Chengdu J-20 pictures, analysis and speculation Part II

[Blitzo]

Yeah if the requirement was "a twin engine J-10 with an internal weapons bay and it has to look really cool and stealthy" its progress would not be that impressive. I wouldn't count on that however. The level of stealth and avionics requirements will drive the complexity of the design. Its likely that "Block 1" J-20 will have AA modes and AAMs only, which reduces the complexity substantially over the F-35.

Yes, I agree mostly.

A big unknown (well, one of the biggest unknowns among many others) is how ready to go the avionics package of the aircraft is. We can all see the EOIRST, the 360 EO PDS, and we know it has big AESA under its radome and an advanced ESM and ECM system can be safely assumed to be there too. How well all of those sensors work together and have been fused together for the pilot's disposal will play a big part in determining how useful and capable the aircraft will be in the immediate future. Better yet, how ready the datalinks of the aircraft are, to be able to slot with the rest of the new 4+ generation fighters, as well as older 4th generation fighters and AEW&C planes etc and act as a force multiplier, will also be unknown.

 

[totoro]

If they keep this up, they'll be leaving a lot of people in the dust... Just about 5 years since taxi tests. By modern standards this is quick. It would be very interesting to know about their actual capabilities.

So around 5 years and 11 months from first flight to first delivery to air force for j20?
Compared to 5 years and 8 months for first delivery of f-22?

I'd say they're pretty comparable. One could argue about the redesigned j20, flying three years later, but it's not as if that invalidated most of the testing up to that point. Hard to quantify just how much extra development work/testing that redesign required. Still seems comparable to f22, even if development would have been shorter without it by half a year.

 

[latenlazy]

If they keep this up, they'll be leaving a lot of people in the dust... Just about 5 years since taxi tests. By modern standards this is quick. It would be very interesting to know about their actual capabilities.

Things are always easier when you steal the technology without inventing it. Or maybe the Chinese haven't caught up with the West in adding needless beaurocracy to defense programs.

Keep in mind that all you're hearing about is all the successes and none of the failures.

Stealing technology and reverse engineering is never as easy as it sounds, and can be more time consuming than developing technologies from the ground up, especially as the technology becomes more complicated. More often than not a country engages in reverse engineering only if it's so behind technologically that it needs to undergo the process in order to acquire technical know how. There are a lot of reasons why China steals information on US stealth fighters that aren't for the sake of reverse engineering. Sometimes it's to study a solution to assist in the development of their own (which, while extracting benefit from intellectual theft, still involves a lot of independent work), and sometimes it's just good old military espionage to understand what your potential adversaries are using and figure out how to counter them.

That said, wrt to the actual program, we *do* have some anecdotes to go by. Apparently, the reason we saw very little of the J-20 between 2013 and 2014 was because CAC was working to redesign the entire plane from the ground up, from demonstrator to prototype. The internal changes were supposedly extensive enough that, despite outward appearances, the 201X series should be considered a completely different plane from the 200X series. We also have this interview with the mentor of a J-20 test pilot from this year's Zhuhai airshow.

http://news.ifeng.com/mil/junjichu/fenghuangjunjichudi64qi/1.shtml

The original video is above, unfortunately, it is in Chinese and with no subtitle. I will simply translate some bullet points here.

1.J-20's production number will be at least over 100+, it is an aircraft for combat, the air force really wants it, they want it as soon as possible. It will likely enter service sometime in 2017.

2. J-20 program featured unprecedented level of competition involved through biding and overall development, something you never see before in Chinese military development. Its development started more than a decade ago.

3. It is designed for Asia-pacific combat environment, it is specific for China's geopolitical circumstance from now on to foreseeable future.

4. It will be expensive, so air force will unlikely use it only for air superiority. Air to ground and air to sea capabilities are also on the list, but it may take more than one step to achieve. (PS: perhaps first A2A, then later upgrade with better A2G capability?)

5. Original objective for its avionics system is to match that on F-22, but later changed to match F-35 level. Application of early development (similar to F-22's avionics architecture) has been applied to some improved Gen 3 aircraft.

6. J-20's development has not been facing "major problem" so far. But it has some issues, mainly data fusion and how to better transfer it into real combat capability. It is not an engineering issues, youngs kids now know how to write code and make the functionalities happen. Rather, it is a problem from the user end. The air force needs plenty of time and exercises to figure out how to use the platform to its max potential, both in current and future environment. The evaluation process is time consuming, it could take even longer than the actual development of the aircraft itself. The American took more than a decade to figure out how to "use" the Gen 4 fighter in every circumstance, and I doubt they figure it out by now. So we will take at least same amount of time. (PS: hmm, interesting)

7. The chief J20 test pilot who made the maiden flight in 2011 is also one of my "apprentice". After the maiden flight, on the same day, he called me on telephone that flying J20 was such a pleasant experience and that he simply did not want to land the aircraft. 15 mins was simply not enough. I had the chance to get in the cockpit of one early prototype, though I could not fly it, I feel what he said.

The video is in Chinese, so lllchairmanlll from SDF provided a summary. Make what you will of it.

 

[Blitzo]

If they keep this up, they'll be leaving a lot of people in the dust... Just about 5 years since taxi tests. By modern standards this is quick. It would be very interesting to know about their actual capabilities.

So around 5 years and 11 months from first flight to first delivery to air force for j20?
Compared to 5 years and 8 months for first delivery of f-22?

I'd say they're pretty comparable. One could argue about the redesigned j20, flying three years later, but it's not as if that invalidated most of the testing up to that point. Hard to quantify just how much extra development work/testing that redesign required. Still seems comparable to f22, even if development would have been shorter without it by half a year.

Agree to an extent, but I think it would be amiss to not include YF-22.

Also, YF-22 and F-22 all used full standard engines (F119) from the get go to service, whereas it'll still be a few years yet until J-20 starts test flights with WS-15 before entering service with it.

So comparisons with F-22 are worthwhile looking at but far from optimal or direct.

 

[Deino]

Tatatata ....

 

[sferrin]

https://youtu.be/3-1JfX4wWbA

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That is some serious fuel capacity.

 

[Deino]

Indeed ...

 

[FighterJock]

Indeed ...

I hope that they are actual in service fuel tanks and not just ferry tanks.

 

[Deino]

Indeed ...

I hope that they are actual in service fuel tanks and not just ferry tanks.

Not sure; at least this particular aircraft is not an operational bird but a prototype under test at the CFTE.

 

[sferrin]

A shame they were never able to get the four tanks load working on the F-22. :'(

 

[FighterJock]

Indeed ...

I hope that they are actual in service fuel tanks and not just ferry tanks.

Not sure; at least this particular aircraft is not an operational bird but a prototype under test at the CFTE.

No doubt we will hear in the future if the PLAAF goes with this particular load out in the future with it's operational J-20A's.

 

[Airplane]

Indeed ...

I hope that they are actual in service fuel tanks and not just ferry tanks.

Not sure; at least this particular aircraft is not an operational bird but a prototype under test at the CFTE.

No doubt we will hear in the future if the PLAAF goes with this particular load out in the future with it's operational J-20A's.

Why would it need 4 drop tanks for normal load out? Did the ChiComs not find room in the behemoth for fuel storage? Doubtful.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE-INNj_XbU

 

[fightingirish]

Thanks for that link, which shows awesome videos! B)

 

[Deino]

A happy new year 2017 to all !!

 

[Dynoman]

Indeed ...

I hope that they are actual in service fuel tanks and not just ferry tanks.

Not sure; at least this particular aircraft is not an operational bird but a prototype under test at the CFTE.

No doubt we will hear in the future if the PLAAF goes with this particular load out in the future with it's operational J-20A's.

Why would it need 4 drop tanks for normal load out? Did the ChiComs not find room in the behemoth for fuel storage? Doubtful.

From BoobyMike's video regarding the tactical concerns of the J-20, it appears that long range and extended loiter capabilities to target US aerial tankers and other assets (AWACs, active surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, etc.) that allow the US to project its forces deep into mainland China, is a prominent role of the large J-20.

 

[LowObservable]

Indeed, DynoMan, or as someone said six years ago...

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-the-new-generation-fighter-ii.t5429/page-34#post-136073

What the J-20 should do best is go fast, at high altitude, over a decent range - which leads to my guess is that this aircraft is primarily air-to-air, designed to cause the US really big problems with non-survivable air assets - tankers and ISR. Defending them against a rapidly developing attack by aircraft with a reduced frontal RCS would not be easy.

 

[wuguanhui]

Towards the end, Deptula mentioned something about Chinese missiles out-"sticking" US missiles. Anyone have any idea what missile was he referring to?

 

[sferrin]

Towards the end, Deptula mentioned something about Chinese missiles out-"sticking" US missiles. Anyone have any idea what missile was he referring to?

Probably this beast:



A shame long range AAMs are apparently so difficult the US doesn't know how to make them.

 

[Mat Parry]

Popular science (so read with a healthy dose of skepticism).

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Towards the end, Deptula mentioned something about Chinese missiles out-"sticking" US missiles. Anyone have any idea what missile was he referring to?

Probably this beast:



A shame long range AAMs are apparently so difficult the US doesn't know how to make them.

Its more that they haven't seen a need for them to date. This may change.

 

[totoro]

One should also keep in mind that chinese pl-12 family of missiles (pl-15 being part of it?) is noticeably more voluminous, and could thus outrange AMRAAM one day when tech levels of both missiles are near equal.

 

[Deino]

 

[sferrin]

Well that certainly looks familiar. I wonder what build of Lockheed Martin's software they're using.

 

[Airplane]

Towards the end, Deptula mentioned something about Chinese missiles out-"sticking" US missiles. Anyone have any idea what missile was he referring to?

Probably this beast:



A shame long range AAMs are apparently so difficult the US doesn't know how to make them.

Its more that they haven't seen a need for them to date. This may change.

Exactly. If meteor is still going to be modified to fit within the F-35, that would be a huge gain in capability, especially if the US fields that capability into it's fleet.

Is there possibly a secret program underway now to develop a long range AAM? With rumors of the B-21 fielding AAMs, I can't see that happening with the current crop of 120s.

 

[Blitzo]

Well that certainly looks familiar. I wonder what build of Lockheed Martin's software they're using.

Err kind of old news. We identified the EO PDS sites on J-20 years ago...

What we don't know is whether the J-20s system is meant to be anywhere as comprehensive as EO DAS of F-35... Let's face it, 360 EO passive detection systems were always going to be a standard fare for top end fighters as a natural evolution of more limited EO MAWS on previous generations of fighters, and F-35 and J-20 are among the first to field such systems. But whether J-20s system is merely a glorified MAWS vs a full system like EO das or something in between is another matter.

Personally I think trying to match EO DAS capabilities for J-20 in early software blocks is a bit much.

 

[NeilChapman]

That is some serious fuel capacity.

Is the mission profile that you use lots of fuel supersonic to a location where you want to be stealthy. You're there for a couple of minutes then you limp back home?

 

[sferrin]

Err kind of old news. We identified the EO PDS sites on J-20 years ago...

I know. That wasn't my question though. Where they've lifted almost everything wholesale from LM I'm wondering if they're tapping their software development team as well as using the same hardware.

 

[Blitzo]

Err kind of old news. We identified the EO PDS sites on J-20 years ago...

I know. That wasn't my question though. Where they've lifted almost everything wholesale from LM I'm wondering if they're tapping their software development team as well as using the same hardware.

Do you actually believe that though?

The physical similarities between J20 and other fighters have often been used as a reason to suggest the cyber espionage of f22 and f35 have assisted J20 development, but considering how open the US has been with the ATF and JSF programmes, much of the observable physical similarities can just be the result of simply taking pointers from open source photos of F22, F35 etc and using those open source cues to feed into their own development.

This isn't to say cyber espionage may not have assisted in J-20s development, but using mere physical similarities or the mere presence of similar subsystems is a poor way of implying it IMO, because those similarities can and probably were reached through much more obvious means that don't require anything as savvy as hacking lock mart... Like flipping through a military aviation magazine, or sending a photographer to an airshow.

Now, if we are able to somehow get our hands on some sort of internal administrative documents from the PLA which linked the hacked F22 or F35 documents or data with J20 development, then that would be another matter...

 

[sferrin]

Now, if we are able to somehow get our hands on some sort of internal administrative documents from the PLA which linked the hacked F22 or F35 documents or data with J20 development, then that would be another matter...

I hope you don't think that just because we don't have notarize documentation that it means it's unpossible. Do I think those sensors on the J-20 say "Northrop Grumman" on the inside? Of course not. But one would have to be a fool to think China hasn't been able to take a peek via cyber espionage. The fact they've been able to cut development time in less than half speaks volumes.

Cyber security in the US:

 

[Blitzo]

I hope you don't think that just because we don't have notarize documentation that it means it's unpossible.

Of course I don't think that.

However, I am saying that the lack of any sort of definitive ties means we shouldn't make the default assumption that the similar design features or subsystems are necessarily the result of espionage... rather than less insidious means such as convergence of form due to similar requirements, or taking cues from open sources photos, etc.
i.e.: the lack of notarized documentation or other evidence for more definitive ties means there's no reason to think it's "likely" (vs "unlikely" vs "possible")


As for US cybersecurity -- if it makes you feel any better, I think China's probably isn't that much better.

 

[NeilChapman]

I hope you don't think that just because we don't have notarize documentation that it means it's unpossible.

Of course I don't think that.

However, I am saying that the lack of any sort of definitive ties means we shouldn't make the default assumption that the similar design features or subsystems are necessarily the result of espionage... rather than less insidious means such as convergence of form due to similar requirements, or taking cues from open sources photos, etc.
i.e.: the lack of notarized documentation or other evidence for more definitive ties means there's no reason to think it's "likely" (vs "unlikely" vs "possible")


As for US cybersecurity -- if it makes you feel any better, I think China's probably isn't that much better.

You ever work on a French cars? Panhard, Citroën? That's the difference you get when systems are developed independently.

 

[Blitzo]

You ever work on a French cars? Panhard, Citroën? That's the difference you get when systems are developed independently.

Well, J-20 obviously wasn't developed independently -- the US thankfully gave China (and the world) a lot to work with by providing such excellent updates and disclosures for the types of systems and capabilities that F-22 and F-35 were meant to field, as well as many libraries worth of pictures of both aircraft as well. It goes without saying the Chinese Air Force would've used all of that lovely existing, publicly available information to develop some of their own requirements for their own stealth fighter, and 611 would've taken a significant amount of cues from the physical form of F-22 and F-35 as well to help inform principles and R&D for their own aircraft (form is especially important for fighters with rf VLO of course).

That's the problem with the logic I see for people trying to argue that F-35 or F-22 were compromised merely because J-20 fields similar design features -- virtually all of the similarities that are described are features that could have been cued through a few hours of not so intensive research, and are not things that one needs to do cyber espionage to realize that having that feature might be a good idea.


OTOH, if we have any proof of similarities in features or production process that irrefutably could only have been the result of espionage (such as identical lines of code, or a copy+paste of distinct lockmart production line features), then that would be a much stronger base to argue from.

But as it is, saying J-20's canopy looks the same as F-22s and it has a similar looking EO IRST and 360 EO PDS to F-35 doesn't really cut it imo.

 

[kaiserbill]

Elsewhere on the web...it seems that there is celebration that it is the 6th anniversary of the J-20 first flight...with the first production units already flying/possibly entering initial/squadron service/testing.
A very impressive rate of development.

 

[Deino]

with the first production units already flying/possibly entering initial/squadron service/testing.

Indeed ... they were handed over in late 2016 !

 

[sferrin]

Discussion of the fact that much of the knowledge that went into the J-20 was lifted directly from other sources is completely legitimate in an "analysis and speculation" thread on the J-20.

 

[latenlazy]

Mods...can't we quarantine this nonsense in THAT thread in the Bar please?
The Chinese Type 052 Destroyer thread below in the Naval forum has been similarly hijacked and has now been steered toward the US Coast Guard and the Zumwalt Class and US navy funding and US politics as is per usual.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26914.0.html

And it is certainly not the only one.

It makes it extremely hard and frustrating for the rest of the forum members who have no personal axe to grind, nor are interested in internal politics from another country to actually follow what the thread is actually about. Much less contribute to it as a result.
There are many posters who have expressed growing disquiet at the various thread hijacks....and are not interested in "driveby shooting" remarks about "they stole our paint" and "they stole our (insert current issue here)".

Reported. Discussion of the fact that much of the knowledge that went into the J-20 was lifted directly from other sources is completely legitimate in an "analysis and speculation" thread on the J-20.

Is that really "fact" though? The timing of the breaches don't comport very well the idea that *much* of the knowledge was lifted from "other sources". There's a whole lot of conjecture in the claim that would need to be qualified before anyone could reasonably stamp it as "fact".

 

[sferrin]

Mods...can't we quarantine this nonsense in THAT thread in the Bar please?
The Chinese Type 052 Destroyer thread below in the Naval forum has been similarly hijacked and has now been steered toward the US Coast Guard and the Zumwalt Class and US navy funding and US politics as is per usual.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26914.0.html

And it is certainly not the only one.

It makes it extremely hard and frustrating for the rest of the forum members who have no personal axe to grind, nor are interested in internal politics from another country to actually follow what the thread is actually about. Much less contribute to it as a result.
There are many posters who have expressed growing disquiet at the various thread hijacks....and are not interested in "driveby shooting" remarks about "they stole our paint" and "they stole our (insert current issue here)".

Reported. Discussion of the fact that much of the knowledge that went into the J-20 was lifted directly from other sources is completely legitimate in an "analysis and speculation" thread on the J-20.

Is that really "fact" though? The timing of the breaches don't comport very well the idea that *much* of the knowledge was lifted from "other sources". There's a whole lot of conjecture in the claim that would need to be qualified before anyone could reasonably stamp it as "fact".

The only "timing of breaches" ever published would be the ones we actually know about and were released to the public. The likelihood that includes 100% of all breaches is approximately zilch. One only need look at details of the aircraft, look at what they've done in such a short amount of time, to see they got help from somewhere. The Russian experience with the T-50 and it's design features are more what one would expect from a country that didn't have first hand information to work with.

edit: "notion" would be more along the lines of my intent rather than "fact".

 

[Arjen]

It is notoriously difficult to prove the non- existence of things, be they security breaches, the F-19 or the Loch Ness monster.

You have conjecture. That's it. There may be something there. And maybe not.