Chengdu J-20 Stealth Fighter

J-20 should go to a new thread.

btw that thing looks hudge and fat. I will be interesting to see its abilities as a fighter/striker.

Rest assured that that this isn't any Fake news>>


Bill Sweetman from Aviation Weeks made some intresting points

He thinks The JXX is almost as Big as F111 strike aircraft from the 1970s. JXX could be a long range strike plane rather than fighter

The size is estimated at 75ft long far larger than both F22 & T50

He also states This maynot be a genuine prototype and just a tech demonstrator like the (YF23) so could be some massive changes yet.

The engine is stil russian powered and there is news that the chinease are haviing to rely on russian engines for all current fighters including J10 & J11B as well as JXX testing.

Anyways here the 2 page analysis
China's J-20 Stealth Fighter In Taxi Tests | AVIATION WEEK


...& yes the Chinese have something that they have been developing; albeit in a very clandestine way!! The cockpit sure looks a lot like F-22 & the rear engines like SU-47!!

The F22 is a smooth bulky design showing clearly the US approach in design principles, the F 35 is following along the same path, with a few compromises.
The J-20 s nose and front section could have easily been made in the US, the plane is smooth, and bar the canards and the stabiliser fins it looks like it could have been an american design.

The T-50 however, has a wide body, separated engines, possible visibility of the compressor blades, huge wings, TVC with round nozzles, tail boom, and two !! IRST pods and two piece canopy, which even if it does not contribute to RCS, it takes some of the visibility away from the pilot.. not to mention the all moving lerx ..

it is a different design.

Here we go ladies and gentlemen.........a true 'Stealth fighter' for the third world market is born! That boxy fuselage reminds me of the hideous Boeing JSF contender cross bred with the forward fuselage section of the equally hideous Mig-1.44.

China having problems copying the Al-31F, and not having a suitable radar even in the range of the Bars or Kopyo...can't even make the 30 year old RD-33/98........and here we have them starting to pump out these ching chong stealth fighter?

I mean photocopying is going outta style here folks......so lets just try our luck at a 5th Gen. warplane?

Here is some taxi footage

Austin wrote:Air Power Australia

What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Assessing the Impact of Exponential Growth Laws on Future Combat Aircraft Design

THAT is not a reliable source every one knows that kropp is pissed because his country did not get the F-22.

Ogannisyan8887 wrote:

Austin wrote:Air Power Australia

What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Assessing the Impact of Exponential Growth Laws on Future Combat Aircraft Design

THAT is not a reliable source every one knows that kropp is pissed because his country did not get the F-22.

Never mind that, I think his arguments are valid.

Gates warns over Chinese stealth aircraft

Gates, US defence secretary, said Washington is concerned at Beijing’s development of a new stealth aircraft and long range anti-ship missiles, sounding a warning note at the start of a long awaited trip to China.

Speaking as he flew to Beijing on a visit intended to bolster relations Mr Gates also acknowledged that US intelligence had failed fully to anticipate China’s development of the new J-20 aircraft, photos of which appeared on the internet last week.

“We knew they were working on a stealth aircraft,” he told press travelling with him. “What we’ve seen is that they may be somewhat further ahead in the development of that stealth aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted.”

Noting that he had been concerned about China’s development of anti-ship missiles “ever since I took this job” he added, referring to both technologies: “They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk and we have to pay attention to them; we have to respond appropriately with our own programmes.”

Mystery surrounds Chinese stealth fighter
When around Christmas pictures started appearing of a previously unknown Chinese fighter jet, they triggered a lively debate among military enthusiasts and aviation experts around the world, writes Kathrin Hille in Beijing. Did the nose resemble that of the F-22, the American stealth fighter? Was the rear a copy of Northrop Grumman’s Black Widow or did it look more like a MiG?
The interest is understandable. The photos and videos give first indications of how far China has come on its first stealth fighter, a programme it has been working on for more than ten years. According to US military officials and defence analysts, it is likely to take another ten years until it gains the potential to become a threat.
What the test footage shows is that the 611 Institute in Chengdu, the defence technology group leading the project, has managed to build a hull with stealth characteristics, borrowing heavily from US as well as Russian models.
“But they lack a suitable engine,” says Tai Ming Cheung, an expert on Chinese defence technology at the University of California, San Diego. “Judging from the development cycle of their earlier fighter, the J-10, it will be another eight to ten years until this aircraft can fly.”
He points out that China still lags far behind the US and Russia in both shipbuilding and even more in aviation.
Nevertheless some see the leaked pictures as a message to Robert Gates, the US defence secretary who is visiting China from Sunday. The US has long called for more transparency from China on its weapons programmes. Now Beijing has granted at least a peek through the fence.
Some US analysts fear China’s development of such technologies may help it displace Washington’s influence in the Pacific, bolster its claims over the South China Sea and make it more difficult for the US to defend Taiwan.

The Pentagon chief’s visit to China – his first for over three years – is intended to improve the two countries’ military relations, particularly over issues such as missile defence, nuclear policy and cyber security, ahead of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s trip to Washington starting on January 18.

“My hope is through the strategic dialogue that I’m talking about maybe the need for some of these capabilities is reduced,” Mr Gates said. “A positive, constructive, comprehensive relationship between the US and China is not just in the mutual interest of the two countries; it is in the interest of everybody in the region and I would say across the globe.”

But military ties have been repeatedly cut off by Beijing in the wake of US arms sales to Taiwan and Mr Gates acknowledged that serious discussion of policy and strategy had barely begun.

Mr Gates emphasised that even as the Pentagon was cutting back its spending plans by $78bn over five years, it was prioritising dealing with “some of these anti access programmes” – China’s efforts to impede US access in a possible conflict over Taiwan.

Last week, he said the US would speed up its development of new electronic jammers “to improve the ability to fight and survive in an anti-access environment”.

Military officials also stress development of a new long range, nuclear capable bomber, modernised radars for the F15 fighter jet, a launch vehicle to ensure the US can send satellites into space and new seaborne drone aircraft.

But Mr Gates also sought to put China’s developing capabilities in context, noting that the US would retain an overwhelming advantage in so-called fifth generation aircraft in 2020-2025 and suggesting there was “some question about just how stealthy” China’s new aircraft was.

Adm Robert Willard, the commander of US forces in the Pacific recently said China’s anti-ship ballistic missile, which has a range of more than 1,500km, was now operational. But other US officials have downplayed those claims and Mr Gates also sounded a note of doubt: “I think they are fairly far along, but whether it has actually reached initial operational capability or not, I just don’t know


Looks like Gates finally admits he was wrong.

The J-20 SUCCESSFULLY conducts first flight!!
Pilot's name is Li Gang





Very sexy silhouette.

It has Al-31s there, but WS-10s for its flight video... weird.

Some Chinese fan boys from another Defense forum said that there are in fact 2 Prototypes of the J-20, one with Al-31s and another with WS-10s.

Viktor wrote:

Never mind that, I think his arguments are valid.

Considering it is nothing but a tech demonstrator, it doesn't mean much of anything as APA suggests.

Some Chinese fan boys from another Defense forum said that there are in fact 2 Prototypes of the J-20, one with Al-31s and another with WS-10s.

Would certainly make sense to test both engines.

Of course the real issue will be weapons.

...to be a stealth fighter the J-20 will need weapons that can be stored and fired from internal bays.

ARH AAMs are not a big problem... the R-77 was designed from the outset for the rear grid fins to fold forward and for the launch rail it is launched from the catapault the weapon downwards 3-5m before the engine starts up so it is clear of the aircraft when it speeds off to the target. It also has a datalink and can be fired to fly to an intercept point and discover its target after launch.

The problem is the IR short range guided missiles as most earlier missiles needed a lock on before launch and the FOV from inside a weapon bay is too restricted for a lock on before launch weapon like R-73 or R-60 to be used.

Hense the development of the 9M100 missile that is going to be their universal short range missile. It is going to be used on the T-50 and Su-35 and Mig-35, on the ground as part of the Vityaz system (as a 10km range IIR guided SAM) and as a Naval weapon also as part of the Naval Vityaz system where it will be the Russian equivelent of Sea RAM.
It would be like the US used AIM-9X in aircraft, and replaced Chapparal with AIM-9X and of course used AIM-9X instead of SEA RAM as a replacement for Phalanx.

Of course I think the Russian Navy will not replace the Kashtan-M completely with 9M100... I think they will also use a stealthy version of the Duet twin AK-630 and also on some vessels will use a 57mm stealthy gun system with laser directed shells to also deal with large scale attacks.

Why replace Kashtan-M? It isn't stealthy.

There should be lots of savings in using unified missile systems across all the services too... they have already standardised on the 30 x 165mm shell.

See the warplane profiles.J-20 do have some large canards!!



Closer look at landing gears


It has one-piece canopy; T-50 has two piece if I recall correctly

As Legendary Aerospacee engineer Kelly Johnson said:" if it looks good, it flies good."
I think J-20 got the best looking out of all the stealth fighters. Gotta fly good as well.

^^Look at the air-intakes; unlike T-50/F-22 they are not below LERX & are DSI intakes

he is the chief designer of JF-17,J-10AS and J-20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Wei_(aircraft_designer)

Song Wencong is chief designer of J-10A


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Wencong

nightcrawler wrote:See the warplane profiles.J-20 do have some large canards!!

Large canards mean high drag and increased RCS. It is not conducive to stealth or super cruise... at all.

It has one-piece canopy; T-50 has two piece if I recall correctly

Called bubble canopy, it is stealthier than a two piece.

As Legendary Aerospacee engineer Kelly Johnson said:" if it looks good, it flies good."
I think J-20 got the best looking out of all the stealth fighters. Gotta fly good as well.

If it looks like it flies like a brick and actually lands like a brick, it probably is a brick.

- Vladimir79 RMF

@Garry
your speculations are right. Two models were tested

Interesting that China still does not have full faith in its WS-10As.

Vladimir79 wrote:Interesting that China still does not have full faith in its WS-10As.

China has tested its WS-10 engine as the image dictates; but yes its not that trustworthy!!
Regarding the canopy RCS relationship; this is the best answer I got. Sorry its from another forum; but its informative

I know very well bubble canopies have less RCS. The answ3r is simple. There is no metal.

The problem is that when a canopy has a front frame you can make the front piece of transparency thick to withstand the impact of a bird while the rest of the canopy can be made thinner and easier to see through.
With a one piece bubble it all must be thick and is therefore less transparent.

To reduce RCS a very very thin layer of gold is often added that absorbs radio waves and converts it into a very minor heat increase.

That is why some canopy's seem to have a gold tint.

Regarding engine nozzle_
As you can see the saw-toothed edges on the nozzle of F-35; these are absent in both T-50&J-20

Saw tooth engine nozzle doesn't mean shit. It is just another Iris nozzle. J-20 uses either AL-31Fs or WS-10As. Both engines are inferior to item 117S. WS-10A is inferior in acceleration due to its inferior nozzle.

I would say neither the T-50 or the J-20 have sawtooth engine exhaust petals because they are not flying with their final operational engines... though the T-50 might start service with that engine because it is not just a warmed over Al-31.

We know that the rear end of the T-50 will be reworked and that the current setup is temporary... and that there are plans for new nozzle options that for the moment are not ready. They have a lot of things to get right and doing everything at once introduces problems.

Giving it a proven layout for the rear (similar to the Flanker) they are reducing problem variables to make isolating problems simpler and easier. For instance the IRST is clearly not actually fitted and the stand in is just a place holder. Most likely the final system will be faceted and stealthy, but that is clearly not being tested in the current prototype. When it is time to integrate it and test it once it is tested it will become part of the base prototype and new things will be tested on top of it to check for conflicts.

I am sure they are working on the flight control system first and then they will likely work on system integration and flight characteristics and leave rear end RCS issues to later on... they will have a group working on it right now, but it will be computer tested and hung on wires with real ground based radars pointing at it for testing and tested in wind tunnels to make sure the new shape is both stealthy and aerodynamic.

If they can't manage a rectangular exhaust that is effective and efficient then the spiky round nozzle will likely be the best compromise regarding radar cross section reduction.

Air-inlets- Wing layouts compared


...& a must read article
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5c50cb01-bdd0-41cc-b216-fdc89354eb19&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

@Nozzles


China's J-20 stealth fighter engine nozzles


China's J-20 stealth fighter engine nozzles (another view)


F-35 Lightning II engine nozzle

Those are refined Low Observable Axisymmetrical Nozzles and first tested on a F-16 for the JSF programme. The LOAN was developed after the F-22 and that's why the Raptor doesn't have them.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html

Stealth Aircraft - Infra-Red Signature Reduction

Electromagnetic radiation, emitted or reflected by the gas turbine exit nozzle contributes significantly to the "signature" of a vehicle. By mounting the exit nozzle within a suitably shaped shroud this signature is reduced. Radar signals are absorbed or diffused by the shroud and infra-red emissions are masked, either by the shroud itself or by cool air ducted by the shroud to pass around the nozzle and the exhaust stream issuing from it. Such an arrangement, by its nature, defines a constraining envelope within which the nozzle must lie in order to be effective. This imposes constraints upon the use of reheat or thrust vectoring of the engine exhaust stream.