China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

[Austin]

J-20 , Note the Luneberg lens for RCS Enhancement

[shiv]

may be they have not released the entire FBW control or it might be in intermediate state of testing and they might not want to try any thing stupid that may lead to a crash or chance of crash and bad publicity ,

Yes it looks like the flight profile is restricted

[Bhurishravas]

Good job by China. Developing a complicated plane in a short time is not bad at all.

[hnair]

so that whole F22 style single-piece canopy is off?

[kit]

Good job by the Chinese !! .. It does look "stealthy" anyway i wonder if pouring money by India into a F16 tech is a good idea !!

[Austin]

Cloud Shadow UCAV/UAV

[chola]

Good job by the Chinese !! .. It does look "stealthy" anyway i wonder if pouring money by India into a F16 tech is a good idea !!

Yes, it looks stealthy. And yes we should buy the F-16 line if GOI decides we must go phoren.

I. the chance that two rational nuclear-armed states like the PRC and India going to total war is nil.

2. the J-20 and other PLAF frontline fighters will be based on their eastern seaboard AWAY from India.

3. if It is a fight between the mainly Russian clones of the PRC(the J-20 is dependent on Russian engines) and the IAF, I rather we use Western equipment. Using our Russian crap against their Russian crap is a losing proposition because they have more of the crap. With the F-16, we make it more like the Arab-Israeli situation wherethe F-16 has an unblemished kill record against rvsskie ac.

China, IMHO, serves as a benchmark where a 3rd world billion plus piss-poor nation manage an AC industry. But let's not kid ourselves on it matching the US in even "obsolete" systems like the F-16 which is only obsolete to the US not the rest of the world.

[shiv]

Good job by the Chinese !! .. It does look "stealthy" anyway i wonder if pouring money by India into a F16 tech is a good idea !!

It is black but it has 8 huge flat reflecting surfaces that look plenty unstealthy to me and huge hot engines at the back. Frontal stealth - probably yes

[Indranil]

The Chinese surely love their vortices.
[/quote]

[chola]

The Chinese surely love their vortices.

They love smoke too. Remember when their other stealth fighter flew at the last show?

Maybe that was unintentional.

[Sid]

EODAS on J-20 seems to be solid painted piece of metal, with no visible optronics. Probably just a placeholder, i hope.

Have they showcased their EODAS at Zhuhai airshow, couldn't locate any pictures yet.

[RohitAM]

The J-20 clearly lacks the smooth aerodynamic design which the Raptor and the PAKFA bring to the table. It is definitely more angular and bulkier, on the lines of the MiG-31, than the comparative 5th Generation fighters it is supposed to go toe-to-toe with.

[DavidD]

so that whole F22 style single-piece canopy is off?

It's still single-piece, but with a supporting bar in the middle, just like the F-35's solution.

[DavidD]

The more I look at J-20 and its manouvering , The more I am made to believe the purpose of J-20 is primary of Heavy Class Strike Fighter with secondary capability of an Interceptor likely in 45 T MTOW category like Mig-31.

Mostly certainly it lacks the finness , agility and manouverability of Air Superiority fighter may be they have not released the entire FBW control or it might be in intermediate state of testing and they might not want to try any thing stupid that may lead to a crash or chance of crash and bad publicity , Much like when PAK-FA was displayed for first time in public 2011 its demonstration was sedate.

J-21 looks more like an Air Superiority Fighter in Medium Class

Strike fighters don't need large movable canards. It was a tame performance, but it's really no tamer than the PLAAF J-10 performances, it's just how they usually do things.

[brar_w]

The more I look at J-20 and its manouvering , The more I am made to believe the purpose of J-20 is primary of Heavy Class Strike Fighter with secondary capability of an Interceptor likely in 45 T MTOW category like Mig-31.

The problem is with the bays. They don't support the heavy strike fighter load. In fact the main bay looks like its designed around the carriage of 4 or 6 BVR weapons much like the F-22 and doesn't look deep enough to carry the heavy bombs or large diameter missiles like the F-35 does with the GBU-31 (2000 lb) or larger missiles like the AARGM-ER, JSM, SOM etc.

Even as a pure range interceptor, the bays lack the capacity to accommodate something like the R-37 or the Aim-54. I think this is analogous to the F-22 for them within the limits of their design and propulsion capability. Neither long range strike, nor long range intercept is supported by the type of bays they have put on it. Not to mention that going high, going fast and staying LO is a very unique stress when it comes to materials, shaping and propulsion and is unlikely to be a high goal, especially when talking about a Mig-31 like capability with those intakes. The F-22 pays a heavy price in terms of cost to get low signature with a Mach 1.7 super-cruise speed. If you want to get even higher into a pure interceptor territory you'd add a ton more of design cost and complexity.

[shiv]

The Chinese surely love their vortices.

Also Zhuhai humidity at this time of year appears to be >60%

[Austin]

The problem is with the bays. They don't support the heavy strike fighter load. In fact the main bay looks like its designed around the carriage of 4 or 6 BVR weapons much like the F-22 and doesn't look deep enough to carry the heavy bombs or large diameter missiles like the F-35 does with the GBU-31 (2000 lb) or larger missiles like the AARGM-ER, JSM, SOM etc.

Even as a pure range interceptor, the bays lack the capacity to accommodate something like the R-37 or the Aim-54. I think this is analogous to the F-22 for them within the limits of their design and propulsion capability. Neither long range strike, nor long range intercept is supported by the type of bays they have put on it. Not to mention that going high, going fast and staying LO is a very unique stress when it comes to materials, shaping and propulsion and is unlikely to be a high goal, especially when talking about a Mig-31 like capability with those intakes. The F-22 pays a heavy price in terms of cost to get low signature with a Mach 1.7 super-cruise speed. If you want to get even higher into a pure interceptor territory you'd add a ton more of design cost and complexity.

I think the bays are big enough to accomodate the R-37 like missile even PAK-FA bays can so J-20 looks bigger to me , they can also design new weapons around the bays

[Singha]

^ the bays imo could hold 4 x harpoon or KH59 sized weapons. give the large size of the plane its a surprise the bays are not deeper...but perhaps stress is laid on high internal fuel fraction to preserve a long unrefuelled range + LO ... great for DPSA missions and naval strike.

its definitely a creditable start with the J-20 and J-31 ... not the end...they will keep on improving and adapting as you already seen in the large range of UAV designs coming out now.

the nose is very large and could hold a huge aesa radar with diameter even bigger than bars and side looking panels too.

[Austin]

The advantage of having a big aircraft from design stage is across the cycle of 30-40 years you can always improvise on it at a far higher pace as space is not an issue , so you dont have to cramp all things in there and then worry about power supply or think why cant you have an internal jammer due to lack of space , add new more powerful engine at later stage or work on materials like more use of composite , A good example is that of Flanker in 80's and what is flown now or its variant like Su-32 etc having a big aircraft as design stage means more scope for improvement during its entire life cycle.

Just looking at the aircraft its hard to say how stealthy it is no matter the flat surface is or the silverish paints etc , this would need much more than eyeball analysis and hard data

[Singha]

if they are using the AL31 engine the engine bays look large enough to accomodate a bigger diameter..advances in materials and design to american F135 stds could probably impart another 30% dry thrust and 30% more wet thrust ...

I have never been a great fan of the F-solah or Tejas type tiny designs where unsightly bulges and sores emerge in all places to accomodate eqpt later. ..this reached its epitome in the block60 which looks like a elephant from the front.

relatively the flankers and eagles continue to remain clean designs after 30 yrs

as seen in the J10, JH7 and J8 the chinese are not afraid to "go big" ... the Y20 c17ski is also plenty large.

only thing now between china and being a major #2 aerospace power is control over latest engine tech....airframe design at all levels looks good. Rus lack the $$ to fund the raft of new designs needed to hold the #2 ranking

[Austin]

Reportedly J-20 uses the Salut AL-31FM2 engine ( dont confuse that with Saturn AL-31FP or 117S ) but many chinese internet members claim it uses indiginous engine which I doubt as no one will risk new aircraft with a new engine and prefer a proven types.

[Liu]

http://m.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewth ... 7&mobile=1

One highrank PLAAF officer(Yin zuo) confirms that j20 is powered by indiginous engines.
It also surprises me.


Considering that ws15 is not finished, The Only indiginous option might be ws10b,which is reported to have be finished last year.

Ws10b is in The same league of al31fm2（99m2）.

[chola]

if they are using the AL31 engine the engine bays look large enough to accomodate a bigger diameter..

only thing now between china and being a major #2 aerospace power is control over latest engine tech....airframe design at all levels looks good. Rus lack the $$ to fund the raft of new designs needed to hold the #2 ranking

The Russians might not have the funds to finance their ideas in Russia but it's obvious they are selling their ideas and knowledge to the lizard.

The core chini frontline fighters are their flanker clones which Russia allows without penalty to be equipped with a Chinese engine and weapons and modified (in many variants) to their liking. Something we are not allowed to do with the MKI. They happily supply the J-20 (and J-10) with the Al-31 without any attempt to use this as leverage to stop the J-11 clonings.

How are they able to work this out with the Russians? Even their JF-17 export to the porkis would never have gotten off the ground without the RD-93.

This just gives me a queasy and nauseous feeling of disgust over our own deals with the Russians. For all the business we give them where are our flanker clones, our RD-93 for the LCA? They treat us like s--t. Pardon the four letter word.

[Austin]

The chinese just buy the engine much like we buy the F-404 for Tejas , The IAF was offered the RD-33 for Tejas but it preferred a Western Engine , AL-31 are just too big for any Indian fighter.

The Chinese have not been able to reverse engineer the engine probably due to alloy/metal composititon process involved etc , They also have huge access to Western Technology via Airbus and Boeing , The kind of order the Chinese give to Boeing and AIrbus they would just fall flat to give any thing to the chinese overt/covert.

Chinese also run extensive esponiage operation in West where they procure Technology/Knowhow , Accorinding to Pentagon onw recent estimate they have manged to compromise many data

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... n-secrets/

In the end the Chinese know it is survival of fittest , if they dont do it then some one else .....The West too have extensive espionage operation inside china and its a fair game

[Liu]

The chinese just buy the engine much like we buy the F-404 for Tejas , The IAF was offered the RD-33 for Tejas but it preferred a Western Engine , AL-31 are just too big for any Indian fighter.

The Chinese have not been able to reverse engineer the engine probably due to alloy/metal composititon process involved etc , They also have huge access to Western Technology via Airbus and Boeing , The kind of order the Chinese give to Boeing and AIrbus they would just fall flat to give any thing to the chinese overt/covert.

Chinese also run extensive esponiage operation in West where they procure Technology/Knowhow , Accorinding to Pentagon onw recent estimate they have manged to compromise many data

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... n-secrets/

In the end the Chinese know it is survival of fittest , if they dont do it then some one else .....The West too have extensive espionage operation inside china and its a fair game

Well,china has The reverse~engineered rd93,ws13.

The plan has existed for long ,maybe Since jf17 started.

But,It has not be finished Until recently ,perhaps because jf17 is not Enough to make Chinese advance It rapidly.


It is reported that Guizhou AC developed ws13.


GUIZHOU AC is a militaly~industry comlpex much smaller than CAC&SAC ,that prove that china Did not pay much attention on it.

[brar_w]

I think the bays are big enough to accomodate the R-37 like missile even PAK-FA bays can so J-20 looks bigger to me , they can also design new weapons around the bays

R37 is about 15% longer, has 2 times the diameter and about 50% greater span than a standard AMRAAM class weapon. Even Sweetmann in his last analysis in 2014 estimated that the bay dimensions are actually very similar to the F-22. I simply don't see any room for any more than 2 such a2a weapons and they would actually take away any other medium ranged weapon that it could carry given their larger diameter and span.

That is hardly an operationally relevant configuration for such a large aircraft. I don't think you can simply compare the PAKFA bays to those on the J-20 without getting into the length, how deep each bay design is and how many there are in total since that is what will ultimately matter when it comes to what sort of weapons it can house over time. Its not like it can carry two really long ranged weapons and two medium ranged weapons + 2 IR missiles. Much like the F-22, it trades multiple medium ranged weapons for a single larger diameter weapon (JDAM in the case of the F-22).

As far as custom missiles, the PL-12 is already longer and has a larger diameter than the AMRAAM but you can within those constraints (the bays seem to be 4.3-4.4 m long as per some estimates but that probably is not all usable space) you could design a longer ranged weapon but that applies to all such bay designs that can accommodate a 7 inch class BVR weapon. You are unlikely to get Phoenix or R-73 class simply because of the sheer size of those weapons.

The J-20's wing and control surface layout is very different from that of the Lockheed Martin F-22, but the body layout is quite similar, with twin main weapon bays under the belly and side bays for rail-launched air-to-air missiles (AAMs), all located under and outside the inlet ducts. On both aircraft, the main landing gear is housed in the fuselage behind the weapon bays and the engines are close together. The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel

The J-20's weapon arrangement is similar to the F-22, except that the ventral bays are shorter and narrower, and are apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 AAM. However, they do appear large enough to accommodate bigger folding-wing missiles-and China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the T-50.

The side missile bays differ from those of the F-22 in that the doors can be closed after the missile rail has been extended, and have been seen with a missile-or test shape-with low-aspect-ratio wings and folding tails. So far, no gun has been seen on J-20s, nor has there been a sign of provision for one.

The J-20 design, therefore, is an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward-aspect stealth, efficient highspeed aerodynamics and range, with a modest internal payload and more than adequate agility for self-defense.

^ the bays imo could hold 4 x harpoon or KH59 sized weapons.

The bay can hold 2 PL-12's on each side for a total of 4. How do you trade 4, 8 inch diameter weapons for 4, 15 inch diameter weapons in the same space? Also, check the length of the KH59. Same with the Harpoon. There you are talking about 4, 13.5 inch diameter missiles replacing 4, 8 inch diameter missiles in the same space.

IF you really wanted to design for numerous large diameter missiles or weapons you would either take the JSF approach with a single bay or the F-23, and PAKFA approach with two different set of center bays where you could put different class weapons. You would also need much deeper bays, for the 15+ inch diameter weapons and bombs.



They've clearly gone the F-22 route with the bay design. The F-35 on the other hand can, due to its deeper bays, carry the 18 inch diameter GBU-31 (2000lb) while also carrying the AMRAAM for self-defense. Of course where it trades away is that it can at its max (bay design) carry 6 missiles while the F-22 can carry 6 7inch diameter missiles and 2 Aim-9X class missiles. Having all your BVR missiles side by side will not allow you to make that trade with the largest weapons.

[brar_w]

deleted

[hnair]

brar_w, fyi, the two images in your last post are not showing

[Austin]

R37 is about 15% longer, has 2 times the diameter and about 50% greater span than a standard AMRAAM class weapon. Even Sweetmann in his last analysis in 2014 estimated that the bay dimensions are actually very similar to the F-22. I simply don't see any room for any more than 2 such a2a weapons and they would actually take away any other medium ranged weapon that it could carry given their larger diameter and span.

Those analysis can go wrong with so many morphed images going around the net , No one really knows how deep J-20 bays are really , I have seen few images of J-20 with weapon payload on the internet but all are just morphed perhaps made by fanbois .....We will have to wait for some official info.

It wont make much sense to design the biggest 5th Gen aircraft that can carry just 4 A2A missile. Any designer worth its money would try something more.

[brar_w]

I have not seen any evidence of every single J-20 bay picture being morphed. Do you think the one above, with 2 missiles is morphed? Plenty of folks have discussed this elsewhere, folks like SoC, flateric, Paul and Deino at Secret-projects and none have raised the possibility of the picture with 2 missiles per half as being morphed while others trying to show 3 PL-12's have been flagged as such.

I'm also not assuming that the J-20 can only accommodate 4 missiles in its main bays. We know that the PL-12 is longer and fatter than the AMRAAM (all variants). It is entirely possible that China over the years develops a version that is closer to the 7 inch diameter and length so that they get 6 in the main bay. This would put it at par with the F-22A and F-35 that hash been shown (by the USAF funded Lockheed bay upgrade) to be able to grow to accommodate 6 AMRAAM class missiles and this is included in block 5. I'm even willing to assume that the J-20 can at some point accommodate 6 PL-12 missiles with the larger diameter (not needing to develop a new variant).

Let's also assume that the J-20 has much deeper bays than many believe (and Aviation week through Sweetman's analysis and in their official program dossier agree that it can accommodate 2 ARM's in the main bay) and that every picture released till date is morphed. That will not explain the other two dimensions that are CRITICAL for accommodating more than 2 larger diameter missiles in the class being discussed. You simply won't be able to pack in 4 15 inch diameter missiles in there. As a reference, the Kh-58UShK is 4+ meters long, has a diameter of 14.9 inches, and a wingspan of 31.4 inches. How are you going to fit more than 2 in the main weapons bay of the J-20? And how are you going to put two of these in there along with another 8 inch diameter weapon nearly equally as long with the span of a PL-12 even with the fins closed on the 58?

It wont make much sense to design the biggest 5th Gen aircraft that can carry just 4 A2A missile. Any designer worth its money would try something more.

Right, and that can easily change as there is likely to be ways to squeeze in another PL-12 in there by developing something that fits a tighter form factor. The F-22 does it because the AMRAAM is a 7 inch diameter weapon and Raytheon and the folks at Atlantic Research Corporation were even able to engineer its VFDR inlets to accommodate the bays in case a ducted rocket motor path was pursued. The PL-12 is closer to 8 inch diameter so they may either have slightly wider bays or could potentially trim a new variant down to AMRAAM levels in the future. 4 or 6 MRAAM's isnt much of a concern as there are ways around is.

The point is about the role. If it is designed around a Mig-31 role, then there are really poor design choices starting with but not limited to the weapons bay design. Similarly, if it is designed around a long-range strike role, the payload is quite inadequate and the performance trades do not make sense. It is likely to be analogous to the F-22A but with more multi-role flexibility through an EO targeting system and the ability to perhaps carry a couple of larger diameter strike weapons. It isn't the equivalent of a stealthy mini Mig-31, or an FB-22/X-44.

There are most certainly design concepts to morph it into an FB-22 like platform but not in its current iteration.

Published in the Chinese Journal of Aeronautics , the paper was written by six authors, including Yang Wei of the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute, who is the J-20's chief designer.

Entitled 'Aircraft vulnerability modelling and computation methods based on product structure and CATIA', the paper offers illustrations of a single-seat twin-engine canard-configuration aircraft based on the J-20.

However, the illustration shows an aircraft featuring a wider fuselage with a larger internal weapons bay, more widely separated turbofans and inward-canted vertical stabilisers mounted aft mid wing.

[Austin]

brar_w you may have your point and perhaps you may be right but I would want to think the chinese are not stupid to build perhaps what looks like a 45 T plus fighter just to carry 4 weapons or not enough A2G weapons internally for a deep strike mission , I would like to think J-20 Weapons bay would accomodate more than PAK-FA bay else what is the point in just build a huge aircraft.

The absense of any official information leads to many partially correct analysis of its capability including Weapons bay , Tons of Morphed picture around and one will have tough time trying to find a needle in hay stack of which is the real one.

We will have to wait for official information on its weapons payload and perhaps every thing we need to know about J-20 other then its seen physical dimension

[Austin]

China's New Jet Looks Impressive. Aided By Espionage Against US

http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/chinas-new- ... eststories

There was a brief but impressive show of new U.S. aircraft technology this week. The problem is that the planes belong to the Chinese military.

Aided in large part by espionage against the Pentagon and U.S. firms, the People's Liberation Army air force unveiled its new J-20 stealth fighter, which it says is a so-called fifth-generation fighter like the American F-22 and F-35. Two J-20s flew for just a few minutes at an airshow in Zhuhai on Tuesday, leaving military experts of two minds about what the J-20 is actually capable of.

QuickTake Territorial Disputes

While Bradley Perrett of Aviation Week warned it was "clearly a big step forward in Chinese combat capability," Greg Waldon of the consultancy FlightGlobal said the big reveal of the flyby was "we learned it was loud."

If the sparse details released by the Chinese and speculation of military insiders are accurate, the plane could present some problems should the cool war in the South China Sea heat up. The jet is said to have a longer range and more armament than the competing U.S. fighters, and while it doesn't likely have the computer systems to pose a threat to them, it could make easy targets of American refueling and surveillance craft.

But as far as U.S. officials are concerned, these capacities exist only in rumor. This is a common theme in all the Western fretting about China's cutting edge military prowess: Nobody knows whether any of it is real.

Consider the Chinese military's "carrier-killer missile," the DF-21D. It was unveiled last year, during China's celebrations marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, amid a hype campaign calling it the fastest missile in the world. In the U.S. military, there is speculation that it has radar that can see over the horizon and a maneuverable warhead that allows precision guidance as it nears its target. This has some experts warning that the age of the American aircraft carrier is over.

But, again, there is little proof that this missile is real or that China has any of the capabilities that so worry the West. The same can be said of the YJ-12 missile, which is said to fly just above the surface of the water to avoid radar tracking. While we've seen these weapons in parades, demonstrations and airshows, the real question is what's inside. "Chinese 'hardware' continues to improve dramatically, but the caliber of the 'software' supporting and connecting it remains uncertain and untested in war," noted analyst Andrew Erickson in the National Interest. "The missile components of the DF-21D already are proven through multiple tests, but China's ability to use the missile against a moving target operating in the open ocean remains unproven."

Then there is the new Type 093B nuclear-powered attack submarine, which some fear may be as deadly as the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class boats. "The 93B is analogous to our LA improved in quietness and their appearance demonstrates that China is learning quickly about how to build a modern fast attack boat," according to Gary Hendrix of the Center for a New American Security. But high-ranking Navy officials are more sanguine, noting that in undersea warfare the Chinese approach has centered on quantity over quality -- Beijing is thought to have at least 70 attack subs, as compared to around 50 for the U.S. -- and the consensus among the top Pentagon brass is that China is unlikely to have made the leaps in technology some fear.


So what does this all mean for long-term U.S. strategy (beyond, of course, getting better at protecting our military secrets)? If we take the threat of Chinese advances seriously, the first step would be to take a tough look at plans to build 10 new Ford-class supercarriers, which would be quite vulnerable if the Chinese are really as far along as some fear. This doesn't mean giving up on carriers -- as forward-based platforms that don't rely on allies for hosting aircraft, they remain vital. But the wiser fiscal and preparedness choice may be stopping after the three supercarriers now under construction are completed and renovating five or so of the existing Nimitz-class, which are still far and away the terror of the seas. Through smarter management of maintenance and crew rotations, eight craft could conceivably do as effective a job patrolling the globe as the Navy's hoped-for 10. (Carriers will always, alas, be more vulnerable than fake islands.)

Another idea is to make the U.S. fleet more dispersed and effective through emphasizing "distributed-lethality warfare." This would involve making far more ships in the fleet -- including those responsible for reconnaissance, specialized missions such as mine dispersal, and protecting aircraft carriers -- capable of both striking the enemy and defending themselves. This gives the enemy more threats to protect against and more targets to eliminate. To some extent the Navy seems to be considering the approach; for example, it has upgraded the armor, weaponry and anti-torpedo capability of its troubled littoral combat ship.

Inevitably, long-term military thinking is an exercise in predicting what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called known unknowns. The J-20 flyby showed only how little we know about China's drive to become a cutting-edge military.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.


To contact the author of this story: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

[brar_w]

brar_w you may have your point and perhaps you may be right but I would want to think the chinese are not stupid to build perhaps what looks like a 45 T plus fighter just to carry 4 weapons or not enough A2G weapons internally for a deep strike mission

I haven't said that it can carry only 4. It could well carry 6 like others. It can also carry 2 ARM's and similarly sized strike weapons. Of ocurse more if you go down to SDB sizes. But where exactly will it carry 4 15 inch diameter weapons? The bay's can't magically grow wider, can they?

BTW, how many Kh-58UShK's can the PAKFA/T-50 carry internally?

The absense of any official information leads to many partially correct analysis of its capability including Weapons bay , Tons of Morphed picture around and one will have tough time trying to find a needle in hay stack of which is the real one.

You may not, but plenty of folks that have gone through this particular one have no objection to it not being accurate or point to it being morphed. There is really no image out there that shows the bays morphed to look narrower than they truly are. We even have a video of its bays open now.

[Austin]

I haven't said that it can carry only 4. It could well carry 6 like others. It can also carry 2 ARM's and similarly sized strike weapons. Of ocurse more if you go down to SDB sizes. But where exactly will it carry 4 15 inch diameter weapons? The bay's can't magically grow wider, can they?

It may not widen or it may widen or get deeper depending on what comes out finally out of J-20 , Like you said they may just build new wepaons to accomodate more weapons but most certainly it wont be 4 AAM for such huge aircraft

BTW, how many Kh-58UShK's can the PAKFA/T-50 carry internally?

Nothing officially again but internet rumours are 2 in each bay total 4.

The absense of any official information leads to many partially correct analysis of its capability including Weapons bay , Tons of Morphed picture around and one will have tough time trying to find a needle in hay stack of which is the real one.

You may not, but plenty of folks that have gone through this particular one have no objection to it not being accurate or point to it being morphed. There is really no image out there that shows the bays morphed to look narrower than they truly are. We even have a video of its bays open now.[/quote]

We will see when CHinese official show us offical specs of J-20 bay i.e if they at all.

[brar_w]

It may not widen or it may widen or get deeper depending on what comes out finally out of J-20 , Like you said they may just build new wepaons to accomodate more weapons but most certainly it wont be 4 AAM for such huge aircraft

So it may widen..how wide can it go? Where's the space? Speculation aside, there is no way to fit 4 ARM's of the size being discussed in the current bay. You probably would also not be able to fit 2 15 inch diameter ARM's, along with 2 8 inch diameter AAM's. Just look at two 8 inch missiles side by side per half bay.

As far as 4 or 6 missiles, that can change with changes to the missile but you won't add real-estate to it just make your primary AAM down to the size of the AMRAAM. I was referring to carrying multiple large long range strike missiles. The F-35 can carry 2, the PAKFA 2-4 and these are both multi-role aircraft. If you are designing primarily around long range supersonic strike you will need more than 2..probably even more than 4. That's FB23/FB-22/X-44 and FATE territory and not something they are looking to pull 9G's or get into a dogfight with a WVR missile. This aircraft isn't it!. Similarly, you will run into the same problem if you look at anything outside of the 7-8 inch MRAAM territory. This points to be bays not being optimized for Mig-31 level capability..and the intakes further reinforce that.

I would agree with Aviation Week and most others that this is a multi-role aircraft designed around air to air and strike as opposed to a long range high speed interceptor, or a long range penetrating heavy strike aircraft. There is simply no evidence to point to it. Neither to support the long range high speed envelope, nor the magazine depth to do both the Mig-31/25 like intercept mission or the FB-22/23 like deep tactical strike mission. That its designer was studying how to morph it into one (long range heavy strike) further goes to show that. It is at best an F-22 type weapon bay that can accommodate a pair of 15 inch missiles that they'll pick up from Russia. Higher capacity or larger magazine depth would require a design change.

[Singha]

So what advantage would it have over the cheaper and structurally more sleek j31 ? Sure more internal fuel but its large weight consume more fuel too?

I wonder if j31 is intended as the f22 and will enter volume run while j20 will morph in shape to a heavy strike fighter instead of being inducted as is...work could be ongoing in parallel. ..the f111 saw some role evolution in its life as did the f4 phantom

[chola]

So what advantage would it have over the cheaper and structurally more sleek j31 ? Sure more internal fuel but its large weight consume more fuel too?

I wonder if j31 is intended as the f22 and will enter volume run while j20 will morph in shape to a heavy strike fighter instead of being inducted as is...work could be ongoing in parallel. ..the f111 saw some role evolution in its life as did the f4 phantom

I believe the J-31 is unwanted by the PLAF and Navy so its maker SAC (who also clones the Flankers) is begging for phoren interest (mainly baki), is this not the case?

It flies on two of the same smoky RD-93 engines as the one on the Blunder. Designed as a poor man's stealth to complement a poor man's single engine rank and file fighter, no?

[Austin]

So what advantage would it have over the cheaper and structurally more sleek j31 ? Sure more internal fuel but its large weight consume more fuel too?

I wonder if j31 is intended as the f22 and will enter volume run while j20 will morph in shape to a heavy strike fighter instead of being inducted as is...work could be ongoing in parallel. ..the f111 saw some role evolution in its life as did the f4 phantom

They are like heavy and medium fighter ,like how we have MKI & Rafale or FGFA/AMCA

[brar_w]

So what advantage would it have over the cheaper and structurally more sleek j31 ? Sure more internal fuel but its large weight consume more fuel too?

Its a larger aircraft, probably performs better given it was selected as the winner of the design competition. Range is a value add. You also have to take everything into account particularly range and total payload (internal and external). A high internal fuel volume on account or range with signature requirements also translates to excellent range when loaded with external ordinance since you don't have to go for bags. Room for larger sensors, multi-role optimized bays etc etc.

Stealth aircraft pay a premium for range, and particularly more so for range/payload. That's the cost ( in terms of size growth) of keeping signature low and all the fuel and weapons internal. Case in point is the F-22 and F-35 comparison. The former is heavier and larger while having about the same subsonic mission radius. Where it does score higher is the supersonic envelope and the air-air missile count while the latter keeps it subsonic but gets larger payloads about the same distance with slightly less fuel. The former pays a cost (in terms of size and range) penalty for altitude and speed, while the latter pays the same with speed and altitude to account for a more flexible weapons bay and to hit a lower cost.

[DavidD]

Here's the official promotion material from Zhuhai re: FC-31's possible layouts. It shows it being capable of carrying 6 fold-fin MRAAMs. I imagine it'll be the designed capacity for the J-20's main internal weapons bay as well.