC2 platform. Because BMD/CMD is more about location of the defensive HiMADS site relative to the ground track or target footprint which itself may only be 2-3nm across. Go ahead and see those DF-11/15/16/21C/CH-191/CJ-10/CJ-20 coming. Between saturation numbers and kinematic offsets, having an eye in the sky is unimportant.

Yet, in a world where they divide A2AD up their own (ICD) defensive engagement zones as outer: ballistics, middle: bombers/subs, and inner: coastal ASCM batteries; they may worry about OUR ability to penetrate with intelligent ALCM that can plink-plink their battery sites.

UHF multi-static HALE radars, cuing for ULM interceptors, launched from beyond detection range by...anyone really, could be an answer to that. Especially if USAF platforms like the B-21 are not nearly as topside = hotside invisible as they would like to have you believe.

Dumb people invest in stupid ideas. And the Chinese, who are not dumb, would not be spending money looking at very or ultra longrange AAMs and high thermal cycle efficiency engines to enable supercruise in the Mach 2 @ U-2 heights if they didn't think they could get something from it.
Click to expand...
That's quite the fantasy you've got there.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom