Photos and analysis of China's J-20 fighter as it nears first flight

[Mike Pryce]

perhaps they acquired ex-Mig personnel

And/or some wind tunnel data for that planform.

Bill Sweetman on AvWeek Ares blog makes the very good point that a delta is not best for stealth (rear edges at 90 degrees).

The conical camber of the wings makes me think it is for air-to-air missions (same feature as F-15 and F-106), but large internal volumes may hint more at strike. So a part stealthy mixed role platform? I am thinking this is more a tech/prestige demo than a real prototype.

 

[Matej]

There has been allot of oft-refuted claims that the JF-17 (also a CAC product) was heavily Mig influenced. It could well be that there are close links between what used to be Mig and CAC- perhaps they acquired ex-Mig personnel.

It depends. Yes, in general, the JF-17 has closer to the MiG than to the anything else. It originated as the J-7, what is in fact licensed copy of the MiG-21. Then there were various modernisation stages as the F-7MG, F-7MF, Super 7, FC-1 and it ended as the current JF-17. China and Pakistan also had the russian "advisers" that were more than willing to use their experience with the izdelije 33 to help them with the overall design and engine integration (and to capitalize their knowledge of course). So the final product is in fact some kind of hybrid of the ideas from Chengdu, PAC, MiG and Grumman. I am currently writing the article about it.

 

[JFC Fuller]

perhaps they acquired ex-Mig personnel

And/or some wind tunnel data for that planform.

Bill Sweetman on AvWeek Ares blog makes the very good point that a delta is not best for stealth (rear edges at 90 degrees).

The conical camber of the wings makes me think it is for air-to-air missions (same feature as F-15 and F-106), but large internal volumes may hint more at strike. So a part stealthy mixed role platform? I am thinking this is more a tech/prestige demo than a real prototype.

I dont get involved in discussions about stealth for one very simple reason, a number of years ago I found myself in a room with some gents in the UK whose job was military aircraft design, it became immediately apparent to me that nobody with anything less than a couple of higher level physics and chemistry degrees + a few decades in the military aerospace industry has anything useful to say on the subject.

The more I look at these pictures, and recall the claimed links between CAC and Mig the more I am sold on the notion of considerable cross pollination.

 

[Matej]

Hm

 

[sublight]

Ricefox....

"Gant, you must think in Mandarin".....

 

[Sundog]

I think what some people are missing is that "Stealth" is a relative term. It's always about the trade-off. How much stealth is enough for the missions? They're obviosuly not seeking all aspect stealth and even with the straight trailing edge, apparently the design meets their specs from the head on aspect. How stealthy is stealthy? Maybe they only want it to be stealthy enough to get within firing range of our carriers?

I would say, looking at this so far, I don't see it being a problem for the USAF or the Raptor. I see it being a problem for the USN. Hopefully the Superhornets or F-35C's will be able to detect it early enough to get a long range shot fired off, because I seriously doubt either one of them would be able to chase it down as it appears to be easily double-sonic.

 

[Matej]

Stealth usually means two things:

1. Move the RCS of the aircraft to the radar's clutter rejection threshold. It means much expensive all-aspect stealth when the aircraft, if detected, appears on the radar as the unnecessary noise (cosmic background, radio and TV transmissions, clouds...).

2. Lowering the RCS of the plane to the level, that it can get near enough to the target to attack it. It means that the aircraft is unable to penetrate the air defence without being positively detected, but it can go close enough to attack the target. For the most missions it is good enough.

 

[Sundog]

Stealth usually means two things:

1. Move the RCS of the aircraft to the radar's clutter rejection threshold. It means much expensive all-aspect stealth when the aircraft, if detected, appears on the radar as the unnecessary noise (cosmic background, radio and TV transmissions, clouds...).

2. Lowering the RCS of the plane to the level, that it can get near enough to the target to attack it. It means that the aircraft is unable to penetrate the air defence without being positively detected, but it can go close enough to attack the target. For the most missions it is good enough.

Indeed, my questions were rhetorical.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I think what some people are missing is that "Stealth" is a relative term.

I dont see that anyone 'missed' that.

 

[Matej]

Indeed, my questions were rhetorical.

I know In my post I just wanted to say that it is not necessary to have all-aspect stealth on every new fighter, because the majority of the missions can be done with the much cheaper and less sophisticated approach in the construction.

 

[Sundog]

perhaps they acquired ex-Mig personnel

And/or some wind tunnel data for that planform.

Bill Sweetman on AvWeek Ares blog makes the very good point that a delta is not best for stealth (rear edges at 90 degrees).

The conical camber of the wings makes me think it is for air-to-air missions (same feature as F-15 and F-106), but large internal volumes may hint more at strike. So a part stealthy mixed role platform? I am thinking this is more a tech/prestige demo than a real prototype.

The conical camber is to take advantage of leading edge suction in cruise, it doesn't really have anything to do with it being a fighter or a strike aircraft.

 

[Deino]

Deino wins teh internetz for this morning.

;D ... but tomorrow I will leave You all for one week !!! :'(

So keep up collecting and posting pictures please :-* like this one, which reminds me of one of the first we've seen from the J-10 ... many moons before !

Deino

 

[Foxglove]

Is it just me or are the pics getting gradually sharper? Somebody here suggested this before, and I'm also beginning to suspect the leaks are controlled: nothing happens by chance under a totalitarian regime.

 

[sublight]

Is it just me or are the pics getting graduallly sharper? Somebody here suggested this before, and I'm also beginning to suspect the leaks are controlled: nothing happens by chance under a totalitarian regime.

Jesus, go take a vacation there and then tell me its a totalitarian regime. Give me a break. I mercilessly ridiculed the police in Tienanmen about mowing down kids with tanks and I didn't get shot, jailed, or even subjected to harsh language. Ooooh those commies are really scary....

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

interesting

 

[LowObservable]

Trollicus Nonfeediam!

Anyone got a copy of Jane's All the World's Chinese Trucks handy?

 

[Foxglove]

Is it just me or are the pics getting graduallly sharper? Somebody here suggested this before, and I'm also beginning to suspect the leaks are controlled: nothing happens by chance under a totalitarian regime.

Jesus, go take a vacation there and then tell me its a totalitarian regime. Give me a break. I mercilessly ridiculed the police in Tienanmen about mowing down kids with tanks and I didn't get shot, jailed, or even subjected to harsh language. Ooooh those commies are really scary....

Well, you probably wouldn't get away with that if you were Chinese. If you spoke English, you might not have been understood, anyway. You can go on holidays to Cuba and have a great time, but try living there: it's a different story. I'll give you that under communism you can live a peaceful, comfortable life, and many do, but try airing dissident views and your life will change dramatically.

 

[Foxglove]

Engines running:

Larger:

http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/attachments/Mon_1012/27_77247_e222486a49b0737.jpg

Looking more and more like MiG 1.44 planform, plus 'stealth' fuselage. Delta wing,

fins on mini wing booms rather than alongside engines etc.

I suppose that refutes the mockup hypothesis, CGI or PS is also quickly becoming unlikely. Gentlemen, I believe that, all things cosidered, we can safely welcome a new, soon-to-be-flown, 5th gen aircraft.

 

[Sundog]

Trollicus Nonfeediam!

Anyone got a copy of Jane's All the World's Chinese Trucks handy?

LOL, I was thinking that or the median height of a Chinaman. I suppose the truck would be the more accurate metric, though. ;D

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I won’t touch the complete lack of understanding of Chinese government and economy being presented in many posts here… But will suggest if anyone wants a basic primer on how China works you should read “The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers” by Richard Mcgregor.

Abe - the F-35 is formally five years behind a 10-year schedule and is already missing targets set in March. If that's your idea of "minor" remind me not to hire you to remodel my kitchen.

Never miss a chance to misrepresent any statement in relation to the F-35... The context of what I was referring to is the SDD phase of the F-35. Overall program delays and cost overruns is a different issue mostly caused by production push backs. Of course there have been delays and overruns in the SDD but they are relatively minor compared to F-22 and the scope of the project.

The key issue is understanding that the complexity associated with 5th generation aircraft places them in a whole different ballpark to legacy projects and even kitchen remodelling. It doesn’t really matter what was the common scheduling practise in the USA, Soviet Union or PRC when it came to developing 4th generation and earlier aircraft.

The advanced and integrated avionics and materials complexity required to make a 5th generation aircraft changes the playing field when it comes to producing a mission ready product. The only way for this new Chinese aircraft and the PAK FA to avoid this burden is if they are NOT 5th generation aircraft. That is they may look kind of stealthy on the outside but just have 4th generation level avionics and materials. Which will mean they are 4th generation aircraft with perhaps tactically significant stealth – so about comparative to a Block 1 Super Hornet in combat effectiveness – and maybe some nice flight performance. However if that is all they’ve got they will not last long against real 5th generation aircraft.

 

[Deino]

Hi Guys ... I'm leaving for the winter holydays with the family for one week ... so, PLEASE keep up an open eye .. collect all the pictures I will miss ... and all the best for next year !

Cheers, Deino

 

[frank]

Well, the more pics of this thing that get posted, the more I'm getting convinced it's real, regardless of how 'pieced together' from an F-22 & Su-47 it may be. I remember when the first shots of the prototype Su-27 surfaced back in '85, it looked just like a fixed wing F-14. I even scratchbuilt one doing just that, putting F-15 wings on an F-14 & modifying the other parts. Seems like even the smaller details questioned are answered, i.e. the single star on the fin, which after seeing that on a J-7 & even the close up of the one on the J-20 showing the little yellow squiggly lines in it. If it's not real, then, like the fictional "F/A-37 Talon" full sized mock-up & the "MiG-31 Firefox" full sized mock-up, either China's doing a movie featuring this full sized mock-up, whatever it may be, or the Photo-Shop gurus are doing a lot of overtime to convince us of the J-20. At the very least, I believe this to be actual hardware, tho it may be a movie mock-up at the very least. I just don't think it's PS stuff any more. As for the MiG-1.44 comparison, I just don't see it, other than a passing resemblence in overall design. It's as much like an F-22 in that aspect. My 2 cents.

 

[Mike Pryce]

perhaps they acquired ex-Mig personnel

And/or some wind tunnel data for that planform.

Bill Sweetman on AvWeek Ares blog makes the very good point that a delta is not best for stealth (rear edges at 90 degrees).

The conical camber of the wings makes me think it is for air-to-air missions (same feature as F-15 and F-106), but large internal volumes may hint more at strike. So a part stealthy mixed role platform? I am thinking this is more a tech/prestige demo than a real prototype.

The conical camber is to take advantage of leading edge suction in cruise, it doesn't really have anything to do with it being a fighter or a strike aircraft.

It depends on the aerofoil section - sharp or bluntish leading edge? On a fairly well swept leading edge (50 degrees plus), which can afford to be fairly rounded rather than sharp and still have good supersonic performance (see X-32 for extreme case!), leading edge suction would be available at speeds up to Mach 1.5ish. Camber could actually reduce l.e. suction in the cruise as it moves the stagnation point closer to the aerofoil nose, rather than below/aft of the aerofoil nose.

However, camber would also help prevent tip stall at high AoA, e.g. in a tight turn. And with the wingtips so far aft on this bird that would ease handling at the stall a lot, which would matter in air combat more than for a 'straight line' bomber. But I guess aerofoil sections/nose profile details will have to wait for better pics - the one of the wing Deino posted either shows either a very thin/sharp edged/heavily cambered wing or the lighting makes it look so.

 

[LowObservable]

Never miss a chance to misrepresent any statement in relation to the F-35... The context of what I was referring to is the SDD phase of the F-35. Overall program delays and cost overruns is a different issue mostly caused by production push backs. Of course there have been delays and overruns in the SDD but they are relatively minor compared to F-22 and the scope of the project.

Originally scheduled USAF IOC, 2011. Today, 2016. In a couple of months, who knows - don't read the critics, read Amy Butler's interview with Ash Carter in AvWeek.

Production pushbacks? What was the delivery schedule in September 2008? Show me where that's been adhered to, or where the customer (Pentagon or Congress) has directed a slippage. What was the September 2009 plan? That is part of SDD, because SDD includes delivering test assets.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. And you have no right to deny facts and then get snippy with people who disagree with you.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Trollicus Nonfeediam!

Anyone got a copy of Jane's All the World's Chinese Trucks handy?

LOL, I was thinking that or the median height of a Chinaman. I suppose the truck would be the more accurate metric, though. ;D

I'm away from my files, but the white truck was pictured with the J-10 in several early pics. Should be an easy way to scale it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think what some people are missing is that "Stealth" is a relative term.

It's also good PR. And it's also easy to figure out the *basics* of "what does a stealth aircraft look like." Not to say that the Chinese couldn't design a perfectly stealthy aircraft, but the fact is that pretty much *any* company today that can design a jet fighter could design a fighter that *looks* stealthy. This thing, after all, looks like someone cribbed aspects of existing stealthy aircraft (especially the front end of an F-22). So long as it can actually fly, and it *looks* stealthy, who's to say just how stealthy it actually is? If someone picks it up on rader... why, it had some temporary corner reflectors on it. If the USAF builds an RCS model of it and shows it has the RCS of Mount Rushmore... why, that's just Western Imperialists makin' stuff up.

If the South Koreans or the Germans or the Japanese had a serious shot at building a stealthy jet, there's no reason in the world to expect that the Chinese - who, after all, have built H-bombs and launched humans into orbit - could not do so. But there's also no reason in the world to expect that the design is a real world-beater in that regard, either.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

These wind tunnel / CFD models were fairly close then...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. And you have no right to deny facts and then get snippy with people who disagree with you.

What I should be reasonably entitled to is to make a rational comment about the complexities of 5th generation aircraft development and not expect the thread to be derailed by anti-F-35 snipers. In the contextual history of development of 5th generation aircraft: B-2, F-22, RAH-66, A-12, MFI, etc the F-35 is way out in front for program slippage and overruns. “Minor” is subjective.

 

[TAKHISS]

rear edges isn't at 90 degrees

 

[donnage99]

Several folks, including myself, made references of this aircraft to the JAST proposals for being canard stealth aircraft. However, upon closer inspection, there are key differences between canards on JAST proposals and J-20.

On JAST proposals, if my memory serves me right, from frontal aspect, the canards are parallel to the wings. They lie on the same horizontal plane as the wings, seemingly blended into the wing trailing edges from head on view. This gives the lowest possible head-on RCS, and also side RCS and above or below as they are positioned in the same angle as the wings from these perspectives.

However, the canards on J-20 are tilted upward and not parallel to the wings, like that of the Typhoon and Rafael. This would created additional RCS spikes, not just in a 2 dimensional sense, but a 3 dimensional sense also.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My impressions are much of the Mikoyan 1.44 layout with many of its glaring errors corrected. Of course, that also makes it a cousin to the HIMAT, in tail configuration.

Vertical and ventral fins are angled to reduce RCS. Ventral intake replaced by side intakes with DSI. Possibly slight forward sweep of wing trailing edge.

Similarities? Entire tail configuration very similar, triangular front fuselage section. Note that the canards are in essentially the same position as on the 1.44, the canard root mountings being made unnecessary by the relocated intakes.

Regarding canards in/out of wing plane - see Northrop NATF for US design with strongly dihedral canards.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Renamed topic.

Some recent size estimates from Chinese forums are 19.2m and 19.5m for length. I don't have access to my files to carry out size analysis myself.

 

[donnage99]

Regarding canards in/out of wing plane - see Northrop NATF for US design with strongly dihedral canards.

Which is done for areodynamics and not for stealth reason, such as on the typhoon and rafael, I believe. Certainly is regrettable and ironic since the yf-23, on shape alone, has the most balanced stealth design.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My point was, it doesn't necessarily preclude stealth to have a canard in a different plane.

 

[LowObservable]

Calling a different LOA based on truckology.

 

[LowObservable]

In the contextual history of development of 5th generation aircraft: B-2, F-22, RAH-66, A-12, MFI, etc the F-35 is way out in front for program slippage and overruns. “Minor” is subjective.

Not really. Five years and counting, and that's with no expansion of flight envelope, or apparent improvements in LO, versus earlier designs, and with stable funding.

As it relates to issues on this thread: doubleplusunsmart to project JSF timelines on to J-20.

 

[TAKHISS]

clear pic

 

[Sundog]

Wow, nice pics, thanks.

 

[rousseau]

The J-20 or what ever you call it seemingly used paratactical bomb bay front and intandem one followed, with out side bomb bay like F-22.
There is a cyst ahead of normal but slightly bevel rectangle inlet makes it much ugly than any fighter ever.
It is surely a large aircraft look like an air-bus with wild magpie tail.

 

[Creative]

Wow, well this is likely to accelerate South Korea's and Japan's programs.