China Military Watch

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8064
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 14:40

DavidD wrote:First prototype, note the yellow band to the right of the cockpit:
Image

Second prototype, note the lack of the yellow band, and of course the shinier nozzle:
Image


It also depends on which side of the plane is facing you. The port side on the "Al-31" prototype had no yellow strip.

Image

Btw, just for laughs, how come that there is yet another plant between the photographer and the "WS-10" prototype. I mean the plane seems stationary, just move one foot to the left or right and take the pic. One would have a clean shot!

Also is it just me or the silver nozzles look too big for the plane! Neither do the dorsal fins match!

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: China Military Watch

Postby amit » 07 Jan 2011 15:01

Gaur wrote:Regardless of the capability of J-20, I personally find it very impressive of the Chinese to have come up with a new design this quickly. That is, I will be very impressed if it flies (which I believe it will). No one can truly tell about the capability of J-20, but no can deny the determination and zeal of Chinese govt and public regarding military matters. That is a trait that I find most admirable.

Anyway, these are my views. You are welcome to agree or disagree as you wish. :-)


Boss do take an effort to read what others post. Three posts before you first post on this issue, this is what I wrote in response to a post by David.

Read it if you have the time and inclination. You'll find that my views are not much different regarding the "accomplishment" factor of J22.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Samay » 07 Jan 2011 15:05

I doubt that there would be any 'first flight 'of that prototype until 2013-2014 and that this model plane may not be stealthy .
this could be a real plane but not like anything we are looking for.
Last edited by Samay on 07 Jan 2011 15:08, edited 1 time in total.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Gaur » 07 Jan 2011 15:08

amit,
Again, the post was general and not directed at anyone in particular. That is why I had specifically posted that my post was certainly not directed at you. So, my intention was not to cause you any offense. :-)
Anyways, I have already said what I wanted to say and therefore will not post more again regarding this matter as this is getting slightly OT.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: China Military Watch

Postby merlin » 07 Jan 2011 15:13

Gaur wrote:I know that I am only going to get a lot of flak for this but I am going to say this anyways. While most posters here are posting about how we should not shake with fear because of J-20, I find that some here are giving the impression of doing exactly that by showing their insecurity. All the ridiculing and jingoistic sneering is making us look most childish. Some people are sneering at J-20 saying that it will be nothing in compared to PAK-FA. OK..agreed. But if you truly believe that then why the need for all this jealousy and insecurity? In fact, I am finding DavidD to be behaving in the most commendable fashion on the face of all this jingoistic childishness...and this is coming from an Indian.
Get some confidence guys. We have PAK-FA and hopefully AMCA will also materialize soon. Why the need for so much insecurity?


No the childishness is being exhibited by those affected with the [i]log kya kahenge[i] syndrome, not by those who are "sneering" or "affected by jealousy and insecurity", or whatever-the-duck that's supposed to mean.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16946
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 07 Jan 2011 15:18

my hi-tech photo analysis gives the length of this bird as 22+ m.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 15:41

Rahul M wrote:my hi-tech photo analysis gives the length of this bird as 22+ m.


Ah thanks for bringing me back to this subject.I had started a detailed anal-ysis when my net connection went down for unknown reasons. Will be back on this subject.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16946
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 07 Jan 2011 15:44

Rahul M wrote:my hi-tech photo analysis gives the length of this bird as 22+ m.

revised analysis from better picture. 18.6 m

I get a feeling that the aspect ratio of some of the pictures has been touched.

edit : wingspan : 14.2 m

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 15:52

Rahul M wrote:
Rahul M wrote:my hi-tech photo analysis gives the length of this bird as 22+ m.

revised analysis from better picture. 18.6 m

I get a feeling that the aspect ratio of some of the pictures has been touched.

edit : wingspan : 14.2 m


Er do you want to edit your message and put the date and time? That has become the norm in this thread for fresh information about test flights. :lol:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16946
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 07 Jan 2011 15:54

why has it flown yet ? :P

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: China Military Watch

Postby krishnan » 07 Jan 2011 15:57

Forgot to put the start button

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: China Military Watch

Postby amit » 07 Jan 2011 16:12

Rahul M wrote:why has it flown yet ? :P


Could be because of some very simple reason. You see they have two planes ready to go up (as per Chingos). Now I suspect the folks who will make the decision on which plane to send up do not know this counting methodology to decide on such grave matters: Eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Hence the confusion and poor Hu Sabji has to keep getting in and out of a Boeing jet.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: China Military Watch

Postby krishnan » 07 Jan 2011 16:21

Inki pinki ponki...........

SriSri
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 15:25

Re: China Military Watch

Postby SriSri » 07 Jan 2011 17:16


DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 07 Jan 2011 18:23

amit wrote:
DavidD wrote:Maybe, I didn't really care to discuss whether or not they want to shock and awe. I was just trying to say that not having pics of the two prototypes together fits the current pattern, which is a pattern that doesn't fit vivek's idea of what shock and awe is.


:D

You know David on another very popular thread on BRF this would have been classified as a bona fide downhill skiing.

Anyway just so that you know, I think the J20 as it stands today from the photos is an impressive achievement and should be left at that. If you try to squeeze too much out of it then people will start to wonder if it's all a big scam.

If the J20 has even half the capability of the F22 or Pak-Fa then that's a fantastic achievement for a country which does not have the rich history of plane building that the US and Russians have. And one could safely say that the next plane would match the best of US and Russian planes.

But if you say the J20 is even better or comparable to those planes without any information about radar, senor suite, composites that went into the frame and most importantly what engine then folks who understand these things (and I'm sure you and fellow Chingos have found that there are a lot of folks here who understand) are not going to take you or the pictures seriously.

JMT and all that.


No, I don't think it's shock and awe, but I don't really care to argue about it.

Gaur wrote:I know that I am only going to get a lot of flak for this but I am going to say this anyways. While most posters here are posting about how we should not shake with fear because of J-20, I find that some here are giving the impression of doing exactly that by showing their insecurity. All the ridiculing and jingoistic sneering is making us look most childish. Some people are sneering at J-20 saying that it will be nothing in compared to PAK-FA. OK..agreed. But if you truly believe that then why the need for all this jealousy and insecurity? In fact, I am finding DavidD to be behaving in the most commendable fashion on the face of all this jingoistic childishness...and this is coming from an Indian.
Get some confidence guys. We have PAK-FA and hopefully AMCA will also materialize soon. Why the need for so much insecurity?


Thanks :)


indranilroy wrote:
It also depends on which side of the plane is facing you. The port side on the "Al-31" prototype had no yellow strip.


Btw, just for laughs, how come that there is yet another plant between the photographer and the "WS-10" prototype. I mean the plane seems stationary, just move one foot to the left or right and take the pic. One would have a clean shot!

Also is it just me or the silver nozzles look too big for the plane! Neither do the dorsal fins match!


Yes, but they're still different. I think the nozzles are just fine, I think you might be looking at it wrong because the ventral fins blend into the nozzle in your pic.

Here's another comparison pic between the two, notice the double layer of serrated edges on the WS-10x engined prototype:

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Philip » 07 Jan 2011 18:41

Leafing through some back issues of JDW I came across an article (2007) about the break in Sino-Russian defence ties and the reasons for them.China's wishy-washy attitude towards purchaes from Russia for several systems (SU-33s,etc) and its quiet reverse-engineering of Russian systems,made the Russians sit back and reflect upon the wisdom of selling China their latest and best.One Russian expert said that if a Chinese clone of a Russian fighter crashed,no one would label it as a Chinese copy but a Russian type and affect the reputation of the Russians.China would face problems with its unauthorised cloning of Russian wares he predicted, and if China went ahead and develoiped its own 5th-gen fighter,it would show a clear parting of the ways!

Now this has come to pass.India is the happy partner for the 5th-gen fighter,China is developing its own-without Russian help ,subs too clones/modified Kilos,etc.Where China hopes to illegally acquire western tech is from Pakistan,which is finding difficulties these days from some western nations unwilling to pass on to Pak aerospace tech because it would inevitably be given to China.The similarities between China's fighter and the F-22 is not a coincidence as Lockheed say that a large number of their component suppliers wares have been totally compromised thanks to China's cybercrime.However,the US says that despite the images of the J-20,China is "years away" from perfecting a stealth fighter.

It is going to be very intersting watching the progress of China's 5th-gen fighter."May it develop in interesting times"!

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2011 18:48

Rahul M wrote:
Rahul M wrote:my hi-tech photo analysis gives the length of this bird as 22+ m.

revised analysis from better picture. 18.6 m

I get a feeling that the aspect ratio of some of the pictures has been touched.

edit : wingspan : 14.2 m


Pls link the photo. Maybe we are all seeing the wrong pics.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 07 Jan 2011 19:05

IMO, this is the best drawing of the planform. I must admit that I was wrong before about the trailing edge of the canard. Based on somewhat overhead pics they are indeed swept backward, though only somewhat mildly as in this pic(courtesy of keypub poster paralay):

http://paralay.com/jxx/J20_4.png

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Gaur » 07 Jan 2011 20:25

DavidD wrote:IMO, this is the best drawing of the planform. I must admit that I was wrong before about the trailing edge of the canard. Based on somewhat overhead pics they are indeed swept backward, though only somewhat mildly as in this pic(courtesy of keypub poster paralay):

http://paralay.com/jxx/J20_4.png

I do not know. If this picture is true then the edge alignment looks very bad indeed.

Vivs
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 20:44

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Vivs » 07 Jan 2011 20:47

Here we go again...Chinese businessman bids for HMS Invincible for purely commercial purposes??!! Didn't we see this before with the Varyag too??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12134071

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ParGha » 07 Jan 2011 21:20

Vivs wrote:Here we go again...Chinese businessman bids for HMS Invincible for purely commercial purposes??!! Didn't we see this before with the Varyag too??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12134071


If the Chinese move towards a carrier and surface fleet, isn't it a much better development than continued enhancement of their submarine fleet? I say, good for them!

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 21:41

DavidD wrote:Here's another comparison pic between the two, notice the double layer of serrated edges on the WS-10x engined prototype:

I don't think there's too much doubt left that there have been two different engines (or at least exhaust nozzles) in use this week. Whether that means there's one plane or two... I still don't know. I know there were conflicting reports from the live "broadcasts" this morning about whether two planes were brought out simultaneously or not... my guess is that there was only one, or we would've seen a picture of both by now.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

Some aviation experts said the images suggested that there were either two prototypes undergoing tests, each with a different kind of engine—possibly one Russian and one Chinese — or that two types of engine had been tested in the same prototype.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 07 Jan 2011 22:39

or they could be experimenting with different nozzle types on same engine, perhaps to study RCS and IR signature or test some theories.

some CFM56 engines have a straight edge of the exhaust cowl, some have a wavy edge (supposedly it reduces noise)

if the exhaust is going to remain circular and no TVC , would still add some value to make it as cool as possible to mislead IR missiles and also reduce the noise signature at low levels.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 23:04

Singha wrote:or they could be experimenting with different nozzle types on same engine, perhaps to study RCS and IR signature or test some theories.


My thoughts exactly.

What Indranil said earlier is correct. Despite the presence of perhaps two prototypes and two different nozzles, I am still inclined to believe that we are perhaps looking at the same engine and everything, but at the most, different nozzle design.

it might even be just a different material.

In fact, I am going to stick my head out and say its the same engine but varying nozzle material/Paint/design

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 23:14

Right, right... the fact something is being "done" to the engines is clear. However, what's actually being done is very much a mystery.

Here's the latest and greatest (made this a URL instead of an image because it's so damn big... and can't figure out how to resize):

http://pic.yupoo.com/emfire/AKTe1WPW/k7EjX.jpg

Note: this is clearly missing the yellow band referenced by DavidD on the previous page. Why would they paint that over?

viewtopic.php?p=1006833#p1006833

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2011 23:20

^ Better hi def pic, of the pics seen so far. One can see the surface finish & compare with the nearby J-10.

http://pic.yupoo.com/emfire/AKTe1WPW/k7EjX.jpg

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch

Postby hnair » 07 Jan 2011 23:23

shiv wrote:This is what someone wrote yesterday - 6 Jan 2010
wrdos wrote:Updated 14:27 Chinese time

The engine of the J20 started


indranilroy wrote:Also is it just me or the silver nozzles look too big for the plane! Neither do the dorsal fins match!


Combining these two observations, I believe Hu went back due to medical reasons. That pilot who started the plane yesterday (as reported by the easily replaceable chinese poster) inadvertently kicked the nozzle in anger when he flooded the engine and overnight it developed hydrocele...

Jeez, I have ignored less dragging mother-in-law serials in Zee. Chinese public are really starved of fun....

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 23:29

By the way, from FYJS, one fan highlighting the different striping between the "black" and "shiny" nozzle planes:

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch

Postby SaiK » 07 Jan 2011 23:30

unless they have an on board h2o generator or chemical to cool the tail. lightening and further interference filters can still identify the target.

one more reason to have the terminal guidance to be having a more intelligent multi-sensor seeker heads, that can analyze the spectrum, filter out the real target even among against say a flare dispense.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Lalmohan » 07 Jan 2011 23:53

^^^ well they do have to find some work for the 21m extra unmarriable men they have in the demographic, may as well have them glopping off on the J20

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8064
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 08 Jan 2011 00:06

hmmm.

These new sets of pictures are interesting. The picture with comparison of two serrated edges before the engine nozzle. The second (inside) layer seems like an adapter layer since the WS-10 is thinner at the nozzles.

I really don't understand the logic of strapping on the WS-10 on that plane yet. That too on to exact airframe prototypes! Aren't the Chinese planning to refine this airframe or do they have so much money to not worry about the cost of one whole prototype. What about pilot safety? I mean what is the hurry unless nothing is going to change on subsequent prototypes. This particular prototypes is not going to be very stealthy from the front with 8 planes sticking out in a star configuration. Aren't they thinking of refining this?

The paralays drawings are also interesting.

1. Gaur sahab is right, there are two many edges. Each wing contributes 4 edges (with 3 unique edges). The canard has 3 edges (2 of them unique). Same goes for tailfin and the underfuselage strakes. The strake, wing and canard have the leading edges matched but are not behind each other and thus offer full radar signature. The intake provides 3 more each.

2. I was right about the planform except that the leading edge of the canard and the wing are edge matched. Apparently the canard is not as thin as I thought. I had hoped that they would have edge matched the trailing edges of the canard and the wing. Apparently not.

3. The "access" door is required to be open as main landing gear retracts through it. Wonder if the chinese have thought about hinging it from the top rather than the bottom to stop it from hanging so low. It is really susceptible to FOD damage which is bad for stealth.

4. The engine face is completely hidden if paralays drawing is to be believed.

5. I really don't like the back of that plane. It will be a source of enormous wave drag.

Overall, I don't think they are going for a over 2 Mach plane. They are trying to build a big multirole plane which has decent stealth features. Again a lot will depend on the engines.

It is easily matched with the F-35. F-22s and PAKFA, I don't think so.

P.S. PAKFA would do well to hide the remaining of its compressor face.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 08 Jan 2011 00:12

Marten wrote:What is truly incredible in this episode is that we have drones crawling out of the woodwork after 9 years. :)
Good show handlers. Hu says you're not good?

Who cares if there are two prototypes or one except the drones particularly interested in getting that white man to say "Oh my God! They've built TWO of them already!" Grow up drones. :)

I assume you're referring to me. Yea, I've been watching this board for probably 9 years, and BR has never had a dearth of self-obsessed narcissists. This persistent idea that there is this Chinese "psy-ops" campaign out to some how control/influence BR-ites is just as laughable now as it was back then.

I personally could care less what you, Marten, believe or think about China. Your relevance in the universe is very insignificant. This specific thread is called "China Military Watch", and I am posting here (as is the other Chinese posters) because we find the topic interesting. And, if I may be so bold as to say, I'm inclined to believe posters reading the thread called "China Military Watch" might find it interesting to determine the number of prototypes of this new aircraft. The best way to get rid of the "drones", as you say, is to get rid of this thread entirely. Stop talking about the Chinese military in this open forum... and I promise to never, ever stalk you at home/work with the topic.

By the way, I also, depend on the day of the week, post in other forums on other sites about any one of my other many interests... be it movies, music, business, or travel. And no, no one is paying me to do that either.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Anant » 08 Jan 2011 01:22

The plane just looks too big. I am not an expert but I have seen a Raptor statically parked and A F-117 statically parked and of course, both flying. This plane, whatever it is, just seems massive. I mean ginormous. Something just ain't right. I ain't no expert and perhaps the experts can chime in but stealth or not, this puppy probably has a massive RCS. Looks huge to be a fighter. Fighters are supposed to be more nimble and compact. This looks like a school bus. :eek:

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch

Postby hnair » 08 Jan 2011 01:38

Forgot to answer vivek_ahuja-saar: There might be two flying test planes. I dont dispute that. But I personally think two separate engines and the chinese posters' vehemence on that sounds funny.

My guess? Probably some kind of experimental infrared suppressor cowling on similar engines/nozzles (AL31 most probably on both). They might give a TI to Hu, and allow him to see the difference, so Hu can dream that night of this plane flying over Capitol Building. Peking opera show.

Chinese postors are a sight when they are TEL-ed up. I wish CNN International would show them. They are that cool.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8064
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 08 Jan 2011 02:18


DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 08 Jan 2011 04:06

indranilroy wrote:Really what is that silvery thing.

The WS-10 nozzles look like this
Image


Right, it's not the WS-10, not the AL-31 or the WS-15 either. According to some insiders on Chinese boards, it's an upgraded variant of the WS-10. I'm pretty surprised that they'd put a new engine on a new plane, seems pretty risky to me. I don't think it's an adaptive layer, it seems more like the the additional layer covers right up to the nozzle rather than leaving a part of the engine before the nozzle exposed in the AL-31 prototype. It could be that the AL-31 one was a low-risk prototype for testing aerodynamic performances only while the WS-10x prototype is used for testing stealth and maneuverability as well.

I think the ventral fins will be removed in the production version, and it does look like they've compromised edge alignment for the sake of maneuverability with the lack of alignment between the canards and the main wings. Perhaps the canards are edge aligned with the vertical stabilizers instead? I don't think the access door will be re-designed. It's a fairly simple thing, so I'm sure the problem is not as obvious as it seems from the pictures. I'm not entirely convinced that you need it open to operate the landing gear either. As for F-22 and T-50 comparisons, it's a bit premature as both the T-50 and the J-20 are still in very early prototype stages.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8064
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 08 Jan 2011 05:09

DavidD wrote:Right, it's not the WS-10, not the AL-31 or the WS-15 either. According to some insiders on Chinese boards, it's an upgraded variant of the WS-10. I'm pretty surprised that they'd put a new engine on a new plane, seems pretty risky to me.

Very very risky if what you say is right. I mean one wouldn't put it on the J-11, but directly on this prototype which has serpentine air intakes. It doesn't make any sense to me.

DavidD wrote:It could be that the AL-31 one was a low-risk prototype for testing aerodynamic performances only while the WS-10x prototype is used for testing stealth and maneuverability as well.
.

hmmm ... Don't know what you mean by 'stealth" here. What is being tested? The "WS-10x" is being tested or the airframe is being tested. If the airframe is being tested, then why duplicate an expensive prototype. If the engine is being tested, what is the logic of putting it onto a new airframe straightaway. Or is the coupling being tested (very unlikely with both being nascent)?

I can only think of two reason for having two prototypes.
1. make a statement.
2. speed up testing (which I am not sure of, generally preliminary testing has serial dependencies, or so I heard).

DavidD wrote: Perhaps the canards are edge aligned with the vertical stabilizers instead?

Doesn't look like. The leading edge might match (I am more unsure than sure). But the trailing edge is way different on the rudder (it is swept quite far back). F-22 and the PAKFA have its rudder edge matched to the elevator.

As for F-22 and T-50 comparisons, it's a bit premature as both the T-50 and the J-20 are still in very early prototype stages.

May be you are right. But there are some tell-tale signs that the top speed will be limited to 1.8 machs (read inlet design and also the airframe). You see drag-wise it will be worse that EF (we can discuss this going by the level of understanding that you have shown till now, you would know this by yourself). The EF has a very high TWR. But this planform is just optimized for that top speed. I think this is what the experts (albeit biased are saying when they say that China chose a 1985 airframe). This will be the same disadvantage the F-35 suffers vis-a-vis F-22/Su-35/T-50 in terms of missile range, missile evasion and disengagement. Given the all-moving control surface and TVC, this will be maneuverable for sure. But agile, that I am not sure of that. the engines are going to be critical here. Thats why I rated it below the Raptor and T-50. Anyways, lets wait and watch. Btw, the T-50 is being rechristened to something in Russian which means multirole fighter.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 08 Jan 2011 06:10

Well there is one other possibility about the engines - and I would expect the Chinese to do something like that. After all - how long does an engine gave to work for just one 20-30 minute flight? 2 hours? 3 hours? As long as reliability exists for a short flight it would be a massive propaganda blow for China to have the first public flight with a Chinese engine. Obviously further developmental flight tests will require a known engine and that will be done along with an experimental engine. The Chinese have the chutzpah to do that.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 08 Jan 2011 06:23

I'm pretty puzzled myself regarding the engines. The only thing I can think of is speed, but it seems like an unnecessary risk to me. The appearance of this engine, IMO, would be a bigger surprise than the J-20 itself.

As for the plane's top speed, I think it's a bit early to say. It does seem to have a narrower wingspan, so that could reduce drag as well. As for the intake, there have been some pretty persistent rumors about the J-20 using a variable geometry intake, allowing it to maintain the DSI's stealth qualities while avoiding its speed limitations.

IMO, it's important to note that the J-20 is seemingly full of contradictions. You'll see a feature that promotes stealth, or maneuverability, or range, etc. and then another feature that contradicts it. It's important to look at it as a whole instead of focusing on one or two features, and really, it's pretty difficult to tell how all these seemingly disparate features will fit together.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 08 Jan 2011 06:31

DavidD wrote:IMO, it's important to note that the J-20 is seemingly full of contradictions.


That is why it may well be a technology development platform that will give rise to a combat aircraft in due course.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests