J-20 goes operational again

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post03 Jun 2020, 19:04

jessmo112 wrote:Excuse me, but I just refuse to believe that the J-20 is smaller than the Flanker.
You can blame it on the Chinese Propagandists who
Fanned out on the internet during the J-20 reveal and tried to get us to believe that the fighter is small and agile. This culminated in a video online showing the J-20 in a turn. They sped the footage up odviously for propaganda purposes. The Chinese odviously want the U.S. to believe the J-20 is more capable than it is.


No one cares what you believe, J-20 dimensionally IS smaller, that's a fact.

Image
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 185
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post03 Jun 2020, 23:22

Found the bigger image, and moved the engine nozzles of first J-20 next to the first J-16.

http://www.chinadefenseobservation.com/ ... 1/18-4.jpg

Is the engine of J-16 significantly bigger than that of J-20?
Attachments
nozzlej20su27.JPG
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 02:00

disconnectedradical wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Excuse me, but I just refuse to believe that the J-20 is smaller than the Flanker.
You can blame it on the Chinese Propagandists who
Fanned out on the internet during the J-20 reveal and tried to get us to believe that the fighter is small and agile. This culminated in a video online showing the J-20 in a turn. They sped the footage up odviously for propaganda purposes. The Chinese odviously want the U.S. to believe the J-20 is more capable than it is.


No one cares what you believe, J-20 dimensionally IS smaller, that's a fact.

Image


Meh, photoshop. The planes a fat girl we have had this discussion before.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 02:35

Looks like a pic from 176 Brigade at Dingxin. The J-20s spot the AL-31F, the J-16s, having the distinctive yellow strips, with the WS-10s.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 09:39

I think that's perspective, they should use same engine, based on AL-31.

Regardless, J-20 is not bigger than a Flanker in dimensions, no matter what people like jessmo like to claim about propaganda. Reminds me of creationists who throw out any evidence that won't suit their beliefs. J-20 has its disadvantages, but fat isn't one of them. Fineness ratio and wing placement should give it respectable supersonic drag.

If you claim it's photoshop, prove it.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2345
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 12:07

disconnectedradical wrote:I think that's perspective, they should use same engine, based on AL-31.

Regardless, J-20 is not bigger than a Flanker in dimensions, no matter what people like jessmo like to claim about propaganda. Reminds me of creationists who throw out any evidence that won't suit their beliefs.


You'll need accurate wind tunnel test data to verify that, But the J-20 does have a wing area thats nearly 200 sq.feet larger. internal weapon bays and judging by the fact that the Chinese consider it under powered with it's current AL-31 engines, the same ones used on Su-27s and they require 2 40k class engines to get it up to spec, then I'd have to say yes, maybe we don't see it as considerably larger but the wind sees it a different way.

And if you have a problem with creationist, take it somewhere else, this isn't the place for that.
Last edited by zero-one on 04 Jun 2020, 16:37, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 14:37

disconnectedradical wrote:I think that's perspective, they should use same engine, based on AL-31.

Regardless, J-20 is not bigger than a Flanker in dimensions, no matter what people like jessmo like to claim about propaganda. Reminds me of creationists who throw out any evidence that won't suit their beliefs. J-20 has its disadvantages, but fat isn't one of them. Fineness ratio and wing placement should give it respectable supersonic drag.

If you claim it's photoshop, prove it.


Did this guy just blame GOD, for me not agreeing on the J-20s size?!
Anyway why are you so dead set on trying to convince us anyway? Are you a defence contractor? Why does it matter to you if the J-20 is bigger than a flanker?
NONE of us know for certain the planes weight and size.
The plane is noticeably larger than most fighters.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 15:11

zero-one wrote:You'll need accurate wind tunnel test data to verify that, But the J-20 does have a wing area thats nearly 200 feet larger.


Leaving aside that units of wing area is not feet, F-22 and Su-57 wing area is also much bigger than a Flanker's, about same size as J-20, yet all these probably have lower supersonic drag coefficient, that's what they're optimized for.

zero-one wrote:internal weapon bays and judging by the fact that the Chinese consider it under powered with it's current AL-31 engines, the same ones used on Su-27s and they require 2 40k class engines to get it up to spec, then I'd have to say yes, maybe we don't see it as considerably larger but the wind sees it a different way.


From available photos, J-20's weapon bays aren't much different from F-22's. Su-27 can't supercruise with AL-31s either, so J-20 needing more powerful engines to supercruise doesn't say much about how the supersonic drag compares, and even Su-57 needs new izd.30 engines to get full supercruise potential. It's not about high static afterburning thrust, but high dynamic dry thrust that get you to supercruise. J-20 putting more focus on low drag makes some sense since their engine tech is quite behind.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 15:15

jessmo112 wrote:Did this guy just blame GOD, for me not agreeing on the J-20s size?!
Anyway why are you so dead set on trying to convince us anyway? Are you a defence contractor? Why does it matter to you if the J-20 is bigger than a flanker?
NONE of us know for certain the planes weight and size.
The plane is noticeably larger than most fighters.


As a matter of fact I do work for a defense contractor. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter personally to me, but if I see people making questionable statement even when most available information shows it's incorrect, I'll call it out.

J-20 probably won't be lighter than a Flanker, just because it needs to carry internal bays, have large fuel capacity, etc. But in dimensions it's smaller than Flanker, that's a fact. Bigger than most fighters, yes. Bigger than Flanker, no.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2345
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 17:14

disconnectedradical wrote:Leaving aside that units of wing area is not feet,

But it is in Square feet

disconnectedradical wrote:From available photos, J-20's weapon bays aren't much different from F-22's.

yes and both the F-22 and Su-57 are considered fatter than the su-27.
I think its because of the internal bays,
Sprts said it a number of times "holes are heavy" big and heavy if I may add, internal weapons bays are basically big metal boxes that you need build around.

disconnectedradical wrote:Su-27 can't supercruise with AL-31s either,


Supercruise is interesting, the Su-35 has more thrust but also has more weight than the 27. Technically the added engine thrust was just supposed to bring the 35 back to the Thrust to weight specs of the original Su-27 which it has. But they claim the Su-35 can supercruise while the Su-27 can't.

Lets suppose its true, the question becomes how? its basically the same airframe minus the airbrake and with TVC added in.

Going back to the J-20 The South China morning post had this to say about it
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... 20-stealth
the engine is the J-20’s weakest link.....the Chinese WS-10B or Russian-made AL-31FM2/3 – severely affects its maneuverability. However, the new WS-15 engine, which is expected to be available next year, will go a long way to addressing this problem


We understand that maneuverability is affected by a lot of factors, weight, shape, size, etc. but if it was designed to be highly maneuverable which China says it is and if it is not much bigger and heavier than a Su-27 then why are Su-27 engines negatively impacting maneuverability "severely" and why is the answer simply to add more thrust?
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 21:15

disconnectedradical wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Did this guy just blame GOD, for me not agreeing on the J-20s size?!
Anyway why are you so dead set on trying to convince us anyway? Are you a defence contractor? Why does it matter to you if the J-20 is bigger than a flanker?
NONE of us know for certain the planes weight and size.
The plane is noticeably larger than most fighters.


As a matter of fact I do work for a defense contractor. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter personally to me, but if I see people making questionable statement even when most available information shows it's incorrect, I'll call it out.

J-20 probably won't be lighter than a Flanker, just because it needs to carry internal bays, have large fuel capacity, etc. But in dimensions it's smaller than Flanker, that's a fact. Bigger than most fighters, yes. Bigger than Flanker, no.


See, just the fact you work for the Chinese government negatively influences our opinion. Its that and the fact that the questions and facts dont add up. Your trying to make the J-20 and F-35 in the same weight abd size class ( ok im being extra) but they odviously are not.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2054
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 21:59

zero-one wrote:Supercruise is interesting, the Su-35 has more thrust but also has more weight than the 27. Technically the added engine thrust was just supposed to bring the 35 back to the Thrust to weight specs of the original Su-27 which it has. But they claim the Su-35 can supercruise while the Su-27 can't.

Lets suppose its true, the question becomes how? its basically the same airframe minus the airbrake and with TVC added in.






Typically when you add more thrust to the same airframe you have more thrust to overcome the same drag. So if you up the Mil power output at M1 (for example) eventually it will overcome the drag and Supercruise assuming no other enforced limits.

If you consider the aircraft has no problem going through Mach 1 in afterburner - due to the higher thrust.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 185
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 22:12

Some thought about that image. From the leading J-20 to the trailing J-16, perspective changes significantly. The camera is about right on top of the leading J-20. If the trailing J-16 is a car, one can almost see its license plate. Seamingly the image is cropped from a much larger photo taken from a quite wide angled lens, presumably by a drone at low altitude. But all tiles on the runway are straight and of the same size. There are ways to correct lens distortion, for example

https://tkhsecurity.com/wp-content/uplo ... ection.jpg

One'd expect some distortion, like things stretched a bit, but everything is perfect, those J-16s are of the same length and wingspan. Nothing is out of place as far as I can see. But lacking of distinguishable shadow makes things floating and flat. Human perception needs shadow to make shape and depth. Of course I am not saying that image is of questionable nature, and I have no idea about how an ubersecret steath jet should look like under an overcast day.

Lastly, the image is almost deliberately making a point: see, it is not as big as you think.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2054
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 22:19

disconnectedradical wrote:
J-20 probably won't be lighter than a Flanker, just because it needs to carry internal bays, have large fuel capacity, etc. But in dimensions it's smaller than Flanker, that's a fact. Bigger than most fighters, yes. Bigger than Flanker, no.



Yep certainly looks that way on figures and photos.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 22:30

zhangmdev wrote:Some thought about that image. From the leading J-20 to the trailing J-16, perspective changes significantly. The camera is about right on top of the leading J-20. If the trailing J-16 is a car, one can almost see its license plate. Seamingly the image is cropped from a much larger photo taken from a quite wide angled lens, presumably by a drone at low altitude. But all tiles on the runway are straight and of the same size. There are ways to correct lens distortion, for example

https://tkhsecurity.com/wp-content/uplo ... ection.jpg

One'd expect some distortion, like things stretched a bit, but everything is perfect, those J-16s are of the same length and wingspan. Nothing is out of place as far as I can see. But lacking of distinguishable shadow makes things floating and flat. Human perception needs shadow to make shape and depth. Of course I am not saying that image is of questionable nature, and I have no idea about how an ubersecret steath jet should look like under an overcast day.

Lastly, the image is almost deliberately making a point: see, it is not as big as you think.


What would be the propagsnda goal in convincing western watchers that the J-20 is smaller than it is?

1. Disinformation?
2. To cover engineering flaws?
3. National pride?
4.There is some other agenda?

Im not trying to get into geopolitics on an aviation forum.
But there is evidence here that some photo shop was involved. And if its a photoshop then why? We already know that the plane isnt as good as an F-22/35.
The Chinese government baffles me.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests