J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 11:31
by weasel1962
Starting a new thread after the previous was locked.

Yesterday coinciding with the release of China's 2019 defense white paper, a picture of a J-20 that had the serial of 9 Brigade was provided thru the official weibo account of the PLA. The equipping of 9 Bde with the J-20 was rumored to have happened before Feb 2018 per earlier thread below but no photo evidence during that time.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53563&start=120

As per the above link, why this is news is because previously J-20 serials were only spotted in units belonging to aggressor training units, not combat units. 9 Brigade is a combat unit that was equipped with the Su-27/30, and is based at Wuhu (~200km west of Shanghai). Fighters are transferred to combat units for IOC which will normally take about 2 years. (see link for full explanation). The defense whitepaper appears to suggest the J-20 has IOC-ed (whitepaper used "commissioned") with 9 Brigade.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 12:34
by mixelflick
Confusing. They must have a very different way of doing things over there..

Can you imagine if the first F-22's were flown by aggressor units? For what purpose?? Perhaps to simulate our F-22's and 35's? And OK, it's now with an operational unit. But there's talk of IOC taking 2 years. So is it IOC today, or 2 years from today?

In any case, it's far ahead of any other (non US) stealth program. Give them credit for that..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 14:44
by weasel1962
Should be IOCed already i.e combat ready. They have been in 9 bde close to 2 years.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 19:06
by jetnerd
mixelflick wrote:Confusing. They must have a very different way of doing things over there..

Can you imagine if the first F-22's were flown by aggressor units? For what purpose?? Perhaps to simulate our F-22's and 35's?


I sincerely hope we're doing the same thing with those flying F-117's in the Nevada desert - since it's conceivable that the ChiComms have had the opportunity to reverse-engineer the F-117's RAM, coupled with J-10's serious attempt at shaping to reduce RCS, DACT with F-117's is probably a fair simulation of fighting a jet with its level of stealth.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 19:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
jetnerd wrote:I sincerely hope we're doing the same thing with those flying F-117's in the Nevada desert - since it's conceivable that the ChiComms have had the opportunity to reverse-engineer the F-117's RAM, coupled with J-10's serious attempt at shaping to reduce RCS, DACT with F-117's is probably a fair simulation of fighting a jet with its level of stealth.

Actually we are doing one better. The first blocks of operational F-35As are now aggressors.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2019, 19:53
by jetnerd
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
jetnerd wrote:I sincerely hope we're doing the same thing with those flying F-117's in the Nevada desert - since it's conceivable that the ChiComms have had the opportunity to reverse-engineer the F-117's RAM, coupled with J-10's serious attempt at shaping to reduce RCS, DACT with F-117's is probably a fair simulation of fighting a jet with its level of stealth.

Actually we are doing one better. The first blocks of operational F-35As are now aggressors.


Logisitically that makes much more sense - why have a parallel maintenance cadre for an older stealth jet that's known as a maintenance nightmare.... plus those aggressor F-35's look awesome in that (J10-ish) paint scheme. (https://the-drive-2.imgix.net/https%3A% ... 657968d31e)

I imagine it would be a relatively simple(r) matter to "dumb down" the Aggressor F-35's radar signature to our intel's best guess of the J-10's level of stealth.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 13:12
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:Should be IOCed already i.e combat ready. They have been in 9 bde close to 2 years.


OK, thanks for clarifying.

Still, J-20's in agressor squadrons is perplexing. They can't have many yet, why tie them up as agressor airframes? Oh well, it's their air force. I'm happy to see agressor F-35's, that's for sure. Simulating ultra high end threats was a capability gap IMO, especially when your force is made up largely of T-38's, F-5's, Kfir's, Mirage F1's and Hawker Hunters. And yes, F-16's too.

Running, hiding and ultimately combating the F-35 in WVR/BVR is going to be a bear. But our pilots have to get used to it, because like it or not - that day is coming. Some would argue its already here..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 19:47
by Prinz_Eugn
I'm just guessing, but the "Aggressor" squadrons could just be the best ones they have in terms of pilots and crew, so the logical people to give a fancy and temperamental airplane too after the true "test" units.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2019, 00:31
by blain
I am amazed at how quickly the J20 went operational. I wonder how long it takes the PLAAF to produce more J-20s than we have F-22s. Which makes me wonder when the IC became aware of the J-20, and more importantly when Robert Gates knew about the J-20 or the Chinese military build up for that matter.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2019, 01:19
by weasel1962
If an air force comprised 3G/4G fighters and the main potential aggressor has 5G fighters, the 1st order of the day is to train those 3G/4G fighters against 5G fighters.

If an air force has never used 5G fighters before, it makes sense to develop fighter tactics for a new 5G fighter. That means pitting the 5G fighter against other fighters.

If the surrounding neighbors use predominantly 4G fighters and one faces 4G CV-based fighters 1st, the last order of the day is to train the best fighter (i.e 5G) to tackle those 4G fighters.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2019, 08:59
by wrightwing
blain wrote:I am amazed at how quickly the J20 went operational. I wonder how long it takes the PLAAF to produce more J-20s than we have F-22s. Which makes me wonder when the IC became aware of the J-20, and more importantly when Robert Gates knew about the J-20 or the Chinese military build up for that matter.

Hmmm. There's no guarantee that they will build a larger quantity of J-20s than 187. It's not an inexpensive aircraft, and their defense budget is considerably smaller than ours. They might build the J-31 in a higher quantity, though.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2019, 06:06
by element1loop
Would you build a fleet of J-20s with an aim of fitting an entirely new engine to them later? I'd give that a miss.

And how can J20 be considered 'operational' if they've not met design engine-thrust requirements or design fuel-burn requirements and the envelope has not been tested for such thrust, range and speed levels? i.e. they're still developing a prototype, just as the Russian's are with their T50. Neither has an operational service jet yet. They bluff.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2019, 06:19
by weasel1962
There are reports of Anshan airbase being upgraded. The 1st brigade, flying J-11Bs, is based there and is rumored to be switching to the J-20A by year end, marking the potential introduction of a 2nd J-20A combat unit. The 1st brigade is generally regarded as a premier unit, based near the North Korea border on the Liaoning peninsular.

This is consistent with the earlier J-10 development and production schedule suggesting an LRIP production rate of ~12 a year (2017: 2, 2018: 6, 2019 onwards: 12 per year) before going to full production of ~30 a year after a few LRIP batches. J-10 production appears to have passed 500 units and is now producing the J-10C variant. J-20A which continues to use the AL-31F engine, if consistent with J-10, can be expected to equip a few brigades before moving to a J-20B variant.

The J-10B uses an upgrade AL-31FN as compared to the J-10A

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 01:56
by weasel1962
Ignoring the propaganda in the article. Bolded portions relevant.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1159509.shtml

J-20 fighter makes combat unit debut
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times
PLA photo indicates new jet has passed trials: experts

A photo released by the People's Liberation Army Air Force on Wednesday shows for the first time what reports said to be a J-20 affiliated with a combat unit, suggesting that the aircraft has graduated from a trial unit and is ready for active duty. Photo: screenshot from cctv.com

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for the first time released a photo of a J-20 stealth fighter jet showing the serial number of a combat unit, indicating that the warplane has ended trials and become a potent warplane protecting the country.

A photo with the caption "An Air Force J-20 fighter conducts real combat training" was released by the PLA Air Force on Wednesday, along with a statement introducing its increasing strategic capability.

Although the warplane has been seen in previously published photos and videos, Wednesday's photo attracted attention as it showed a J-20 with the tail number 62001.

This is the first time a J-20 has been seen with tail number beginning with a "6," Weihutang, a program on military affairs affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Friday, noting that the numbers on previously seen J-20s began with a "7."

According to PLA Air Force's tradition, numbers starting with "7" indicate aircraft attached to a trial unit, while the "6" indicates the J-20 is affiliated with a combat unit under the PLA Eastern Theater Command, said Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Xi'an-based periodical on the national defense industry, in an article published on its WeChat account on Friday.

This suggests that the J-20 is already on combat duty, becoming an important new force in safeguarding China's skies, the magazine said.

In February 2018, the PLA Air Force announced the J-20 has been commissioned into its combat troops, but a photo of it had not been released until now.

The release of the photo of a J-20 with a "6" on its tail also indicates combat troops have mastered the fighter jet, Chinese analysts said.

Fu Qianshao, a Chinese air defense expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that training under a combat unit is different than under a trial unit.

While exploring specific capabilities is likely emphasized in trial unit training, the focus of training under a combat unit includes tactical practice, Fu said, noting that a training syllabus and a maintenance manual have also likely been completed for the aircraft.


Fu believes that the J-20 is now more sophisticated than US' F-35.

The J-20 is listed in China's latest national defense white paper as one of the new, high-tech weapons the Chinese military has commissioned.

Fu said that the aircraft will be mass produced and further enhanced in the future. Its engines, aerodynamic design, weapons and electronics systems including radar, avionics and flight control system could be upgraded, he said.

The public might get to see the J-20 in flight if it makes a flyby over Tiananmen Square in Beijing during an expected parade to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic's on October 1, analysts predicted.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 02:43
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
blain wrote:I am amazed at how quickly the J20 went operational. I wonder how long it takes the PLAAF to produce more J-20s than we have F-22s. Which makes me wonder when the IC became aware of the J-20, and more importantly when Robert Gates knew about the J-20 or the Chinese military build up for that matter.

Hmmm. There's no guarantee that they will build a larger quantity of J-20s than 187. It's not an inexpensive aircraft, and their defense budget is considerably smaller than ours. They might build the J-31 in a higher quantity, though.



While, I don't see China building the J-20 is vast numbers. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they produced more than 200-300. That said, it's clear the J-31 will become the backbone of the PLAAF and PLAN. Which, would perform similar roles as the US F-35....(i.e. Multi-Role Strike Fighter)

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 02:46
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:There are reports of Anshan airbase being upgraded. The 1st brigade, flying J-11Bs, is based there and is rumored to be switching to the J-20A by year end, marking the potential introduction of a 2nd J-20A combat unit. The 1st brigade is generally regarded as a premier unit, based near the North Korea border on the Liaoning peninsular.

This is consistent with the earlier J-10 development and production schedule suggesting an LRIP production rate of ~12 a year (2017: 2, 2018: 6, 2019 onwards: 12 per year) before going to full production of ~30 a year after a few LRIP batches. J-10 production appears to have passed 500 units and is now producing the J-10C variant. J-20A which continues to use the AL-31F engine, if consistent with J-10, can be expected to equip a few brigades before moving to a J-20B variant.

The J-10B uses an upgrade AL-31FN as compared to the J-10A


With the US producing over 100 F-35's per year and growing. China will have little choice but to accelerate production of the J-20 and J-31 in the coming years. Otherwise, her massive defense spending will be for not...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 07:21
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
blain wrote:I am amazed at how quickly the J20 went operational. I wonder how long it takes the PLAAF to produce more J-20s than we have F-22s. Which makes me wonder when the IC became aware of the J-20, and more importantly when Robert Gates knew about the J-20 or the Chinese military build up for that matter.

Hmmm. There's no guarantee that they will build a larger quantity of J-20s than 187. It's not an inexpensive aircraft, and their defense budget is considerably smaller than ours. They might build the J-31 in a higher quantity, though.



While, I don't see China building the J-20 is vast numbers. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they produced more than 200-300. That said, it's clear the J-31 will become the backbone of the PLAAF and PLAN. Which, would perform similar roles as the US F-35....(i.e. Multi-Role Strike Fighter)


I don't see them building more than 500 J-20/31 In total. They're not trying to match us globally. The J-10/11/16 will be the backbone of their fleet for decades, with J-20/31 being the high mix.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 11:03
by weasel1962
CAC and SAC are the 2 primary fighter manufacturers in China. CAC builds the J-10. SAC builds the J-11. When CAC completed J-10 development, production team takes over and design team goes to the drawing board for the next design i.e. J-20. Now J-20 development is completed, production team takes over and design team then work on the next gen fighter. It is therefore likely J-10C production is either complete or near completion and production will be fully shifted to the J-20. Production capacity of the J-10 was 3X a year.

SAC's focus was on J-8 then replaced by J-11. Today SAC's building J-16s. They took a production pause to build the J-15 but that airframe is based on the sukhoi airframe, no issue. The FC-31 is not a carrier design and is an export design. Clearly J-31 has not been adopted. Otherwise we would have seen a lot more test units and prototypes. I don't think the PLAAF was convinced the J-31 is much better than the J-16. Whilst there is talk about a new carrier fighter based on the FC-31 design, that is currently only media reports. Will wait and see.

There is no concept of hi-lo mix in PLAAF production intent. Otherwise there should be more single engine J-10s. Instead because of the way the 2 manufacturers are set up, there are more sukhoi based fighters (once sukhoi imports are added). The manner of fighter induction is also interesting. Rather than J-7s converting to J-20s direct, those are replacing J-11 sqns. The J-11s are then moved to the 2nd tier units i.e. less drastic jumps. The J-16 with a stronger A2G focus appears to be replacing JH-7 sqns.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 11:55
by zero-one
weasel1962 wrote:There is no concept of hi-lo mix


Quick question, does the US still employ a high-low mix? I'm really undecided.
in the past we would see, 2 platforms with similar missions but varying capabilities.
F-15A and the F-16A were both A-A only for a time. But one had BVR and WVR while the other was WVR only.

However now, we seem to have a different set up which is 1 platform that is A-A optimized with optional A-G capability (F-22 and F-15C) and 1 platform which is A-G optimized with considerable A-A capabilities for self escort (F-15E, F-16C, F-35)

So I really can't call it Hi-Lo mix since unlike before, they do not have redundant missions.
For A-A the F-22 is the Hi and the F-35 is the low, for A-G its reversed.

Is it still a Hi-Lo mix or just different platforms optimized differently for different missions.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 12:48
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:I don't think the PLAAF was convinced the J-31 is much better than the J-16. Whilst there is talk about a new carrier fighter based on the FC-31 design, that is currently only media reports. Will wait and see.


I suspect J-20 is going to be the backbone of the PLAAF stealth force, it has vastly better numbers than FC-31. I doubt the FC-31 will be acquired at all by PLAAF.

J-31s implied payload and P:W ratio plus estimated fuel range numbers are awful, it's a dead-end. FC-31 is an evolved J-31, it may be improved but probably not even going to match an F/A-18A for range and payload while the P:W is about 0.59:1 on AB @ MTOW, and 0.4:1 without it. A carrier fighter with a 0.59:1 P:W? ... who wants it?

I strongly suspect any export buyers will take one look at the FC-31's numbers and balk. Thus I don't think China will even offer it for export, even if they do acquire it for PLAN.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 13:14
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I don't think the PLAAF was convinced the J-31 is much better than the J-16. Whilst there is talk about a new carrier fighter based on the FC-31 design, that is currently only media reports. Will wait and see.


I suspect J-20 is going to be the backbone of the PLAAF stealth force, it has vastly better numbers than FC-31.


We don't have "numbers" for either. All we know is the J-20 is bigger than the J-31. How we can conclude that makes it "vastly better" escapes me.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 13:45
by mixelflick
The J-20 is happening, and it's a good bet the J-31 will happen. But it likely faces a much longer and more difficult development vs. its big brother. Normally, this is the other way around. But they're going to ask the J-31 to do many different things OCA, DCA, Strike, ISR, fly off a carrier etc.. That's a much taller order, and until they get the engines going it'll be like the SU-57 - going nowhwere fast (for the moment).

I do think both will ultimately make it to serial prodcution. How soon however, and how relavant they'll be at that time is the real question. The F35 as it stands is head and shoulders above the J-31, and future engine/sofware upgrades should keep it comfortaby above the competition..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 02:13
by weasel1962
The development of the FC-31 baseline is complete. They have a flying prototype. Even the WS-13 engine development appears complete since they have been offering that for the JF-17 blk 3. The development now per media report appears to be an adaption for carrier use. That means bigger wings, strengthened landing gear, tailhook etc. It will not be the same aircraft as the baseline.

There are numbers for FC-31 (export brochure) and the thrust ratings of the RD-93 are publicly available.
[img]http://www.eastpendulum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-07-Un-premier-J-20-enfin-immatriculé-08.jpg
[/img]

Thrust is ~88% of the F-35A but due to lower engine rating has an MTOW ~10,000 lbs less than F-35A. Roughly same range suggest 18000+ lbs of fuel carried. @17.3m long, its a longer and taller plane than the F-35 which suggests a higher empty weight. Compared to the J-20, its the equivalent of a Mig-29 vs Su-27. Clearly as a smaller aircraft, it carries less missiles (4 on FC-31 vs 6 on the J-20). Its nose cone is smaller i.e. less powerful AESA. There are no indications of the same bells and whistles e.g. EO-DAS on the J-20. However, since SAC does not own the J-20 design, its not a production trade off between the J-20 vs J-31. Its between J-16 vs J-31.

The J-16 is the F-15E/Su-30 equivalent of the PLAAF. It can carry large AAMs wasted on stealth fighters who are constrained by bay size. It can carry multiple large standoff AGMs which render stealth less useful. Easy to forget JH-7s are almost 30 years old i.e. time for replacement. J-7s production ended only in 2013 so PLAAF might actually replace JH-7s first before all J-7s are replaced. The J-31 don't have the F-35's A2G capability. PLAAF still use large AGMs as their favorite strike weapons. That's my read why SAC's production is still mainly J-16. I could be wrong and will wait and see what happens next.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 03:12
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:The J-20 is happening, and it's a good bet the J-31 will happen. But it likely faces a much longer and more difficult development vs. its big brother. Normally, this is the other way around. But they're going to ask the J-31 to do many different things OCA, DCA, Strike, ISR, fly off a carrier etc.. That's a much taller order, and until they get the engines going it'll be like the SU-57 - going nowhwere fast (for the moment).

I do think both will ultimately make it to serial prodcution. How soon however, and how relavant they'll be at that time is the real question. The F35 as it stands is head and shoulders above the J-31, and future engine/sofware upgrades should keep it comfortaby above the competition..



I disagree my guess is China is putting every effort in the J-31. As it will become the backbone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. As for engines the Russian Turbofans are adequate to get production going. Until New Chinese Designs are ready....


"IMHO"

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 03:16
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I don't think the PLAAF was convinced the J-31 is much better than the J-16. Whilst there is talk about a new carrier fighter based on the FC-31 design, that is currently only media reports. Will wait and see.


I suspect J-20 is going to be the backbone of the PLAAF stealth force, it has vastly better numbers than FC-31.


We don't have "numbers" for either. All we know is the J-20 is bigger than the J-31. How we can conclude that makes it "vastly better" escapes me.



With the J-31 arriving much later than the J-20. It should gain much from the J-20 and stolen data from Western Sources.


So, for me this idea that the J-20 is markedly better than the J-31 holds little water. Which, is not to say the J-20 could hold some minor advantages in some respects.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 03:19
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:CAC and SAC are the 2 primary fighter manufacturers in China. CAC builds the J-10. SAC builds the J-11. When CAC completed J-10 development, production team takes over and design team goes to the drawing board for the next design i.e. J-20. Now J-20 development is completed, production team takes over and design team then work on the next gen fighter. It is therefore likely J-10C production is either complete or near completion and production will be fully shifted to the J-20. Production capacity of the J-10 was 3X a year.

SAC's focus was on J-8 then replaced by J-11. Today SAC's building J-16s. They took a production pause to build the J-15 but that airframe is based on the sukhoi airframe, no issue. The FC-31 is not a carrier design and is an export design. Clearly J-31 has not been adopted. Otherwise we would have seen a lot more test units and prototypes. I don't think the PLAAF was convinced the J-31 is much better than the J-16. Whilst there is talk about a new carrier fighter based on the FC-31 design, that is currently only media reports. Will wait and see.

There is no concept of hi-lo mix in PLAAF production intent. Otherwise there should be more single engine J-10s. Instead because of the way the 2 manufacturers are set up, there are more sukhoi based fighters (once sukhoi imports are added). The manner of fighter induction is also interesting. Rather than J-7s converting to J-20s direct, those are replacing J-11 sqns. The J-11s are then moved to the 2nd tier units i.e. less drastic jumps. The J-16 with a stronger A2G focus appears to be replacing JH-7 sqns.


Sorry, the J-31 and FC-31 are mostly one and the same.....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 13:56
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, the J-31 and FC-31 are mostly one and the same.....


Yup, ordinary.

This is the best case:

FC-31 baseline figures with full fuel and weapons = MTOW

Fuel Load lb =18,000 (per Weasel's guestimation)
Empty Weight lb = 37,363 (implied)
Payload Weight lb = 5,366 (implied)
Full fuel Weight lb = 60,729 (claimed)
Under MTOW lb = 0 ... (i.e. no payload left after just 5,366 lb stores added)

Engine = WS-13 claimed thrust
No AB Thrust lb = 26,000 (i.e. dry * 0.65)
A/B Thrust lb = 40,000

@100% fuel
Dry Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.428 : 1
A/B Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.659 : 1

@ 50% fuel
Dry Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.57 : 1
A/B Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.893 : 1

Now add the carrier gear to it.

Why I think PLAAF is probably not going to want it as an A2A fighter and little to no air to ground? ... nah. PLAN only, and export unlikely.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 01:31
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, the J-31 and FC-31 are mostly one and the same.....


Yup, ordinary.

This is the best case:

FC-31 baseline figures with full fuel and weapons = MTOW

Fuel Load lb =18,000 (per Weasel's guestimation)
Empty Weight lb = 37,363 (implied)
Payload Weight lb = 5,366 (implied)
Full fuel Weight lb = 60,729 (claimed)
Under MTOW lb = 0 ... (i.e. no payload left after just 5,366 lb stores added)

Engine = WS-13 claimed thrust
No AB Thrust lb = 26,000 (i.e. dry * 0.65)
A/B Thrust lb = 40,000

@100% fuel
Dry Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.428 : 1
A/B Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.659 : 1

@ 50% fuel
Dry Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.57 : 1
A/B Thrust with 100% fuel = P:W 0.893 : 1

Now add the carrier gear to it.

Why I think PLAAF is probably not going to want it as an A2A fighter and little to no air to ground? ... nah. PLAN only, and export unlikely.


We hardly have accurate data on the exact weights and thrust of the J-31. Yet, good guess would be a little less than the "F-35". This in turn would provide "adequate" performance....Remember, biggest advantage for Stealth Fighters are their low RCS and Sensor Fusion. Not extremely low speed performance!

Nonetheless, the type will become the backbone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. If, for no other reason is they (China) have no alternative....


"IMHO"

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 10:48
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:We hardly have accurate data on the exact weights and thrust of the J-31. Yet, good guess would be a little less than the "F-35". This in turn would provide "adequate" performance....Remember, biggest advantage for Stealth Fighters are their low RCS and Sensor Fusion. Not extremely low speed performance!

Nonetheless, the type will become the backbone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. If, for no other reason is they (China) have no alternative....


"IMHO"


So you don't have data but your are guess J-31 is lighter then F-35A :-|

J-31 is bigger plane (not much still bigger) with similar design and two engines, so it hardly can be lighter.

As for not having alterantive well Chinese already are making J-20 which because of similar engine as J-10/11 and probable future bombers is lot better option for backbone of their AF then J-31 which engine wouldn't be use for nothing expect for J-31. And did I already mentioned, J-20 is in production while they are changing J-31 design from airshow to airshow.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 10:53
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:We hardly have accurate data on the exact weights and thrust of the J-31. Yet, good guess would be a little less than the "F-35". This in turn would provide "adequate" performance....Remember, biggest advantage for Stealth Fighters are their low RCS and Sensor Fusion. Not extremely low speed performance!

Nonetheless, the type will become the backbone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. If, for no other reason is they (China) have no alternative....


"IMHO"


So you don't have data but your are guess J-31 is lighter then F-35A :-|

J-31 is bigger plane (not much still bigger) and it hardly can be lighter. Chinese already are making J-20 which becuase of similar engine as J-10/11 and probable future bombers is lot better option for backbone of their AF then J-31 which engine wouldn't be use for nothing expect for J-31. And did I already mentioned, J-20 is in production while they are changing J-31 design from airshow to airshow.


I never said the J-31 was lighter. In fact I suggested it would have lower Thrust to Weight Numbers than the F-35.

The J-20 is similar to the F-22 as the J-31 is similar to the F-35. One dedicated Air Superiority Fighter. While, the other is a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. Honestly, not a hard concept.... :doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 11:19
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:
I never said the J-31 was lighter. In fact I suggested it would have lower Thrust to Weight Numbers than the F-35.

The J-20 is similar to the F-22 as the J-31 is similar to the F-35. One dedicated Air Superiority Fighter. While, the other is a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. Honestly, not a hard concept.... :doh:


J-31 weapon bays doesn't look as design for multirole. It is similar to J-20 bay which is F-22 bay copy, design to carry amraamski missiles or some smaller bombs:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... ns-bay.jpg

Multirole weapons bays:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0 ... 81e4a.webp

http://sh.uploads.ru/yIq3U.gif

Btw I think you need to wait production of J-31, because for now you are writing about plane which final design isn't done, fly with 1980s RD-33 variant, while you are bashing Su-57 which is in production without final engine.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 13:06
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:We hardly have accurate data on the exact weights and thrust of the J-31.


There is good enough information at present to get a pretty good idea of where it slots in, and it's not impressive. What is above is a guesstimated best-case of what it'll be able to do with the current indications, claims, estimates and the implications.

It's unlikely that an upgraded RD33 = WS-13E will exceed 20,000 lb AB (probably a bit less) and is predicted to suffer in the area of longevity.

The other thing is it's not going to be a light and it's under-powered, meaning the engines will have to work harder to supply the required thrust, with an associated increase in fuel burn, reduction in TBO, reduction in specific-consumption, and implied attenuated range.

It may be a low-drag clean design but frankly, the range and cruise speed is unlikely to reflect it like the F-35 does due to the under-powered engines. It's always going to be taking-off near to MTOW.

Plus what's it's max-landing weight if stores payload left with full-fuel is in the region of just 5,400 lb? And with larger wings/surface and weight for a carrier? Looks a bit marginal to me.

Corsair1963 wrote:This in turn would provide "adequate" performance....Remember, biggest advantage for Stealth Fighters are their low RCS and Sensor Fusion. Not extremely low speed performance!


Agree but do we believe we're looking at competitive all-aspect RCS and IR reductions, compared to F-35A? Same for the sensors, fusion-integration and datalinks? In the end even if those were all competitive it still needs range, acceleration and exceptional agility. With tanker support it would be excellent against 4th-gens in a defensive role.

Corsair1963 wrote:Nonetheless, the type will become the backbone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. If, for no other reason is they (China) have no alternative.... "IMHO"


I don't see that, I think they do have an alternative. The J-20 provides so much more potential for both defense and offense. Plus both will be quite expensive jets to acquire and operate. The PLAAF may just decide it's better off with buying evolved J-20s for the foreseeable, mixed with 4th-gens, until it can develop a credible F135-ski to produce something a bit closer to an F-35C. So they proceed with FC-31 for PLAN in the interim, but I see it as a bit of a dead-end design without a substantially better engine and major re-design to provide more VLO A2G.

2 cents worth

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 02:44
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
There is good enough information at present to get a pretty good idea of where it slots in, and it's not impressive. What is above is a guesstimated best-case of what it'll be able to do with the current indications, claims, estimates and the implications.


Actually, very little data available and the Chinese aren't talking.......(hardly surprising)

It's unlikely that an upgraded RD33 = WS-13E will exceed 20,000 lb AB (probably a bit less) and is predicted to suffer in the area of longevity.


The RD-93's should make ~ 19,000 lbs and the WS-13E ~ 22,000 lbs. Yet, again questionable how accurate that information is. That said, nobody would believe either engine is close in most respects to Western Designs. Especially, in overall reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS).

The other thing is it's not going to be a light and it's under-powered, meaning the engines will have to work harder to supply the required thrust, with an associated increase in fuel burn, reduction in TBO, reduction in specific-consumption, and implied attenuated range.


Underpowered is a relative term...The F-14A was very underpowered. Yet, still was "adequate" in general terms.

It may be a low-drag clean design but frankly, the range and cruise speed is unlikely to reflect it like the F-35 does due to the under-powered engines. It's always going to be taking-off near to MTOW.


How is it going to "always" take off near MTOW??? Especially, considering we don't know the exact Weight or Thrust of the aircraft under various conditions??? Nor, in any of my remarks did I say the J-31 was superior to the F-35 in
any respect. Just pointed out it likely will exceed the capabilities of any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter.

Plus what's it's max-landing weight if stores payload left with full-fuel is in the region of just 5,400 lb? And with larger wings/surface and weight for a carrier? Looks a bit marginal to me.


Again keyword is "adequate" not making a direct comparison with F-35. :bang:

Agree but do we believe we're looking at competitive all-aspect RCS and IR reductions, compared to F-35A? Same for the sensors, fusion-integration and datalinks? In the end even if those were all competitive it still needs range, acceleration and exceptional agility. With tanker support it would be excellent against 4th-gens in a defensive role.


Sure I doubt the J-31 could match let alone exceed the F-35 is any respect. (i.e. Performance, Stealth, Sensor Fusion, etc.) Yet, the real question is how close can it come. While, how would it compare to existing 4/4.5 Generation Fighters???



I don't see that, I think they do have an alternative. The J-20 provides so much more potential for both defense and offense. Plus both will be quite expensive jets to acquire and operate. The PLAAF may just decide it's better off with buying evolved J-20s for the foreseeable, mixed with 4th-gens, until it can develop a credible F135-ski to produce something a bit closer to an F-35C. So they proceed with FC-31 for PLAN in the interim, but I see it as a bit of a dead-end design without a substantially better engine and major re-design to provide more VLO A2G.


I've seen nothing to suggest China is planning on developing the J-20 into a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. It clearly has been designed for various Air Superiority Missions. (Yet, may have some type of secondary deep interdiction role?) In addition the PLAAF needs a middle weight multi-role Strike Fighter the same as the US and the rest of the World. Which, can be produced in "vast" numbers. While, also being adaptable to the Naval Mission and Export. This is frankly exactly what the J-31 is.....aka Chinese F-35.

Honestly, don't see what some have such a hard time understanding???

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 03:03
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
J-31 weapon bays doesn't look as design for multirole. It is similar to J-20 bay which is F-22 bay copy, design to carry amraamski missiles or some smaller bombs:

https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... ns-bay.jpg


This link won't open.........can you attach the picture instead????



Btw I think you need to wait production of J-31, because for now you are writing about plane which final design isn't done, fly with 1980s RD-33 variant, while you are bashing Su-57 which is in production without final engine.


I have "never" bashed the Su-57 over it's current engine. As a matter of fact like the RD-93 in the J-31. I have in fact said it was adequate until more powerful engines become available. My criticism over the Su-57 is mainly over it's poor RCS (i.e. Stealth) and questionable Sensor Fusion.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 05:29
by disconnectedradical
Corsair1963 wrote:I've seen nothing to suggest China is planning on developing the J-20 into a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. It clearly has been designed for various Air Superiority Missions. (Yet, may have some type of secondary deep interdiction role?) In addition the PLAAF needs a middle weight multi-role Strike Fighter the same as the US and the rest of the World. Which, can be produced in "vast" numbers. While, also being adaptable to the Naval Mission and Export. This is frankly exactly what the J-31 is.....aka Chinese F-35.

Honestly, don't see what some have such a hard time understanding???


Maybe you should try to understand China does not operate like we do or have the same goals and doesn't need an aircraft like F-35. Honestly it looks like you keep promoting FC-31 because it looks like an F-35 so it backs your belief that the F-35 is end all be all.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 05:34
by Corsair1963
disconnectedradical wrote:
Maybe you should try to understand China does not operate like we do or have the same goals and doesn't need an aircraft like F-35. Honestly it looks like you keep promoting FC-31 because it looks like an F-35 so it backs your belief that the F-35 is end all be all.



Really, so China doesn't need a multi-role strike fighter. Which, it can produce in volume (affordable) for the PLAAF, PLAN, and Export.

Then odd they're developing it for those very reasons..... :?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 06:31
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Why I think PLAAF is probably not going to want it as an A2A fighter and little to no air to ground? ... nah. PLAN only, and export unlikely.


Speaking of Fuel and Power........

QUOTE:

A model of China’s FC-31 stealth fighter jet displayed at the Paris Air Show features new designs behind the cockpit and at the engines compared to previous prototypes. The airshow runs from June 17 to 23, 2019. Photo: screenshot of China Central Television

China’s fifth generation stealth fighter jet FC-31 showcased its latest upgrades at the ongoing Paris Air Show, and analysts noted on Wednesday that the displayed model shows noteworthy changes in design that could significantly improve its capabilities.

A scaled model of the FC-31 is being displayed by the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) at the company’s stand at the 53rd Paris Air Show, which is scheduled to run from Monday to Sunday.

Chinese military observers and media said the model on display appears to have undergone many changes compared to the aircraft’s past designs.

The area behind the cockpit and the areas where the two engines are housed are now bulkier, Weihutang, a military column affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Wednesday.

The optimized aerodynamic design further reduces wind resistance, the report said.

Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Wednesday that these changes could mean the aircraft has been made more agile and is capable of carrying more fuel, which will give it a larger operational range.

It might also carry additional electronic devices for communication or satellite links, Wang said.

The upgraded FC-31 might even feature a pair of new engines, reported Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Xi’an-based periodical on the national defense industry.

The nozzles of the engines on the FC-31 model displayed in Paris are very different in structure and shape than the ones previously used, the periodical said, noting that this means the warplane will become more competitive on the international market, giving it a better chance of joining the People’s Liberation Army if it gets new and more powerful engines.

Wang said that the warplane will continue to boost its capabilities.

For countries looking to buy an advanced stealth fighter jet, the FC-31 is similar to the US F-35 but much cheaper, and China does not attach political conditions to arms sales as the US does, Wang said.

https://chinanews.worldtimes.news/china ... -air-show/

FC31XYZ.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 06:59
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
Maybe you should try to understand China does not operate like we do or have the same goals and doesn't need an aircraft like F-35. Honestly it looks like you keep promoting FC-31 because it looks like an F-35 so it backs your belief that the F-35 is end all be all.


Really, so China doesn't need a multi-role strike fighter. Which, it can produce in volume (affordable) for the PLAAF, PLAN, and Export. Then odd they're developing it for those very reasons..... :?


What China wants to do and what China can do are not equal.

They have multirole strikefighters now. Combine those with an evolving J-20 air-dominance force and high standoff PGM weapons on the 4th-gens and they have a powerful air force with no clear "need" for an FC-31 which has only an A2A optimized weapons bay. And whether you want to face it or not, the implied stuff-all available payload with full fuel.

Until now the highest 'wild-ass' claim I have seen for WS-13E thrust is 20,000 lb. The Tomcat was adequate due to variable wing sweep angle, while the FC-31 with the claimed max weight (60,927 lb) and claimed thrust (optimistically 40,000 lb) is questionable due the cost and complexity involved. It's more-or-less just an expensive shorter-range J-20, which might be able to operate from a carrier deck one day.

PLAAF may as well save the money outlay and operate just one expensive 5th-gen A2A fighter, and buy evolving versions of the J-20 until China can master a high-powered reliable high-TBO singles that will actually be worth acquiring on merit.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:07
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
What China wants to do and what China can do are not equal.

They have multirole strikefighters now. Combine those with an evolving J-20 air-dominance force and high standoff PGM weapons on the 4th-gens and they have a powerful air force with no clear "need" for an FC-31 which has only an A2A optimized weapons bay. And whether you want to face it or not, the implied stuff-all available payload with full fuel.

Until now the highest 'wild-ass' claim I have seen for WS-13E thrust is 20,000 lb. The Tomcat was adequate due to variable wing sweep angle, while the FC-31 with the claimed max weight (60,927 lb) and claimed thrust (optimistically 40,000 lb) is questionable due the cost and complexity involved. It's more-or-less just an expensive shorter-range J-20, which might be able to operate from a carrier deck one day.

PLAAF may as well save the money outlay and operate just one expensive 5th-gen A2A fighter, and buy evolving versions of the J-20 until China can master a high-powered reliable high-TBO singles that will actually be worth acquiring on merit.



So, you believe China is going to build several hundred Multi-Role J-20's in the next 10-20 years. While, the J-31 will just become a Naval Fighter for the PLAN???

Please, elaborate....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:16
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Why I think PLAAF is probably not going to want it as an A2A fighter and little to no air to ground? ... nah. PLAN only, and export unlikely.


Speaking of Fuel and Power........


More powerful engines plus more than 18,000 lb of fuel (which I think was a stretch already btw) just means a significant weight increase for little if any payload gain. That could potentially make it a more useful A2A fighter, but for PLAAF needs the J-20 will already do that better.

Corsair1963 wrote:So, you believe China is going to build several hundred Multi-Role J-20's in the next 10-20 years. While, the J-31 will just become a Naval Fighter for the PLAN???


That's what I've said a couple of times already and also explained.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:25
by Corsair1963
Just to be 100% clear my personal opinion is the J-31 will become the backbone of both PLAAF and PLAN. While, it may even have some success in the export market. As the Su-57 appears to be of little threat....


Which, means the J-31 will be built in far greater numbers than the J-20. Of course I am just expressing my personal opinion. If, I am wrong I will be happy to "apologize".

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:30
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
More powerful engines plus more than 18,000 lb of fuel (which I think was a stretch already btw) just means a significant weight increase for little if any payload gain. That could potentially make it a more useful A2A fighter, but for PLAAF needs the J-20 will already do that better
.

So, I guess you believe the USAF should have just purchased the F-22A and canceled the F-35A???
That's what I've said a couple of times already and also explained.



I doubt very much that China will produce more J-20's than J-31's long-term. Yet, your entitled to your opinion...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:49
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:Just to be 100% clear my personal opinion is the J-31 will become the backbone of both PLAAF and PLAN. ... Which, means the J-31 will be built in far greater numbers than the J-20.


What you're forgetting is the presumption that the FC-31 would be "cheaper" and more affordable is predicated on the numbers being built. But if the performance is not recommending the jet on its merits then why even spend so much building it at all? Except where the PLAN's essential needs are concerned (which then makes it their problem and budget issue).

In which case the J-20 program grows quantitatively into a larger PLAAF acquisition, and thus becomes the cheaper aircraft to acquire. One which already has superior baseline performance margin and more potential for development, with an available payload of just over 10,000 lb (implied) with full-fuel. And the cost of the one program delivering the same thing (but less of it) again costs the PLAAF less, which then allows them to focus resources and manpower on maximizing an evolved J-20 fleet.

" ... We don't need no stankin' FC-31s! ... "

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:52
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:I doubt very much that China will produce more J-20's than J-31's long-term. Yet, your entitled to your opinion...


They may produce as few as 100 FC-31 mixed with J-15s for A2G.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 07:57
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I doubt very much that China will produce more J-20's than J-31's long-term. Yet, your entitled to your opinion...


They may produce as few as 100 FC-31 mixed with J-15s for A2G.



:lmao:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 13:06
by mixelflick
If they do proceed with acquiring large numbers of JC-31's, it will mark a significant departure from Russian thinking on such matters..

I think its fair to say JC-31 will be markedly inferior to the F-35, albeit it'll be much more survivable than their current Flanker derivatives. So they'd be putting more emphasis on stealth and likely BVR engagements, vs. Russia's roadmap of less stealth but instead more emphasis on "supermaneuverability". Clearly, their doctrine diverges from Russian thinking.

What will be interesting is whether or not foreign customers fall in line with that line of thinking. Closer to home, I'd agree that China would be better served with evolved J-20 models for OCA, DCA and as a maritime strike platform. Very doubtful the FC-31 will have the legs, especially given Chinese engine technology.

I'm also perplexed as to how beefing up the area behind the cockpit and around the engines somehow equals less drag/more aerodynamically efficient?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2019, 01:40
by weasel1962
What facts and reality however show may be different from some of the conclusions stated.

The facts are:
1. China is not America. They think and do things differently.
2. China has more dual engine flankers than single engine J-10s.
3. China has more dual engine fighters (JH-7, flankers, J-8s) in 41 air brigades than single engine ones (J-10, J-7s) in 37 air brigades now.
4. J-20 is in production, J-31 is not.
5. SAC does not produce more fighters annually than CAC.
6. So even if J-31 starts production in the near future, J-20 numbers will always be more than J-31 unless one of 2 things occur.
a. J-20 production rate is less than J-31 production rate (no evidence to suggest this)
b. J-20 ends production earlier than J-31 (no evidence to suggest this will happen).

Seen from US perspective, J-31 should logically be in service and in huge numbers because that's how US does it. Seen from China perspective, 不一样.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2019, 01:50
by element1loop
Given the record of the engines involved it's understandable that twins are preferred too. :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2019, 15:21
by element1loop
China’s navy ‘set to pick J-20 stealth jets for its next generation carriers’

Minnie Chan

Published: 11:00pm, 27 Aug, 2019
Updated: 11:49pm, 27 Aug, 2019

China’s military is likely to pick the country’s first active stealth fighter, the J-20, for its next generation aircraft carriers, according to military sources and a recent report on state media. The J-20, made by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), appears to have a won a head-to-head contest with the FC-31, a fighter made by another company which is still undergoing testing. A military insider told the South China Morning Post that the Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, now favoured adapting the J-20 for its new carriers.

“The Chengdu Aerospace Corporation will announce some new products, which will include a new version of their J-20. You can guess what type it will be,” the military insider, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said. ... A recent programme aired by the state broadcaster China Central Television also suggests the J-20 will be chosen. An episode of Military Documentary shown on August 16 reported how the PLA Navy was selecting candidates for pilot training and illustrated the feature with a mock-up of jets that looked like J-20s taking off from a carrier.

Ground-based J-20s – also known as Powerful Dragons – entered service with the PLA Air Force in 2017. Mass production of the stealth fighters began late last year as China stepped up its efforts to counter the deployment of American F-22s and F-35s in the Asia-Pacific region. ...

... “Both the J-20 and FC-31 have their advantages. The size of the J-20 is similar to the J-15 since both are powerful heavy fighters,” Song Zhongping, a military commentator for Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television, said. Song said the lighter FC-31 could be developed into a medium-sized carrier fighter that would complement the J-20 in future. But another military source close to the PLA Navy said it would be almost impossible to develop both aircraft over the next few years given the risk of an economic downturn as the trade war with the US continues to escalate. The source said China’s next generation aircraft carriers would be with equipped electromagnetic catapults similar to those used on the US Navy’s Ford-class supercarriers. ...

... “The key problem of the J-20 is not weight, but length. If it wants to be a carrier-based fighter jet, it needs to be made shorter.” Military insiders have previously said that CAC engineers are working to produce a shorter version of the J-20 that will work with the new launch system. ...

China’s navy plans to build at least four carrier battle groups by 2030, three of which will be active at any given time. ... the J-15 will remain in service for at least a decade, if not two. ...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... generation

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 02:46
by Corsair1963
Personally, I have my doubts....more like disinformation. Which, would be hardly surprising. :wink:


If, true then we should hear the J-31 has been canceled. Anyone want to take bets that doesn't happen?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 04:04
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I have my doubts....more like disinformation. Which, would be hardly surprising. :wink:

If, true then we should hear the J-31 has been canceled. Anyone want to take bets that doesn't happen?


There are no aircraft beyond prototypes, with no procurement decisions and no orders.

There's nothing to cancel. :)

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 04:12
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I have my doubts....more like disinformation. Which, would be hardly surprising. :wink:

If, true then we should hear the J-31 has been canceled. Anyone want to take bets that doesn't happen?


There are no aircraft beyond prototypes, with no procurement decisions and no orders.

There's nothing to cancel. :)



What??? Their is a program in development and prototypes have been built and are flying. So, clearly there is something to cancel....

:doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 05:03
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I have my doubts....more like disinformation. Which, would be hardly surprising. :wink:

If, true then we should hear the J-31 has been canceled. Anyone want to take bets that doesn't happen?


There are no aircraft beyond prototypes, with no procurement decisions and no orders.

There's nothing to cancel. :)



What??? Their is a program in development and prototypes have been built and are flying. So, clearly there is something to cancel....

:doh:


Don't hold your breath waiting for that.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 05:10
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.



So, you believe development of the J-31/FC-31 is over???

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 05:20
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.


So, you believe development of the J-31/FC-31 is over???


The article does not say that. But it does say developing both is now out of the question due to developing trade war issues, so only one will evolve from here. So FC-31 will most likely get shelved (if it hasn't been already) and will likely be supplanted by a better design. And that new design thrust may involve a larger more PCA oriented multirole design to go with its stealth bomber development.

China's geography is big, its neighbors are big, it needs range, just like Russia does and the FC-31 is never going to provide it.

EDIT: note that I said design, not build or procure.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 06:47
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
So, you believe development of the J-31/FC-31 is over???


The article does not say that. But it does say developing both is now out of the question due to developing trade war issues, so only one will evolve from here. So FC-31 will most likely get shelved (if it hasn't been already) and will likely be supplanted by a better design. And that new design thrust may involve a larger more PCA oriented multirole design to go with its stealth bomber development.

China's geography is big, its neighbors are big, it needs range, just like Russia does and the FC-31 is never going to provide it.

EDIT: note that I said design, not build or procure.[/quote]


Sorry, speculation by the South China Morning Post hardly makes it fact....... :roll:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 13:19
by madrat
Give Trump credit. He's making Far East Asia safer by messing with China trade.

Who would have guessed the trade with China was fueling the instability in the region.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 13:24
by sferrin
I doubt we've seen the last of the J-31. And given they're already on their 3rd aircraft carrier (with the next likely to be at least Forrestal-sized) I don't know why they're so worried about the length of the J-20. It's much shorter than the A-3D and A-5. A bit longer than a Tomcat.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 01:02
by weasel1962
A bit of influence from the Indians who were claiming they could squeeze more planes with smaller aircraft onboard their CVs. The Chinese seem to be more inclined towards larger, more capable aircraft, which will mean fewer onboard their CVs.

In relation to the J-31, this will continue its function as an export fighter. The latest customer target being Turkey. A lot of marketing going on behind the scenes. Su-57 may escalate tensions and may turn some NATO members against Turkey. FC-31 sends a different message. SAC is also hungry for a launch customer. Getting Turkey would be a marketing coup. The FC-31 is also likely to be cheaper than the Su-57. Still need the Russians to supply the engines though but there's a lot more room for Turkish industry participation to the extent of local production a la JF-17.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 14:19
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:A bit of influence from the Indians who were claiming they could squeeze more planes with smaller aircraft onboard their CVs. The Chinese seem to be more inclined towards larger, more capable aircraft, which will mean fewer onboard their CVs.

In relation to the J-31, this will continue its function as an export fighter. The latest customer target being Turkey. A lot of marketing going on behind the scenes. Su-57 may escalate tensions and may turn some NATO members against Turkey. FC-31 sends a different message.


Not necessarily a better one.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 02:09
by weasel1962
An arrow formation of 7 x J-20s in the air has gotten internet into a tizzy...released as an official vid on social media.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 07:20
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:I doubt we've seen the last of the J-31. And given they're already on their 3rd aircraft carrier (with the next likely to be at least Forrestal-sized) I don't know why they're so worried about the length of the J-20. It's much shorter than the A-3D and A-5. A bit longer than a Tomcat.



We've seen nothing official or even remotely so. That supports the J-20 is being developed for Naval use in place of the J-31. Nor, have we heard anything that suggests. That the latter is in trouble or in danger of being canceled....



Just the usual rumor and speculation..... :?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 14:02
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:An arrow formation of 7 x J-20s in the air has gotten internet into a tizzy...released as an official vid on social media.


I'm not sure I see the big deal. Did somebody think they had LESS than 7 J-20s?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2019, 03:21
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:An arrow formation of 7 x J-20s in the air has gotten internet into a tizzy...released as an official vid on social media.


I'm not sure I see the big deal. Did somebody think they had LESS than 7 J-20s?



Point is more and more J-20's are entering service and the type is progressing well.... :|

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2019, 14:06
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:An arrow formation of 7 x J-20s in the air has gotten internet into a tizzy...released as an official vid on social media.


I'm not sure I see the big deal. Did somebody think they had LESS than 7 J-20s?



Point is more and more J-20's are entering service and the type is progressing well.... :|


Is it really though? Or are you just making assumptions???

On the one hand, it may be progressing well. OTOH it may be experiencing big problems with its interim engine, be down for maintenance most of the time or in general, continuing to experience teething problems. I would be surprised if everything was going just swimmingly. As the US found out, fielding these 5th gen fighters isn't easy. There's nothing to suggest the Chinese made some incredible breakthrough, allowing them to stamp out factor fresh J-20's without any bugs.

It's gone operational... twice. If things were going so well, why not just go operational once? And where are the large numbers of J-20's seen over the SCS? I'd say its development and fielding probably reflects our experience: Some rather large problems still need to be worked out.

It's probably a good 5 to 10 years away from being a fully matured weapons system...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2019, 13:50
by tphuang
FYI, I wouldn’t take anything from scmp seriously. I think they are just concentrating on getting j20 fully operational right now and that could take a while. But I would be shocked if j31 doesn’t get more funding once j20 is a little more mature and shenyang’s other projects wrap. Give another 2 or 3 years.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2019, 17:53
by inst
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Hmmm. There's no guarantee that they will build a larger quantity of J-20s than 187. It's not an inexpensive aircraft, and their defense budget is considerably smaller than ours. They might build the J-31 in a higher quantity, though.



While, I don't see China building the J-20 is vast numbers. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they produced more than 200-300. That said, it's clear the J-31 will become the backbone of the PLAAF and PLAN. Which, would perform similar roles as the US F-35....(i.e. Multi-Role Strike Fighter)


I don't see them building more than 500 J-20/31 In total. They're not trying to match us globally. The J-10/11/16 will be the backbone of their fleet for decades, with J-20/31 being the high mix.


You have to remember the Chinese are playing catch-up. They could very well have ramped up J-10/J-11 production in a skeet strategy, if you note the RAND estimate about PLAAF kamikaze shooting down F-22s by shooting down their tankers while taking atrocious casualties.

The Chinese aren't different from the US when it comes to airpower; the Russians saw their combat aircraft as air defense and close air support, but never seeking air superiority. The Chinese, given their strategic environment (airpower can intervene both on land and sea), want to take air superiority and they need superior aircraft and pilots to do so.

If their goal is to get superior aircraft, they need to go through a complicated catch-up process to match or surpass their rivals, then go through a tech race to be the first to make the generational breach and keep their lead. Chinese nationalists think the J-20 is it. More sober-minded people see it as part of a developmental process; the Chinese have no equivalents to MSDM, SACM, AIM-120, the F-35's dazzler system, or the B-21. The J-20 might be an interesting aircraft, but it's more interesting as the basis of a 5.5th or 6th generation fighter, given how slow its development is.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 00:13
by Corsair1963
You can't win on Land or at Sea. If, you can't provide "Air Superiority". In addition the US and her Allies will acquire Stealth Fighters in very large numbers.



So, this idea that China will only acquire the J-20 and/or J-31 in small or even modest numbers. Is nothing short of absurd....


Honestly, why has China spent massively to develop and build a first class Military. Only to leave it totally vulnerable to destruction by enemy airpower!

:doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 02:00
by inst
The Soviets held Moscow despite the Nazis obtaining air superiority.

Another thing to notice is that the Chinese cut military spending when the then-hostile Soviets were at their strongest; i.e, they'll rely on non-military offsets if needed to deal with their defense situation.

You have to remember, the Chinese have had to put up with having no credible defense against American stealth aircraft since the F-22 hit IOC, and the numbers of their 4th generation aircraft are those needed to deter regional opponents, not face up against the Hyperpower.

Even if you look at naval assets, the military expansion still seems more developmentally-oriented than intended to face the United States symmetrically. The number of operational Type 055s, a rough Arleigh Burke analogue despite its greater mass, is only 1. They may have more in production, but that's far below the 82 Arleigh Burkes floating around.

What's more impressive about the Type 055 is qualitative; i.e, they claim to have gotten GaN AESA radar running on the Type 055s, and the Type 055 radars seem to have a greater aperture than the latest Arleigh Burkes. Later iterations of the Type 055 are supposed to have IEP; i.e, the Chinese are more focused on increasing quality and bridging tech gaps than pumping out competitively large numbers of inferior equipment.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 02:57
by Corsair1963
inst wrote:The Soviets held Moscow despite the Nazis obtaining air superiority.

Another thing to notice is that the Chinese cut military spending when the then-hostile Soviets were at their strongest; i.e, they'll rely on non-military offsets if needed to deal with their defense situation.

You have to remember, the Chinese have had to put up with having no credible defense against American stealth aircraft since the F-22 hit IOC, and the numbers of their 4th generation aircraft are those needed to deter regional opponents, not face up against the Hyperpower.

Even if you look at naval assets, the military expansion still seems more developmentally-oriented than intended to face the United States symmetrically. The number of operational Type 055s, a rough Arleigh Burke analogue despite its greater mass, is only 1. They may have more in production, but that's far below the 82 Arleigh Burkes floating around.

What's more impressive about the Type 055 is qualitative; i.e, they claim to have gotten GaN AESA radar running on the Type 055s, and the Type 055 radars seem to have a greater aperture than the latest Arleigh Burkes. Later iterations of the Type 055 are supposed to have IEP; i.e, the Chinese are more focused on increasing quality and bridging tech gaps than pumping out competitively large numbers of inferior equipment.



The Russians held off Germany because they moved their forces deeper into the Soviet Union. Which, took them out of range! As for Nazi Germany they lost WWII because they lost "Air Superiority". My point....


Nor, do I see a case. That China is spending "Trillions" to develop Weapon Systems that are merely "transitional"... :doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 03:36
by inst
The highest estimates for yearly Chinese defense spending is around 250 bn a year, and there are myriad systems (carriers, subs, etc) that eat up lots of money. These are often deployed, because the soldiers must have something and experience with a given weapons systems informs its users of its flaws and room for improvement.

If you look at the rapidity of Chinese military technology improvement, it makes sense; the gap was around 30 years in 1989 to the United States, now the gap is closer to 5-10 years in many major systems. There is already a sixth generation successor to the J-20 on the drawing board, and if we all acknowledge that the J-20 isn't exactly the Chinese breakthrough weapon, why should they invest the hundreds of billions needed to attempt to reach regional parity with a fighter with significant stealth penalties when they can focus on the successor system instead?

I strictly don't think that the Chinese wouldn't decide to crank out 400-600 J-20s, but the big question remains its capability. If the Chinese expect the J-20 to be little more than glorified skeet, why spend so much money on it? For the 400-600 numbers to be adequate, the J-20 needs to be decisively superior to the F-35 when there's likely going to be around 1200 F-35 in the region. And then you have stuff like the B-21 portending a potential paradigm shift that might render fighters a lot less important in the air.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 04:06
by Corsair1963
inst wrote:The highest estimates for yearly Chinese defense spending is around 250 bn a year, and there are myriad systems (carriers, subs, etc) that eat up lots of money. These are often deployed, because the soldiers must have something and experience with a given weapons systems informs its users of its flaws and room for improvement.


Such estimates are highly inaccurate. As you think China is really telling the world on what it spends on it's Military? :doh:

If you look at the rapidity of Chinese military technology improvement, it makes sense; the gap was around 30 years in 1989 to the United States, now the gap is closer to 5-10 years in many major systems. There is already a sixth generation successor to the J-20 on the drawing board, and if we all acknowledge that the J-20 isn't exactly the Chinese breakthrough weapon, why should they invest the hundreds of billions needed to attempt to reach regional parity with a fighter with significant stealth penalties when they can focus on the successor system instead?


The successor to the J-20 is 20-30 years off. Just like the successor to the F-22. The progression you talk about applies to any militaries. Hardly, anything specific to China. Honestly, your logic is flawed...as weapons systems are always in transition. :roll:

I strictly don't think that the Chinese wouldn't decide to crank out 400-600 J-20s, but the big question remains its capability. If the Chinese expect the J-20 to be little more than glorified skeet, why spend so much money on it? For the 400-600 numbers to be adequate, the J-20 needs to be decisively superior to the F-35 when there's likely going to be around 1200 F-35 in the region. And then you have stuff like the B-21 portending a potential paradigm shift that might render fighters a lot less important in the air.


I never stated the J-20 and/or J-31 would match the F-35 in numbers. Nor, would it equal it in performance. I merely stated it would have to produce them in adequate numbers to put up a credible defense.

Remember, the US is not China's only opponent....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 12:16
by inst
The estimates for Chinese military spending are based off Western doubters who expect the Chinese to have off-the-books spending. The official Chinese defense spending as a percent of GDP is about 1.3%. Western analysts believe they're closer to 2%. The US, by comparison, spends 3% of its GDP on military spending, and still has about a 50% larger economy by nominal GDP.

The point being made about developmental orientation is that the Chinese will likely surge when their technology is right. Their technology is not right, so you're not seeing, say, thousands of ZTZ-99s, Type 055s being built like Arleigh Burkes, or 100 operational J-20s.

As for the Chinese 6th gen, their target date is around 2035, with PCA being targeted around 2030 as a contrast.

Regarding regional rivals, Russia is currently aligned with China, and its own Su-57 project has been much delayed. India has no 5th generation aircraft, Vietnam is a rump and apparently has been semi-subservient to China ever since the fall of the Soviet Union ended the Sino-Vietnamese border skirmishes, and Japan has F-35, meaning that dominating Japan militarily is the same problem as offsetting the United States.

The thing I keep pointing out is that the J-20 needs to be able to dominate the F-35 just as much as a MiG-31 should dominate a F-16 BVR or a F-15 should dominate a MiG-29 BVR. It's an expensive heavyweight fighter with all the bells and whistles; the J-20 has EODAS, but the J-31 only has EOTS, for instance. If you compare the J-20 to the F-35, it has stealth disadvantages, radar advantages (and potentially other sensor advantages, although the EOTS housing is disappointing), and high-speed performance advantages (Chinese pilots have leaked that the J-20 has only "good" subsonic maneuverability, but exceptional supersonic maneuverability). The combination of these factors COULD allow it to get 2:1 K/L vs F-35, but only if the platform was properly developed, and the rate of development is too slow.

For instance, the J-20 is already extremely close to a Boeing Sixth-Gen or X-36 aerodynamic formula, which would further reduce drag and increase stealth. Unfortunately, the Chinese can't experiment with this because their WS-15 engines are interminably delayed (last rumor last year was that it wasn't going to see flight testing before 2021, curiously in line with the Pentagon's estimates) and they can't set up the J-20 as a high-powered TVC fighter before ditching tailfins, although the TVC version of the WS-10 is going to allow them to develop TVC FCS early.

===

My original projection, ironically, was also for about 600 J-20s in the air. But that was not expecting the rapid subsystems innovations the USAF produced, nor the slow rate of J-20 development. For instance, if China had gotten J-20s combat deployed in the 2016-2017 time period, they would have been categorically superior to the JASDF based on the fact that the JASDF lacked 5th gens. Instead, they never hit combat deployments until this year. Likewise, MSDM, SACM, AIM-260, the missile gap means that the J-20 can't really compete. The closest the Chinese have is the PL-15, and that missile is huge, limiting the J-20 to 4 PL-15s instead of 6 AIM-260 class missiles as the F-35 and F-22 will be able to run.

That makes J-20 spam untenable. You're looking at this from an American perspective, where it's beneficial for the Chinese to waste money on skeet targets that can't fulfill their primary function. From a Chinese perspective, they've more hidden behind their nukes and treasury bonds while focusing on economic and technological development than trying to meet the US force on force in a fight they can't win.

I don't see 600 J-20s as impossible, but the trick is that the J-20s aren't going to be the present J-20 or J-20A versions. They'd need to get the WS-15 TVCs up at the very least, and a J-20C with modified aerodynamics and stealth is going to be needed before they can confidently mass produce them. The earliest this might be viable to do so would be in 2025, and it'd take to 2030 before they could get a full complement at about 100 a year.

By that time, PCA will likely be ready. The B-21 will be able to function as stealth AWACs with possible EO or photonic radar, defeating most stealth, and with possible drone fighters escorting it. The Chinese are talking about modifying their potential H-20 to fit the B-21 role, but it's not purebred for that, given that the program was started more for regional or intercontinental attack utilizing long-range cruise missiles.

The operant feature, incidentally, is speed. If we were talking about this in 2017, it would have made sense for the Chinese to attempt to surge and try to defeat the F-35s in sufficient numbers. But now it's 2019 and American innovations mean that once again there's an unbreakable tech gap that can't be defeated simply by numbers. The rate is innovation, to an extent, is astounding; the US missile upgrades and B-21 are a far cry from the interminably delayed F-22 and F-35 programs. It probably has to do with the fact that the US has not focused on its military programs since the end of the Cold War, as well as the superior American R&D complexes.

===

One thing I do want to point out is that it's possible that the J-31s will end up getting replaced by the Su-57s instead. Trick is, the Su-57s are now incredibly cheap; the Russians claim to have gotten the cost down to 35 million, helped in part by the decline of the ruble. It's a full-featured heavyweight stealth fighter that sacrifices stealth for maneuverability and cost, and it's likely a better "lo" complement to the J-20 than the J-31. More importantly, the Chinese can keep Russian aerospace in play when the Russians have a far better R&D complex; the Chinese may have the money, but their products are rather cash-inefficient and it's going to take time for the Chinese to develop their R&D complex.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 13:04
by madrat
Capability is a function of exposure. The U.S. is much more widely dispersed, therefore needs much more overall force quantity. The U.S. has to contend with China being able to concentrate more power in any one places while within its own sphere of influence, which explains the discrepancy between inventories.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 13:17
by sferrin
inst wrote:One thing I do want to point out is that it's possible that the J-31s will end up getting replaced by the Su-57s instead. Trick is, the Su-57s are now incredibly cheap; the Russians claim to have gotten the cost down to 35 million,


:lmao:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 13:18
by inst
madrat wrote:Capability is a function of exposure. The U.S. is much more widely dispersed, therefore needs much more overall force quantity. The U.S. has to contend with China being able to concentrate more power in any one places while within its own sphere of influence, which explains the discrepancy between inventories.


Yes, but the PPP GDP doesn't mean the Chinese have the same military budget to play with. Equipment is expensive, the J-20 at 700 RMB is about 90 million USD right now, but it's likely 210 million when you consider PPP.

You have to think about China in terms of full-spectrum or rather hybrid warfare. Their goal is to set up a regional sphere of influence; i.e, Japan flips and PLA bases in Japan now provide protection for the vulnerable Chinese coastline instead of the PLAN and PLAAF.

To achieve that end, they're better off working on IRBM / MRBMs that have the ability to penetrate Japanese and American BMD with HGVs; the US can counter by increasing basing, but the prospect of getting caught in the crossfire will eventually pressure Japanese elites to switch sides or Finlandize.

For all the talk about traditional Sino-Japanese enmity, you have to remember that Mao actually thanked the Japanese invaders for "teaching" the Chinese how to be nationalist and how to be militant. The Chicoms are incredibly flexible ideologically, Communism, after all, is the model for 1984, and "we were always at war with Oceania / East Asia / Eurasia" isn't beyond their purview. The Chinese problem with Japan isn't fundamentally ideological, but rather strategic, in that Japan is like an unsinkable aircraft carrier pointed at the Chinese heartlands. This is not wholly incompatible with Japanese nationalism, remember that the Chinese never nuked Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that the Chinese didn't firebomb Tokyo.

If we're talking, say, Taiwan, I'm more expecting the Chinese to blink and go "well, okay, see you in 10 years". The Chinese are obligated to invade Taiwan if it declares independence, but they never said when. Building capability over time and getting through the tech gap is more important for them than the Russian tendency to snap brutally at any encroachments on their sphere of influence, notice that the PAP has not openly intervened in Hong Kong yet.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 13:21
by inst
sferrin wrote:
inst wrote:One thing I do want to point out is that it's possible that the J-31s will end up getting replaced by the Su-57s instead. Trick is, the Su-57s are now incredibly cheap; the Russians claim to have gotten the cost down to 35 million,


:lmao:


Are you laughing at the Su-57, its cost being so low, or are you laughing at the idea that the pride of the Russian Federation is reduced to an F-16/F-35 analogue? The ruble dropped 50% since the Ukraine crisis, and the Russians are more autarkic than the Chinese so they rely less on imports for equipment.

The Su-57 isn't necessarily a good stealth fighter, but at half the price of a F-35, it's cheap. I.e, you can think of it as a 4++ gen fighter that's not overwhelmingly crushed by 5th gens.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 14:25
by milosh
Su57 doesn't cost same as Su35 it cost 50% more by russian media and that price doesn't include r&d cost. Export price would have r&d in price.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 15:32
by inst
Su-57 is reported to cost 35 million flyaway on the Russian government contract. Even if Su-57s cost 50 million for export, they're still cost competitive with the F-35; get an LO heavyweight fighter that's ultra-maneuverable for half the cost of an F-35. It's a great deal and the Chinese should get in on it.

The big problem with Chinese subsystems development is that their engines are garbage, and they're only slowly catching up, with recent exploration of Rhenium manufacturing technology. If the PL-15 scares people, the Chinese had PL-21 and ramjetted missiles in development since 2008 or so. If you compare them to the US's next-gen missile development path, Chinese missiles are slow to develop.

Russian missiles, on the other hand, don't have that problem. Kinzhal is arguably superior to potential DF-21 air-launched variants, and the Russian equivalent to the PL-21 or other long-range interceptor missiles has a smaller form factor. The Russian missile ecosystem plugs a Chinese gap while they work on getting the subsystems and R&D systems up to speed. Getting in on Russian systems is good in other ways for the PLAAF; it means that in the event that the Chinese and Russians do joint operations, the PLAAF will already be familiar with the RuAF's air superiority craft; they already know the Su-30s and Su-35s inside and out, why not the Su-57 as well?

Likewise, the Su-57 and J-20 complement each other quite well. The J-20 is essentially a sixth generation version of the MiG-31, if the MiG-31 is seen as 4th generation and the MiG-25 is seen as 3rd generation with improvements in sustained turn rate (MiG-31 can do 15-18 degrees STR at low altitudes). The J-20 is more optimized for performance at high speed (the long-coupled canards, when coupled with TVC, will probably give it the best supersonic turning performance of any 5th gen). The Su-57, on the other hand, has even less stealth than the J-20, but is probably the most maneuverable 5th gen aircraft.

The combo would have the J-20 using its EODAS and better stealth to screen off Su-57 from BVR threats, and the Su-57 close in for the kill while the J-20s scoot home to rearm or launch potshots from behind a Su-57 screen.

The Su-57 also looks better suited for strike missions than the J-20, since the Su-57 has a long weapons bay that can better fit longer strike missiles. The J-20's weapons bay is too short to hold a Kh-31 or YJ-12.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 16:49
by botsing
inst wrote:Su-57 is reported to cost 35 million flyaway on the Russian government contract.

So we finally have an official price for the Su-57? Please show us this contract so we can verify!

On the other hand, you are probably just rehashing the same wrong method where they took the words from Putin and simply divided the given budget by the amount of planes (2630 / 76 = ~35).

Since this was of course a rather nonsensical method to calculate the unit price for the Su-57 (Dmitry) Peskov stressed that "here we are not talking about a simple mathematical formula, we are talking about the fact that in general the budget of the ministry [of defense], the budget of procurement will not increase, but some internal redistribution, of course, is possible and acceptable."

So in essence: there is a set budget that will not be increased and they will have to see how far they will get with that, when more money is needed they will do a "redistribution" of funds from other projects. Ergo: there is no set price of $35 million per Su-57.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 20:19
by wrightwing
inst wrote:
sferrin wrote:
inst wrote:One thing I do want to point out is that it's possible that the J-31s will end up getting replaced by the Su-57s instead. Trick is, the Su-57s are now incredibly cheap; the Russians claim to have gotten the cost down to 35 million,


:lmao:


Are you laughing at the Su-57, its cost being so low, or are you laughing at the idea that the pride of the Russian Federation is reduced to an F-16/F-35 analogue? The ruble dropped 50% since the Ukraine crisis, and the Russians are more autarkic than the Chinese so they rely less on imports for equipment.

The Su-57 isn't necessarily a good stealth fighter, but at half the price of a F-35, it's cheap. I.e, you can think of it as a 4++ gen fighter that's not overwhelmingly crushed by 5th gens.

He's laughing at the claim of a unit cost of $35 million, which is nonsensical.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 20:27
by wrightwing
Su-35s have been going for ~$80 million, so the Su-57 is likely to be closer to $100 million. Currently, the J-20 hasn't demonstrated superior agility to the F-35, much less the F-22. The Su-57 hasn't demonstrated superior agility to the F-22, either. Remember, agility isn't what a jet can do at 80 to 150kts, at airshow weights.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 22:01
by charlielima223
wrightwing wrote: The Su-57 hasn't demonstrated superior agility to the F-22, either. Remember, agility isn't what a jet can do at 80 to 150kts, at airshow weights.


Shhh! Dont you know that the PAKFA's adherence to super manueverable capabilities will give it an edge over its more stealthy competitors. Russia is betting on this and so is PAKFA. Why be stealthy as possible as well as operational when you can do aerobatic stunts as MAKS. Dont you know looking cool is 90% of the job?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 01:12
by southerncross
IMHO a domestic price of $40-45 million is indeed a possibility, mainly because the ruble lost half of its value vs the dollar in recent years. A normal market price for a plane in this segment would be clearly above $100 million (see latest contracts, i.e. F-35 for Poland), but in a sale to China it would ultimately depend on how far they take their increasing military cooperation and if it reaches the point of a proper military alliance. After the drills came the joint bombers patrols and joint aerospace developments, then rumours are being heard about Russia lending their AD cover and even strategic early warning expertise to China, which is essentially a priceless asset for a superpower. So I don't think it can be dismissed that Russia may sell the Su-57 at very reduced prices, if the conditions are right, even when now I admit it doesn't seem likely.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 01:37
by Corsair1963
southerncross wrote:IMHO a domestic price of $40-45 million is indeed a possibility, mainly because the ruble lost half of its value vs the dollar in recent years. A normal market price for a plane in this segment would be clearly above $100 million (see latest contracts, i.e. F-35 for Poland), but in a sale to China it would ultimately depend on how far they take their increasing military cooperation and if it reaches the point of a proper military alliance. After the drills came the joint bombers patrols and joint aerospace developments, then rumours are being heard about Russia lending their AD cover and even strategic early warning expertise to China, which is essentially a priceless asset for a superpower. So I don't think it can be dismissed that Russia may sell the Su-57 at very reduced prices, if the conditions are right, even when now I admit it doesn't seem likely.



Absurd Russia isn't going build Su-57's for $40-50 Million. When they're building 8 per year....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 13:17
by botsing
southerncross wrote:IMHO a domestic price of $40-45 million is indeed a possibility, mainly because the ruble lost half of its value vs the dollar in recent years.

You are using flawed logic.

If the ruble lost half it's price compared to the dollar, then the plane will not be half the price in dollars but double the price in rubles.

Just look at (domestic) car prices in Russia. They are not magically half the price in rubles now, instead they pretty much increased to the same price as what the ruble lost in value compared to other major currencies.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 13:25
by inst
botsing wrote:
southerncross wrote:IMHO a domestic price of $40-45 million is indeed a possibility, mainly because the ruble lost half of its value vs the dollar in recent years.

You are using flawed logic.

If the ruble lost half it's price compared to the dollar, then the plane will not be half the price in dollars but double the price in rubles.

Just look at (domestic) car prices in Russia. They are not magically half the price in rubles now, instead they pretty much increased to the same price as what the ruble lost in value compared to other major currencies.


That actually depends on the inputs. If the Su-57 is mostly made using domestic materials, as opposed to imported materials, the cost will remain somewhat stable in terms of rubles, barring inflation, which takes time to move real prices in the currency back to normal.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 14:42
by southerncross
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd Russia isn't going build Su-57's for $40-50 Million. When they're building 8 per year....

Su-35s are even cheaper and they procure like 10 per year, too. Conventional deterrence is nice, but strategic deterrence is what really matters and has budgetary priority.
inst wrote:That actually depends on the inputs. If the Su-57 is mostly made using domestic materials, as opposed to imported materials, the cost will remain somewhat stable in terms of rubles, barring inflation, which takes time to move real prices in the currency back to normal.

Exactly, Russia's main effort has been to completely nationalize their defence industry and currently little remains that needs to be bought abroad, unlike with some civilian products. Modern developments are mandatory to be produced with domestic supplies.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 16:37
by botsing
inst wrote:That actually depends on the inputs. If the Su-57 is mostly made using domestic materials, as opposed to imported materials, the cost will remain somewhat stable in terms of rubles, barring inflation, which takes time to move real prices in the currency back to normal.

Again flawed logic.

Your reasoning only applies if those domestic resources are never exported (which we all know is not true), once they do those resources will have a global pricing. Using those resources for yourself instead of exporting them for the seemingly higher global price impacts your economy, this is why the final price is based on the global pricing of your resources.

southerncross wrote:Exactly, Russia's main effort has been to completely nationalize their defence industry and currently little remains that needs to be bought abroad, unlike with some civilian products. Modern developments are mandatory to be produced with domestic supplies.

This kind of reasoning will only work if Russia never trades anything with another country. Once they do they however we are back to global pricing.

A piece of metal does not care if it becomes part of a Su-57 or a South-Korean smartphone, in both cases however the economic impact is the same. If you sold it to the global market you made x amount of money, if you did not you lost out on x amount of money, x will be the same in both cases. So using that piece of metal for an Su-57 will have lost you out on the amount of x in your final bookkeeping.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 18:32
by inst
botsing wrote:
inst wrote:That actually depends on the inputs. If the Su-57 is mostly made using domestic materials, as opposed to imported materials, the cost will remain somewhat stable in terms of rubles, barring inflation, which takes time to move real prices in the currency back to normal.

Again flawed logic.

Your reasoning only applies if those domestic resources are never exported (which we all know is not true), once they do those resources will have a global pricing. Using those resources for yourself instead of exporting them for the seemingly higher global price impacts your economy, this is why the final price is based on the global pricing of your resources.

southerncross wrote:Exactly, Russia's main effort has been to completely nationalize their defence industry and currently little remains that needs to be bought abroad, unlike with some civilian products. Modern developments are mandatory to be produced with domestic supplies.

This kind of reasoning will only work if Russia never trades anything with another country. Once they do they however we are back to global pricing.

A piece of metal does not care if it becomes part of a Su-57 or a South-Korean smartphone, in both cases however the economic impact is the same. If you sold it to the global market you made x amount of money, if you did not you lost out on x amount of money, x will be the same in both cases. So using that piece of metal for an Su-57 will have lost you out on the amount of x in your final bookkeeping.


Please don't go with the economics arguments because they're bad. Russia's goods are now cheaper because many of their potential buyers are sanctioning them. I mean, if you were talking about China or Japan, you might have a point given that much of their resources are imported, but Russia is a raw material exporter.

As for whether Russian goods are sold internationally, the question is, at what price would the Su-57 be a competitive product on the global market? It's likely inferior on a 1v1 basis to the F-22 and F-35, and the buyers who are locked out of the F-35 often don't have money.

Put another way, if the Su-57 cost about the same as a J-20 or F-22, it'd see no sales. But if it's extremely cheap, it's competitive through skeet strategy (put a lot of planes in the air, have them have reasonable K/D ratios even if below 1) for deterrence.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 18:37
by madrat
Don't try to apply macro economics to an argument. We hate when arguments are about logic and contain any semblance of a rational debate.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 19:28
by inst
Corsair1963 wrote:
southerncross wrote:IMHO a domestic price of $40-45 million is indeed a possibility, mainly because the ruble lost half of its value vs the dollar in recent years. A normal market price for a plane in this segment would be clearly above $100 million (see latest contracts, i.e. F-35 for Poland), but in a sale to China it would ultimately depend on how far they take their increasing military cooperation and if it reaches the point of a proper military alliance. After the drills came the joint bombers patrols and joint aerospace developments, then rumours are being heard about Russia lending their AD cover and even strategic early warning expertise to China, which is essentially a priceless asset for a superpower. So I don't think it can be dismissed that Russia may sell the Su-57 at very reduced prices, if the conditions are right, even when now I admit it doesn't seem likely.



Absurd Russia isn't going build Su-57's for $40-50 Million. When they're building 8 per year....


It depends on who wants to get in on it; if the Chinese put in a 200 unit contract for skeet planes at 50 million for unit cost and 100-150mn for spares / support, all of a sudden, the Russians have export volume subsidizing their production when the RuAF itself is broke.

As for the Su-57's maneuverability, its wing area is slightly greater than the F-22's, with Izdeliye 30 it has greater total thrust than the F-22, it has off-axis 3D TVC, and it has LEVCONs. I think it's correct to say that the Su-57 has yet to demonstrate better maneuverability than the F-22, but it wouldn't be surprising if the Su-57 was eventually more agile than the F-22, given that the F-22 is now out of production. The F-22s could be re-engined for better performance, true, but the F-22 would need extensive and cost-prohibitive modification to get the EODAS of the F-35, although its MLU is finally giving it a EO sensor.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 21:50
by botsing
madrat wrote:Don't try to apply macro economics to an argument. We hate when arguments are about logic and contain any semblance of a rational debate.

:mrgreen:

inst wrote:
botsing wrote:A piece of metal does not care if it becomes part of a Su-57 or a South-Korean smartphone, in both cases however the economic impact is the same. If you sold it to the global market you made x amount of money, if you did not you lost out on x amount of money, x will be the same in both cases. So using that piece of metal for an Su-57 will have lost you out on the amount of x in your final bookkeeping.


I mean, if you were talking about China or Japan, you might have a point given that much of their resources are imported, but Russia is a raw material exporter.

If Russia is a raw material exporter then the global pricing applies to those exported materials.

Any material that you use yourself is material that is not sold for global prices, so in the end the price for the material that you use wil cost your economy the same as the global price. That is why the price for Russian cars is still the same as comparable foreign cars and not half that price.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 23:45
by southerncross
@botsing:

your explanation does not make much sense to me but I am no economist and I am not here to discuss economy at amateur level either. In any case, according to you, Russia could not sell the Su-35 abroad for more than $80 million and buy for the VKS below $30 million, but they do.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 01:23
by Corsair1963
inst wrote:
It depends on who wants to get in on it; if the Chinese put in a 200 unit contract for skeet planes at 50 million for unit cost and 100-150mn for spares / support, all of a sudden, the Russians have export volume subsidizing their production when the RuAF itself is broke.


Sure if a country came along and ordered "hundreds" of Su-57's. Yet, that is "highly unlikely" at this stage. (if ever) So, all we can go by today is the ~ 8 per year that the Russian Air Force has signed on for....

As for the Su-57's maneuverability, its wing area is slightly greater than the F-22's, with Izdeliye 30 it has greater total thrust than the F-22, it has off-axis 3D TVC, and it has LEVCONs. I think it's correct to say that the Su-57 has yet to demonstrate better maneuverability than the F-22, but it wouldn't be surprising if the Su-57 was eventually more agile than the F-22, given that the F-22 is now out of production. The F-22s could be re-engined for better performance, true, but the F-22 would need extensive and cost-prohibitive modification to get the EODAS of the F-35, although its MLU is finally giving it a EO sensor.


Questionable at best if the Su-57 would have any real performance advantage over the F-22/F-35. Yet, hardly matters because the latter two have a big advantage over the Russian Stealth Fighter in both STEALTH and SENSOR FUSION. This will give the American Fighters "FIRST LOOK, FIRST SHOT, and FIRST KILL"

Honestly, don't know anyone with any real knowledge of the subject matter. That thinks the Su-57 is a serious threat....Of course much the same could be said of the J-20. Though likely the margins are more narrow.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 14:00
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, don't know anyone with any real knowledge of the subject matter. That thinks the Su-57 is a serious threat....Of course much the same could be said of the J-20. Though likely the margins are more narrow.


First time I saw the T-50 I thought, "meh". Thought it looked cool but it was an obvious kludge. First time I saw the J-20 I thought, "damn" and was super pissed that we'd been (and continue to be) so lax when it comes to security. China stole us blind.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 16:07
by botsing
southerncross wrote:@botsing:

your explanation does not make much sense to me but I am no economist and I am not here to discuss economy at amateur level either. In any case, according to you, Russia could not sell the Su-35 abroad for more than $80 million and buy for the VKS below $30 million, but they do.

Where did I say that "Russia could not sell the Su-35 abroad for more than $80 million and buy for the VKS below $30 million"? If Russia likes she can even ask 10 or 100 times that amount, she will not sell much with that price but she can. We are talking here about the price to create a Su-57, not the price on which it can be sold.

So what I did state is that if Russia uses it's own raw material to build the Su-57, the final impact on it's economy would be the same as the total price for those materials on the global market. Due to this, you cannot use a devaluation of your currency to magically lower the price of your resources. So there is no magically lower price to create the Su-57 due to the rubel loosing out to other currencies.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 16:32
by mixelflick
What is true is that IF the SU-57 gets substantial foreign orders, they (the Russians) can make a go of it.

That does NOT mean it'll be the end all/be all of 5th gen (or if you like, 4+++ gen) fighters. It's is technologically lagging in too many areas, and no amount of $ is going to fix that.

What additional (foreign) money will do is give them a "base" to work from, allowing them to be sold both domestically and internationally. The quantity will never approach F-35 like numbers, but possibly approach F-22 like numbers. Those numbers however, will never allow them to make up for the qualitative disadvantage from which they operate.

It is too little expertise, too late for the Russians. What the Chinese will be able to do by modifying the "base" Russian SU-57 is another matter, and the real national security threat that the SU-57 represents...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 18:53
by milosh
Well now when India is out of picture, Russia and China could work on naval variant of Su-57. It would be lot easier to develop naval Su-57 then to shorten J-20. Also Su-57 will get more powerful engines so added weight wouldn't be problem.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 23:02
by inst
My PoV regarding the Su-57 is that it'd be an impressive fighter if it were 4th gen, it'd probably be able to outmaneuver Eurocanards, F-18s, F-16s, etc. Against 5th gen, it'll outmaneuver F-35s and probably will outmaneuver the F-22.

However, the weakness in stealth and lack of sensor fusion, as others have said, is a critical failing that prevents it from being able to compete with 5th gen in a 1v1 fight.

The trick is, though, if the Su-57 is as cheap as the Russians make it out to be, it doesn't have to be that stealthy. It could very well use true stealth aircraft to cover its approach, then kill and get killed with HOBS missiles in short-range fights and still win strategically.

Of course, as a pilot, you definitely wouldn't want to be in an Su-57, and if you were, you'd probably be fed some nostrum about how your maneuverability will save you from being bad at stealth and you'll believe it because the alternative is knowing you're cannon fodder.

That's the angle the Su-57 comes from, i.e, it's a heavyweight fighter that costs less than a middleweight fighter and has acceptable stealth characteristics. Think back to T-34 vs Tigers, as well as the fact that T-34 were supported by SU-152s and other SPGs that specialized in killing Nazi heavy tanks.

The Su-57 doesn't have to be good, provided the Russians crank enough out of the Sukhoi factories.

As for "raw materials cost to the Russian economy", the actual economics term is opportunity cost, but as I've stated before, markets mean that the opportunity cost is effectively nil because the Russians have so much difficulty getting people to uptake the raw materials.

The one last possibility about Su-57 is that the Chinese went full hog on 3D-printed titanium for their J-20s and J-31 prototypes. The advatage of 3D-printed titanium is that it both reduces weight compared to traditional titanium and cost compared to both carbon fiber and traditional titanium. Aerospace-grade carbon fiber costs between 45,000 to 220,000 per ton. Titanium powder on Alibaba can be obtained for the equivalent of 30,000 per ton.

So it's actually a riff off the MiG-25 brouhahaha, the MiG-25 was originally expected to be composed of titanium, making it an extremely agile fighter due to low wing loading. The Soviets, of course, decided to cut costs and were looking for interception anyways, so went with nickel steel instead. The Su-57, if it were using composites aggressively, would be quite lightweight and expensive. But if say, they went with titanium as a composites replacement, they'd would gain some weight but also significantly reduce costs.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it's the Chinese who have the 3D-printer technology, although it wouldn't be that challenging for the Russians have that as well.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 09:39
by milosh
@inst

Of course Su-57 have sensor fusion, how else its sensors would work without fusion?!?

You have multi band radars (X and L maybe even S) bands, you have UV and IR optical sensors and advanced RWR. Su-57 in 2017 had over 4 million lines of code.

Su-57 have noticeable less titanium then Flankers, it have less then 20% of titanium, ~25% composite and 40% aluminum. Reason to use less titanium is price and weight.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 12:02
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:Well now when India is out of picture, Russia and China could work on naval variant of Su-57. It would be lot easier to develop naval Su-57 then to shorten J-20. Also Su-57 will get more powerful engines so added weight wouldn't be problem.


Shrewd observation...

The SU-57 does indeed have more potential for carrier ops. It's size and weight are considerable, but much less so than the J-20. Overall a much better fleet air defense/strike platform, requiring some but less modification. The Chinese/Russians/Indians really don't have the option - they must carry smaller amounts of one, air to everything platform vs. American CVN's. Who ironically chose that same model in fielding an (almost) all Hornet Navy.

If the reports are true that the SU-57 is getting an anti-ship capability, it would seem to fit the bill nicely. The Chinese have the $, and the combined Russian/Chinese expertise is probably there. That would indeed present a potent air wing, one which the F-35C will be relied on to counter.

Let's hope 2 squadrons per CVN is enough...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 19:22
by charlielima223
milosh wrote:@inst

Of course Su-57 have sensor fusion, how else its sensors would work without fusion?!?

You have multi band radars (X and L maybe even S) bands, you have UV and IR optical sensors and advanced RWR. Su-57 in 2017 had over 4 million lines of code.



I believe what most people here are skeptical about the PAKFA is how good all those sensors and systems will be. Russia isn't exactly known as the technological hub of the world. People here have noted that the Typhoons PIRATE sensor and F-35s EOTS to have higher resolution and better capabilities then the OLS-35 found on the Su-35. Another example is radar tech. This will be the first AESA radar that will be on a Russian fighter jet. US pretty much mastered AESA radar tech at this point as AESA radars are mass produced and can be seen on almost every frontline fighter now.

Just because it has 4million lines of code doesnt really mean anything. How good is the hardware and software. Sure it can multiple sensors but how good is the software and hardware is at crunching the information and then communicating that back to the pilot?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 20:30
by milosh
charlielima223 wrote:I believe what most people here are skeptical about the PAKFA is how good all those sensors and systems will be. Russia isn't exactly known as the technological hub of the world. People here have noted that the Typhoons PIRATE sensor and F-35s EOTS to have higher resolution and better capabilities then the OLS-35 found on the Su-35. Another example is radar tech. This will be the first AESA radar that will be on a Russian fighter jet. US pretty much mastered AESA radar tech at this point as AESA radars are mass produced and can be seen on almost every frontline fighter now.

Just because it has 4million lines of code doesnt really mean anything. How good is the hardware and software. Sure it can multiple sensors but how good is the software and hardware is at crunching the information and then communicating that back to the pilot?


I was writing about sensor fusion. Most folks here believe that PAK-FA pilot will switch between sensors trying to get useful info which is nonsense. We can debate how good sensors are but no sensor fusion is joke.

I wouldn't worry about software if something Russians know to write it is software for electric scan arrays, NIIP is writing software for airborne radars of that type for almost half of century.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 00:52
by weasel1962
Just to highlight that there are also various grades of composites. Up to a short while ago, Russian aircraft manufacturing was still reliant on composite imports (until sanctions kicked in) for higher grades. That is a limiting factor for production.

China also suffers from import sanctions but have been smart enough to structure requirements for JVs to set up in China. Hence such JVs provide IP knowledge transfers, besides local R&D, enabling local firms to set up higher tech composite manufacturing. Several Chinese firms are now performing T-1000 production.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 19:52
by inst
Russia has very good engineers and scientists, it's mainly funding and social structure that holds them back.

That said, the Chinese are about at parity when it comes to naval radars, using a larger (5 meter or so) radar on the Type 055 vs the radars on the Arleigh Burke Flight IIIs, with both claimed to be using Gallium Nitride. We've heard little similar from the Russians, and the AESA they've shown seem to have significantly lower module counts (1500) than comparable Western systems. Comparing back to the Chinese, the J-20 prototype radar had about 1850 T/R modules while the F-22 radar had about 2000 T/R modules. So the module density isn't that far behind, and claimed radar performance is 50% detection chance at 450 km of 0 dBsm, which seem to tie into comparable American fighter AESAs of similar aperture.

@weasel1962: that's one of the reasons the Russians are rumored to be running all-metal construction, i.e, they're sanctioned out of composites.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 22:12
by babybat{}.net
inst wrote:that's one of the reasons the Russians are rumored to be running all-metal construction, i.e, they're sanctioned out of composites.


But Russia has domestic composites industry..
Example: https://en.umatex.com/

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 08:31
by milosh
inst wrote:We've heard little similar from the Russians, and the AESA they've shown seem to have significantly lower module counts (1500) than comparable Western systems. Comparing back to the Chinese, the J-20 prototype radar had about 1850 T/R modules while the F-22 radar had about 2000 T/R modules.


Very simplistic pov. You need to count nose size also, Su-57 have smaller nose space for main radar then F-22 and J-20 have biggest nose of all stealths in fact if J-20 have only 1850 modules that is quite small if you look size of nose.

Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.

inst wrote:@weasel1962: that's one of the reasons the Russians are rumored to be running all-metal construction, i.e, they're sanctioned out of composites.


Su-57 never used lot of composite in structure it use them mostly as skin. It is very similar to F-22 in construction, both are metal construction but in F-22 titanium is dominant while in Su-57 it is aluminium.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 10:34
by babybat{}.net
milosh wrote:Su-57 never used lot of composite in structure it use them mostly as skin. It is very similar to F-22 in construction, both are metal construction but in F-22 titanium is dominant while in Su-57 it is aluminium.


Official data:
PCM = 22-26%;
Steels = 10.7%;
Al = 40.5-44.5%;
Ti = 18.6%.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 11:45
by madrat
Could be a sign the composite industry is immature...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 15:34
by weasel1962
babybat{}.net wrote:
inst wrote:that's one of the reasons the Russians are rumored to be running all-metal construction, i.e, they're sanctioned out of composites.


But Russia has domestic composites industry..
Example: https://en.umatex.com/


Exactly the point. Umatex produces composites with tensile strengths up to t700, not t800 or higher.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 20:46
by milosh
babybat{}.net wrote:
milosh wrote:Su-57 never used lot of composite in structure it use them mostly as skin. It is very similar to F-22 in construction, both are metal construction but in F-22 titanium is dominant while in Su-57 it is aluminium.


Official data:
PCM = 22-26%;
Steels = 10.7%;
Al = 40.5-44.5%;
Ti = 18.6%.


Thanks, as I said very similar as F-22 but Ti and Al change positions:

Titanium 64 (Ti-64) 36%
Thermoset Composites 24%
Aluminum (Al) 16%
Other Materials* 15%
Steel 6%
Titanium 62222 (Ti-62222) 3%
Thermoplastic Composites >1%

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2019, 07:04
by babybat{}.net
weasel1962 wrote:Exactly the point. Umatex produces composites with tensile strengths up to t700, not t800 or higher.


It was just an example) Of course, polyacrylonitrile thread for pak-fa program is not produced by Umatex, but by VNIISV.
Samples of the t-800 analogue to replace Chinese SYT55-12K for the mc-21 program already exist, but mass production will only begin within the next two years. Obviously, Russia is lagging behind in the field of modern composite materials, but not so critical.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2019, 07:19
by charlielima223
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.



Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2019, 07:38
by weasel1962
babybat{}.net wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Exactly the point. Umatex produces composites with tensile strengths up to t700, not t800 or higher.


It was just an example) Of course, polyacrylonitrile thread for pak-fa program is not produced by Umatex, but by VNIISV.
Samples of the t-800 analogue to replace Chinese SYT55-12K for the mc-21 program already exist, but mass production will only begin within the next two years. Obviously, Russia is lagging behind in the field of modern composite materials, but not so critical.


Which may explain why su-57 mass production will only happen later.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2019, 07:45
by milosh
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.



Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...
Image


Wider scanning field and ability to guide missile while maneuvering. F-22 would have them also, there is space for them.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2019, 22:40
by charlielima223
milosh wrote:Image

Wider scanning field and ability to guide missile while maneuvering. F-22 would have them also, there is space for them.


From what I've heard the extra weight and power usage for the side radar arrays were not deemed to be that beneficial. The F-22s side radar arrays would be roughly the same size as that found on the PAKFA (and if installed would be more advanced at this point).
With such a small radar the range, scan area, and beaming would not be any where near useful especially for long range BVR type engagements. At certain point, size does matter. If guidence while maneuvering is concerned, isnt that what the F-22s IFDL is for or would be better? One F-22 takes the shot but have another undetected F-22 guide the missile. F-35 gets around the need for side looking radar arrays with the use of MADL in combination with is DAS.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 00:42
by Corsair1963
[quote="inst"]Russia has very good engineers and scientists, it's mainly funding and social structure that holds them back.

Russia lost many of her best Designers, Engineers, and Scientists after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Then for the next twenty years had little in the way of funding. Which, isn't much better today....


Simple fact is Russia is not longer the USSR. Honestly, don't understand why so many don't get it??? :?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 03:15
by weasel1962
Other than Antonov, which builds mainly transport aircraft, the other aircraft manufacturers are Russia-based. The breakup of the USSR is more a symptom of the issues e.g. inefficient state-owned factories, than the cause. China's SOEs are no better, but as highlighted, resources are much more available.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 08:52
by hornetfinn
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.


Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...


Those side radars will definitely give wider angular coverage at shorter ranges but that range is about 1/3 of the main radar range capability. So if the main radar can track some target 100 km away, the side radar can do the same 30 km away or so. So they can be useful against targets that Su-57 can get close enough. Not sure if that is enough to make them worthwhile.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 10:05
by milosh
hornetfinn wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.


Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...


Those side radars will definitely give wider angular coverage at shorter ranges but that range is about 1/3 of the main radar range capability. So if the main radar can track some target 100 km away, the side radar can do the same 30 km away or so. So they can be useful against targets that Su-57 can get close enough. Not sure if that is enough to make them worthwhile.


It is quite useful against non stealth especially against big targets. For example Su57 can fire aaam against E-3 and do U turn while it guide missile.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 11:03
by marsavian
Why not have a swivelling radar dish like the Su-35 instead ?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 11:22
by milosh
marsavian wrote:Why not have a swivelling radar dish like the Su-35 instead ?


Probable because they want instant 360deg scanning capability, you have side array in tail sting also.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 17:20
by southerncross
milosh wrote:
marsavian wrote:Why not have a swivelling radar dish like the Su-35 instead ?


Probable because they want instant 360deg scanning capability, you have side array in tail sting also.

We have seen the radiation danger warning in the tail cone but it is not clear whether this is an ECM emitter only or also a radar. It would make a lot of sense in any case IMHO

The fixed forward-looking radar derives from the need to make it as stealthy as possible from what I know.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 18:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
southerncross wrote:We have seen the radiation danger warning in the tail cone but it is not clear whether this is an ECM emitter only or also a radar.

in an integrated system of systems there is no difference.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 19:56
by wrightwing
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.



Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...
Image

Exactly. At close ranges, they could be useful, but they've got nowhere near the search volume of the main array.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 23:16
by southerncross
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:in an integrated system of systems there is no difference.

What do you mean exactly? I know a radar can operate as ECM emitter within its band and that a properly designed ESM can provide targetting of certain active sources, but AFAIK only a radar can actively and accurately detect air targets isn't it?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 00:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
My point being that IF the systems in the Su-57 were fused to the level of the systems in the F-35 then a tail mounted AESA antenna would be both used for ESM and Radar.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 01:07
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
China’s navy ‘set to pick J-20 stealth jets for its next generation carriers’

Minnie Chan

Published: 11:00pm, 27 Aug, 2019
Updated: 11:49pm, 27 Aug, 2019

China’s military is likely to pick the country’s first active stealth fighter, the J-20, for its next generation aircraft carriers, according to military sources and a recent report on state media. The J-20, made by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), appears to have a won a head-to-head contest with the FC-31, a fighter made by another company which is still undergoing testing. A military insider told the South China Morning Post that the Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, now favoured adapting the J-20 for its new carriers.



Beyond China's J-20 Stealth Fighter

Is the carrier borne FC-31 in the works? And what about Chinese 6th Generation prospects?

By Rick Joe
September 20, 2019


QUOTE:

A Carrierborne FC-31?

Rumors of a carrierborne 5th generation fighter began to emerge not long after the first J-20 prototype made its first flight in early 2011. When the export oriented FC-31 airframe then emerged in October 2012, its smaller size and more conventional configuration and externally more sturdy appearing landing gear oriented speculation toward whether the FC-31 would be developed into a carrier borne fighter.

For a number of years, rumors suggested a carrierborne variants of both the J-20 from Chengdu and the FC-31 from Shenyang were engaged in a contest to be the PLAN's carrierborne 5th generation fighter. The two baseline aircraft occupied different weight categories, with the J-20 being heavier and larger of the two, and debates on open forums often considered the benefits and costs of one design over the other. In December 2016m an improved second prototype of the FC-31 flew with some major modifications to its canopy, wings and tails, however this second airframe did not feature any modifications suggestive of intended carrier compatibility.

In the last two years however, some rumors have suggested that the PLAN has finally settled on the FC-31 airframe as the basis for its 5th generation carrierborne fighter. The exact designation of this aircraft is not known, but it has been designated as "J-35" on Chinese language PLA boards, though the seriousness of the name is unknown. Some recent articles have suggested the PLA seeks a J-20 variant for a carrierborne fighter variant, but to the best of the author's knowledge this is contrary to the consensus of the Chinese language military watching boards................


https://thediplomat.com/2019/09/beyond- ... oMegZeyrbs

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 13:07
by mixelflick
The way they're going, it wouldn't surprise me if they did both.

That said, if the decision really has been made that the J-20 is it - I think it's a big mistake. It would follow their line of thinking though, given the majority of their land based fighters are primarily Flankers. A carrier capable J-20 would be monsterously heavy, and given their engine tech is going to be a real slug. Think about the carrier modifications alone: Beefed up landing gear, the added weight of arresting gear, catapult capable etc.. It's already big and heavy for a land based fighter, and its not like they have experience operating big airframes (RA-5C, EB-66 etc) from the boat.

Hell, look at the J-15 "flopping fish". A carrier capable J-20 won't be pretty, but stranger things have happened..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 16:27
by southerncross
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:My point being that IF the systems in the Su-57 were fused to the level of the systems in the F-35 then a tail mounted AESA antenna would be both used for ESM and Radar.

Both radars and ECM are part of the Sh121 MIRES radioelectric system and it all points out to the fact that they are heavily integrated. I have seen statements regarding the use of the radar antennae of the N036 subsystem as ECM emitter within their frequency range, despite the system having their own antennae. In a modern, SW based and centrally processed system like the Su-57 I find it almost self evident that the radars are used as ESM receivers but I have not seen an explicit mention to this.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 04:30
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:The way they're going, it wouldn't surprise me if they did both.

That said, if the decision really has been made that the J-20 is it - I think it's a big mistake. It would follow their line of thinking though, given the majority of their land based fighters are primarily Flankers. A carrier capable J-20 would be monsterously heavy, and given their engine tech is going to be a real slug. Think about the carrier modifications alone: Beefed up landing gear, the added weight of arresting gear, catapult capable etc.. It's already big and heavy for a land based fighter, and its not like they have experience operating big airframes (RA-5C, EB-66 etc) from the boat.

Hell, look at the J-15 "flopping fish". A carrier capable J-20 won't be pretty, but stranger things have happened..




Personally, I still see the J-31 as the most likely option. While never considering the J-20 seriously as a Naval Fighter.



:2c:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 08:47
by vilters
To navalise a J-20?
You have to build a 500 meter boat. Not gonna happen.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 13:39
by mixelflick
vilters wrote:To navalise a J-20?
You have to build a 500 meter boat. Not gonna happen.


It would be the F-111B all over again.

Let's hope they blunder and go for it. Will set back their carrier aviation at least a decade, all while F-35C's fill out our flight decks...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 19:54
by milosh
J-20 look bigger then it really is, J-20 length is 20.4m, Su-57 is 19.8m so J-20 isn't lot longer. Biggest drawback of J-20 and J-31 is weapon bay. It isn't good for bigger weapons (antiship missiles).

So they would need third design for decent deck fighter or to heavly modded J-20, copying Northrop Grumman would be good start:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/ ... small2.jpg

J-31 mod (bigger weapon bay) is not possible at all, it already is cramped design with lack of engine power.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 21:22
by inst
Weight estimate on the J-20 would be between 17.5 to 22 tons empty, depending on whose kool-aid you're drinking and how much weight growth occurs on the J-20. Dimensions would be roughly 20.4 to 20.6 meters long with 12.9 meters wingspan.

And I agree on the weapons bay; the J-20's weapons bay capacity is only superior to the F-35's because of the side bays, which likely will end up getting eaten up by pods or short-range missiles. Otherwise, it has roughly the same bay volume, although the Chinese have been ranting about their larger weapons bay. I also think attaching missiles to the bay doors is doubtful given that it'd increase weight further and make the bay doors more liable to fail.

Re: Rick Joe; that's Bltizo (Blitzo) at SDF. I assume Joe is actually Zhou. I've been here in part because I've had massive arguments with the SDF folks, they're committed to the J-20 as a dogfighter narrative because they overreacted to the Western media calling it an interceptor or a striker (it can dogfight, but it's more in the class of a YF-23 or a Eurofighter than an F-22. Then we have the missing guns, although there's a placement location for gun ports). Likewise, they get really pissy when I bring up the Su-57 as a Chinese import because of matters of nationalist prestige, with the usual arguments that the Russians can't get it that cheap, etc etc etc.

They also try to play the bay depth argument because they want to denigrate the J-20 as a striker, when we've seen F-35-style munitions at Chinese arms expos, indicating that a strike role is likely in the future.

===

I don't see the J-20 as a carrier fighter as impossible; as we've stated, it's smaller than it looks and if the Chinese can get Su-33 / J-15 off their carriers, they can get a navalized J-20 off it. The Type 003 carriers they have on the drawing board are slated to get EMALS, so the J-15 being crippled by ski-jump problem will be solved.

The USN, I know, wants a replacement for the F-14 Tomcat which is a heavyweight naval interceptor. The F-35s are medium-weight and are more reliant on technological superiority to compete, and while the Super Hornets are heavyweight, they're basically a wing extension and remoulding on the standard Hornet and don't come with the same large aperture radar as the F-14, although the F-14 IIRC never received AESA upgrades.

===

Edit: on the weight, on two dimensions, the J-20 should be about 2.5% larger than the F-22. Body height seems to be about the same. The Chinese claim the J-20 is 20% titanium, but their 3D titanium manufacturing results in 40% weight savings, so the aircraft should be about 12% lighter than otherwise. 18,000 KG seems reasonable as a weight estimate, although you could go lower or higher depending on subsystems.

If you go by the J-15 / Su-33 compared to the J-11 / Su-27, there's roughly a 7% weight gain. So a navalized J-20 should be about 19,000 kg vs a wing area of 75-76 square meters. Stuff in 12,000 kg of fuel and munitions, you get about 413 kg/m^2 wing loading on take-off.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 23:20
by weasel1962
Can wait until a flying prototype appears before commenting. Right now it's too early. Neither j-20 or j-31 can be carrier fighter without modification to the base design.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 10:40
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:So, what are the dimensions of the J-31 Weapons Bays???


Weapon bay is similar to J-20:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... ns-bay.jpg

Primarily A-A oriented, any bigger weapon would problematic for second AAM. It isn't like F-35, F-22 or Su-57 which can carry two big weapons and two AAM.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 07:25
by inst
The J-20 weapons bay is something like 400-600mm depth, 4-4.5 meters long, 2 meters wide. The J-31 bays seem considerably smaller than the J-20 bays, mostly in the width dimenison, although I wouldn't be surprised if the depth was lower as well.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 08:29
by weasel1962
The J-31 bay is the same size as the J-20.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 09:46
by inst
Remeasured, then is the J-20 weapons bay 2.4-2.5 meters? I recall clearly that the J-20 has a wider weapons bay than the J-31.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 15:12
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:The J-31 bay is the same size as the J-20.


Pretty shameless knock off of the F-22 wing/fuselage/canopy, coupled with inlets from the F-35. I have a lot more respect for the J-20's design, albeit you could argue that too was inspired by the Mig I.44. While I think the J-20 may prove to be truly VLO, I don't think the same thing can be said about the J-31. I see it as built for export, vs. filling out Chinese aviation wings with something to succeed the J-10. I think J-10B's and C's are going to be around for a long time. The J-10C has RCS reduction features, and this I think they'll deem "good enough", especially considering USAF will be hanging on to lots of legacy F-15's and 16's in coming years...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 18:43
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The J-31 bay is the same size as the J-20.


Pretty shameless knock off of the F-22 wing/fuselage/canopy, coupled with inlets from the F-35. I have a lot more respect for the J-20's design, albeit you could argue that too was inspired by the Mig I.44.


Ahem:
ce_002.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 18:48
by milosh
weasel1962 wrote:The J-31 bay is the same size as the J-20.


Even though I don't like it because it is clear copy of other designs, airframe looks excellent in therms of stealth, I would say better then anything else (I exclude materials to be clear).

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 08:01
by weasel1962
Neither J-20 or J-31 is an exact copy of any aircraft. The general shape may be there but the reality is aeronautical design is designed around the engines. Simplistically, the engines being different will result in a different aircraft. The size of the wings will then be dependent on the fuselage, weight etc. No doubt the shape of the wings could have relied upon F-35/F-22 as a basis but that's just incorporating what others have learnt.

If one takes the definition that if it looks roughly alike then its a copy then every fighter designed to date is a copy. Example, in order to break the sound barrier, designers realized that the shape of the plane had to take into account both wings and fuselage together (previously designed separately). Today, everyone applies the same principle, otherwise one can't break the sound barrier. One might argue everyone is a copy but imho, that's too broad a definition.

Today's fighter shape is such that in order to achieve stealth, that's the optimal design for stealth. If designers can find something better, they would but logically, fighters that want to achieve the level of stealth would have to adopt something like a flying wing design. You can't achieve stealth otherwise (unless a breakthrough happens - which may happen with the PCA/NGAD). The J-20 is slightly different in view the Chinese incorporated canards into the design. I originally thought it would render the design less stealthy but clearly they incorporated the canards as a necessity for the performance of the aircraft.

There are so many basic design differences to the mig 1.44 that only a lay person would suggests its the same. Its like saying airbus copied boeing for all their airliners because both have 2 wings and a tail and look alike. Just a simple basic feature difference is the location of the intakes. Whilst China has a well earned reputation for a copy nation, I think objectively, both J-20 and J-31 designs are really local designs. Another person who has the same mig 1.44 blueprints would not have come up with a J-20 design.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 08:08
by Corsair1963
I would say the J-20 and J-31 are inspired by the US F-22 and F-35. Yet, not copies per se...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 16:12
by inst
milosh wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The J-31 bay is the same size as the J-20.


Even though I don't like it because it is clear copy of other designs, airframe looks excellent in therms of stealth, I would say better then anything else (I exclude materials to be clear).


A lot of people like the J-31 simply because it resembles the F-35 and F-22. But it's a lazy fighter that won't be stealthy in comparison to F/A-X and F/A-XX fighters. They'd have been better off trying to clone the YF-23 platform, but Shenyang Aerospace Corporation is lazy and keeps on losing contracts to Chengdu, which did the J-20.

As for the J-20, it's original mainly because it incorporates so many different design ideas. There's actually two separate sets of LERX on the J-20, in front of the canard and behind the canard, similar to the Rafale. There's ventral strakes as on the J-10 and F-16, and the long-coupled canard evokes the Eurofighter Typhoon with AMK, using LERX to compensate for poor vortex generation off long-coupled canards.

Then there's the anhedral-dihedral canard-wing configuration. The canards are actually angled to match the plane of the opposite wing, allowing the canards to be lifted above the main wing as on most canard fighters outside the Su-30 and Su-33.

@Corsair: in the sense that they're all stealth aircraft and stealth shaping imposes limitations, sure. But the J-20 is definitely original insofar as it just implements too many different ideas not to be original. Going by your reasoning, all aircraft are knock-offs of American aircraft because of the Wright Brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 17:12
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The J-31 bay is the same size as the J-20.


Pretty shameless knock off of the F-22 wing/fuselage/canopy, coupled with inlets from the F-35. I have a lot more respect for the J-20's design, albeit you could argue that too was inspired by the Mig I.44.


Ahem:
ce_002.jpg



And this is who's concept art?

Tough to say based on the illustration.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 17:16
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:Neither J-20 or J-31 is an exact copy of any aircraft. The general shape may be there but the reality is aeronautical design is designed around the engines. Simplistically, the engines being different will result in a different aircraft. The size of the wings will then be dependent on the fuselage, weight etc. No doubt the shape of the wings could have relied upon F-35/F-22 as a basis but that's just incorporating what others have learnt.

If one takes the definition that if it looks roughly alike then its a copy then every fighter designed to date is a copy. Example, in order to break the sound barrier, designers realized that the shape of the plane had to take into account both wings and fuselage together (previously designed separately). Today, everyone applies the same principle, otherwise one can't break the sound barrier. One might argue everyone is a copy but imho, that's too broad a definition.

Today's fighter shape is such that in order to achieve stealth, that's the optimal design for stealth. If designers can find something better, they would but logically, fighters that want to achieve the level of stealth would have to adopt something like a flying wing design. You can't achieve stealth otherwise (unless a breakthrough happens - which may happen with the PCA/NGAD). The J-20 is slightly different in view the Chinese incorporated canards into the design. I originally thought it would render the design less stealthy but clearly they incorporated the canards as a necessity for the performance of the aircraft.

There are so many basic design differences to the mig 1.44 that only a lay person would suggests its the same. Its like saying airbus copied boeing for all their airliners because both have 2 wings and a tail and look alike. Just a simple basic feature difference is the location of the intakes. Whilst China has a well earned reputation for a copy nation, I think objectively, both J-20 and J-31 designs are really local designs. Another person who has the same mig 1.44 blueprints would not have come up with a J-20 design.


That's why I used the word inspired, not copied when referring to the J-20 and its likeness to the Mig I.44. Regardless of design input, inspiration etc. I think we can all agree it's going to be limited by its motors. By the time China develops engines with adequate reliability/thrust etc., the basic airframe is going to be dated. I think there's a reason we don't see hundreds in service already (according to most estimates). The engine/airframe is a total mis-match, worse than the F-14/early TF-30's. They're only going to glean so much from the SU-35's engine, and it isn't designed to super-cruise, be stealthy in the RF/IR spectrum etc..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 01:49
by weasel1962
inst wrote:Remeasured, then is the J-20 weapons bay 2.4-2.5 meters? I recall clearly that the J-20 has a wider weapons bay than the J-31.


2m wide. Same size. The depth is shallower than F-35. That will restrict fat-bodied A2G munition (but some have argued its still feasible). Can still fire ARMs or missile-type AGMs.

For many years, PLAAF doctrine operated separate fighter and attack regiments with separate distinct roles. Today its blurred with multi-role aircraft. The J-20 is still assumed to be an air superiority fighter supplemented by J-10s and J-16s before the latters are re-tasked to A2G.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 11:04
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Pretty shameless knock off of the F-22 wing/fuselage/canopy, coupled with inlets from the F-35. I have a lot more respect for the J-20's design, albeit you could argue that too was inspired by the Mig I.44.


Ahem:
The attachment ce_002.jpg is no longer available



And this is who's concept art?

Tough to say based on the illustration.


It's LM. And more than concept art. There are pics around of a wind tunnel model.

calf_lockheed_01.jpg

"Lockheed stealthy, supersonic fighter suitable for conventional and STOVL applications looking much like the eventual F-35 with canards " (CALF phase.)

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 19:17
by inst
mixelflick wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Neither J-20 or J-31 is an exact copy of any aircraft. The general shape may be there but the reality is aeronautical design is designed around the engines. Simplistically, the engines being different will result in a different aircraft. The size of the wings will then be dependent on the fuselage, weight etc. No doubt the shape of the wings could have relied upon F-35/F-22 as a basis but that's just incorporating what others have learnt.

If one takes the definition that if it looks roughly alike then its a copy then every fighter designed to date is a copy. Example, in order to break the sound barrier, designers realized that the shape of the plane had to take into account both wings and fuselage together (previously designed separately). Today, everyone applies the same principle, otherwise one can't break the sound barrier. One might argue everyone is a copy but imho, that's too broad a definition.

Today's fighter shape is such that in order to achieve stealth, that's the optimal design for stealth. If designers can find something better, they would but logically, fighters that want to achieve the level of stealth would have to adopt something like a flying wing design. You can't achieve stealth otherwise (unless a breakthrough happens - which may happen with the PCA/NGAD). The J-20 is slightly different in view the Chinese incorporated canards into the design. I originally thought it would render the design less stealthy but clearly they incorporated the canards as a necessity for the performance of the aircraft.

There are so many basic design differences to the mig 1.44 that only a lay person would suggests its the same. Its like saying airbus copied boeing for all their airliners because both have 2 wings and a tail and look alike. Just a simple basic feature difference is the location of the intakes. Whilst China has a well earned reputation for a copy nation, I think objectively, both J-20 and J-31 designs are really local designs. Another person who has the same mig 1.44 blueprints would not have come up with a J-20 design.


That's why I used the word inspired, not copied when referring to the J-20 and its likeness to the Mig I.44. Regardless of design input, inspiration etc. I think we can all agree it's going to be limited by its motors. By the time China develops engines with adequate reliability/thrust etc., the basic airframe is going to be dated. I think there's a reason we don't see hundreds in service already (according to most estimates). The engine/airframe is a total mis-match, worse than the F-14/early TF-30's. They're only going to glean so much from the SU-35's engine, and it isn't designed to super-cruise, be stealthy in the RF/IR spectrum etc..


Partially correct. Remember that the DoD was claiming the J-20 would be IOC in the 2020-2022 timeframe, but I think they were looking at the engines as the chief limitation. What the Chinese ended up doing was rushing the airframe in with make-do engines, and it's possible the Chinese may not fully certify the WS-15 by 2022 (rumor in early 2019 was that we'd not see it before 2022).

On the other hand, leaked documents from the Chinese claim they knew this was going to happen and tried to compensate for it. The LERX canard delta they chose was to guarantee supermaneuverability (which strictly refers to post-stall or ITR maneuverability), supercruise, and some level of stealth even with bad engines.

As to whether the J-20 CAN supercruise, most people think it can't, but it's a low-drag airframe that likely weighs in the 18,000-19,000 kg range. Rumors suggest the J-20 already reached Mach 2.4 in test flights, suggesting it can supercruise already with WS-10 / AL-31.

One thing to note between the J-20 and the J-31 is that the J-31 seems to be designed for WS-18/19 or whatever they call their upgraded RD-33 derivatives. I.e, the J-31 has no bells and whistles to counter the engine weakness, and they'd rather delay it until the engines are fully upgraded. That's to say, the J-31 can be late, and the Chinese wouldn't care. The J-31 can be cancelled, and the Chinese wouldn't care that much. The J-20, on the other hand, has been in some form of IOC since 2017 with underpowered engines.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 21:07
by wrightwing
Hitting M2.4 with afterburners doesn't suggest the ability to supercruise. Plenty of 3rd and 4th gen fighters could exceed M2 with AB, but couldn't operationally supercruise.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 00:21
by weasel1962
Su-27 can't supercruise with 2 AL-31Fs. Why would the J-20?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 13:26
by mixelflick
It's LM. And more than concept art. There are pics around of a wind tunnel model.

calf_lockheed_01.jpg

"Lockheed stealthy, supersonic fighter suitable for conventional and STOVL applications looking much like the eventual F-35 with canards " (CALF phase.)[/quote]

Sounds as if LM is going down this road for a "Super F-35", if I'm reading you correctly?

First I've heard of it, and nowhere can I think of seeing them using canards. But hey, maybe so. If it gets performance levels up substantially and makes it that much better (and we have the $), why not? If this really is the case, LM should consult Boeing on how to sell it to Congress. Hell, that's what Boeing did (masterfully, I might add) with the legacy to Super Hornet. And even today, they've sold the Navy on the Super Duper/block III or whatever they're calling it.

I'm all for this Super F-35. Hopefully, it can finally silence the critics who want an off the charts STR, thrust to weight ratio and all of the "old school" metrics that matter less. The question I'd have of LM if they do it would be this: Why add those new capabilities, knowing that superior SA, sensors and stealth (which it already has) are more important?

If they build this thing right, would we then need F/A-XX??

EDIT: I see now, its LM concept art for the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. My bad. Won't be a replacement for the F/A-XX as that's a heavyweight platform. Might be an interesting final iteration of the F-35 though..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 14:53
by milosh
weasel1962 wrote:Su-27 can't supercruise with 2 AL-31Fs. Why would the J-20?


Not same engines. J-20 use AL-31F M2 (Salyut deep modification of AL-31F):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL ... ns_(AL-31F)


There are noticeable changes compare to AL-31F:
AL-31FM2 and 31FM3. The AL-31FM2 (Item 99M2, or AL-31FSM (M1S)) has a low-pressure compressor KND-924-4, but with some adjustments in aerodynamics over the previous engine, so that pressure ratio increased to 4.0. Also, low pressure turbine has a new 3D aerodynamics, its input can operate at temperatures 1467-1507 ° C. Further cooling system was modernized and the control system optimized. In the summer of 2007 the engine underwent a series of ground tests. The M2 engine has had further increasments of thrust and life time. Thrust is demonstrably 14,200 kp (information from January 2007), with an increase to 14,500 kp or even slightly more likely. Time between overhault rose to 1000 or more hours.

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/al-31/index.php?en

Wiki info about thust is 145kN which is 14.700kp so it is right data. Russians install AL-31F M2 in Su-34.

Su-35 with similar powered engine (117S) can super cruise without weapon load, +1.3 Mach confirmed by test pilot.

So J-20 can achieve similar speed with similar engine and probable higher super cruise speed because it is designed for super cruise while super cruise wasn't requirement for Su-27.

Chinese wouldn't start serial production of J-20 (they are finishing three production lines at least 36plane per year will be build) if J-20 interceptor can't achieve primary requirement and that is super cruising.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 15:42
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:Sounds as if LM is going down this road for a "Super F-35", if I'm reading you correctly?

First I've heard of it, and nowhere can I think of seeing them using canards. But hey, maybe so. If it gets performance levels up substantially and makes it that much better (and we have the $), why not? If this really is the case, LM should consult Boeing on how to sell it to Congress. Hell, that's what Boeing did (masterfully, I might add) with the legacy to Super Hornet. And even today, they've sold the Navy on the Super Duper/block III or whatever they're calling it.

I'm all for this Super F-35. Hopefully, it can finally silence the critics who want an off the charts STR, thrust to weight ratio and all of the "old school" metrics that matter less. The question I'd have of LM if they do it would be this: Why add those new capabilities, knowing that superior SA, sensors and stealth (which it already has) are more important?

If they build this thing right, would we then need F/A-XX??

EDIT: I see now, its LM concept art for the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. My bad. Won't be a replacement for the F/A-XX as that's a heavyweight platform. Might be an interesting final iteration of the F-35 though..


The original Lockheed Skunk Works CALF/JAST was supposed to be canard delta, but they couldn't get that arrangement to work on a normal aircraft carrier, so they went to a tailed design. The issue was something about the canard not working with a larger wing needed for carrier landings. Wonder if F-35 was just USAF and USMC, it might have been a canard delta.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 15:49
by quicksilver
That concept art is circa CALF/JAST days...(ie 25+years ago).

:whistle:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2019, 14:44
by mixelflick
disconnectedradical wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Sounds as if LM is going down this road for a "Super F-35", if I'm reading you correctly?

First I've heard of it, and nowhere can I think of seeing them using canards. But hey, maybe so. If it gets performance levels up substantially and makes it that much better (and we have the $), why not? If this really is the case, LM should consult Boeing on how to sell it to Congress. Hell, that's what Boeing did (masterfully, I might add) with the legacy to Super Hornet. And even today, they've sold the Navy on the Super Duper/block III or whatever they're calling it.

I'm all for this Super F-35. Hopefully, it can finally silence the critics who want an off the charts STR, thrust to weight ratio and all of the "old school" metrics that matter less. The question I'd have of LM if they do it would be this: Why add those new capabilities, knowing that superior SA, sensors and stealth (which it already has) are more important?

If they build this thing right, would we then need F/A-XX??

EDIT: I see now, its LM concept art for the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. My bad. Won't be a replacement for the F/A-XX as that's a heavyweight platform. Might be an interesting final iteration of the F-35 though..


The original Lockheed Skunk Works CALF/JAST was supposed to be canard delta, but they couldn't get that arrangement to work on a normal aircraft carrier, so they went to a tailed design. The issue was something about the canard not working with a larger wing needed for carrier landings. Wonder if F-35 was just USAF and USMC, it might have been a canard delta.


If canards were an issue, why not make them retractable? Something like the glove vanes the F-14 sported for while, until I think they dropped them. Would seem to give you the best of both worlds...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2019, 16:16
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:That concept art is circa CALF/JAST days...(ie 25+years ago).

:whistle:


Yep. :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2019, 14:16
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:If canards were an issue, why not make them retractable? Something like the glove vanes the F-14 sported for while, until I think they dropped them. Would seem to give you the best of both worlds...


No the problem wasn't canards themselves. For Navy variant you need a larger wing to reduce landing speed for carrier landings, and that increased the root chord so there wasn't enough space for a canard since the fuselage length is supposed to be same for all variants. That was part of why Lockheed went from canard delta to normal tail configuration for CALF/JAST/JSF.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 16:05
by mixelflick
disconnectedradical wrote:
mixelflick wrote:If canards were an issue, why not make them retractable? Something like the glove vanes the F-14 sported for while, until I think they dropped them. Would seem to give you the best of both worlds...


No the problem wasn't canards themselves. For Navy variant you need a larger wing to reduce landing speed for carrier landings, and that increased the root chord so there wasn't enough space for a canard since the fuselage length is supposed to be same for all variants. That was part of why Lockheed went from canard delta to normal tail configuration for CALF/JAST/JSF.


Given all these conflicting requirements, I'd say it's a miracle LM did as well as they did with the F-35. It makes what was asked of the F-111 look rudimentary.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 16:50
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
mixelflick wrote:If canards were an issue, why not make them retractable? Something like the glove vanes the F-14 sported for while, until I think they dropped them. Would seem to give you the best of both worlds...


No the problem wasn't canards themselves. For Navy variant you need a larger wing to reduce landing speed for carrier landings, and that increased the root chord so there wasn't enough space for a canard since the fuselage length is supposed to be same for all variants. That was part of why Lockheed went from canard delta to normal tail configuration for CALF/JAST/JSF.


Given all these conflicting requirements, I'd say it's a miracle LM did as well as they did with the F-35. It makes what was asked of the F-111 look rudimentary.


JSF was designed from the start for commonality in all 3 variants, while F-111 was not and only later tried to have it land on a carrier so the situation wasn't quite the same.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 09:12
by weasel1962
The tomcats may have benefited from the F-111 experience.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 16:23
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:The tomcats may have benefited from the F-111 experience.


I would say most certainly. It was still a big machine, but more reasonably sized/weighted such that even with the same engines, it was far more agile. It was and still is an incredible airframe. A masterpiece of aeronautical engineering IMO...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 17:33
by milosh
weasel1962 wrote:The tomcats may have benefited from the F-111 experience.


On YT you have excellent F-14 presentation done by back then Grumman vice president he was clear they learned a lot from F-111, he said if there wasn't F-111 we wouldn't be able to make F-14 as good as it is.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 01:48
by inst
One topic that's pissed off both Chinats and neutral observers of the J-20 on SDF recently is discussion of the J-20's inlets.

We know that the Al-31 cannot provide sufficient thrust at altitude for the Su-27 with its variable inlets. The drag estimated for about 35,000 FT to at the Mach barrier is about 20,000 lbs. To reach Mach 1.4, you'd need about 25,000 pounds. The AL-31, at best, can do something like 60.5 kN with 2 engines (13,500 pounds) at that altitude and at Mach 1.1.

Is it possible that the Al-31 / WS-10 can do so at altitude given larger inlets (greater initial airflow), longer inlet length (greater space for the diffuser to do its work), as well as bypass ducts (as on the F-22) to bleed off low-speed excess airflow?

The total inlet length, ignoring geometry, is around 8-8.5 meters on the J-20, vs about 5 meters on the F-22.

Suspected bypass ducts on the J-20:

Image

https://www.quora.com/What-are-these-op ... of-an-F-22

Known bypass ducts on the F-22:

Image
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 13:19
by sferrin
inst wrote:Suspected bypass ducts on the J-20:

Image


Where? And suspected by who? All I'm seeing are panel edges. Bypass doors are pretty obvious.

RTX2KDN7%20(1).jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 15:52
by inst
You can see the discolored tiles that form a band. But DSI inlets don't have bypass, right? Except for the bypass ports in front of the main inlet.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 18:00
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The tomcats may have benefited from the F-111 experience.


On YT you have excellent F-14 presentation done by back then Grumman vice president he was clear they learned a lot from F-111, he said if there wasn't F-111 we wouldn't be able to make F-14 as good as it is.



Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2019, 09:03
by element1loop
J-20 Jets Showcase Missiles

(Source: Global Times; issued Oct 18, 2019)

At an air show in Changchun this week, the Chinese Air Force displayed two J-20 fighters carrying short-range air-to-air missiles which rotated out from their side missile bays, where they are stored to maintain the aircraft's stealth. (PLA photo) China's most advanced fighter jet, J-20, once again revealed its missiles at the Chinese Air Force's "open day" event on Thursday, which also showcased the outstanding flight performances of a number of the PLA's warplanes. The open day, which runs from Thursday to Monday in Changchun, Northeast China's Jilin Province, is part of celebrations to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force.

A pair of J-20 stealth fighter jets flew during the event's flight performance on Thursday morning. Each of them showcased two short-range combat missiles, which rotated out from their side missile bays, where they were usually stored to maintain the aircraft's stealth capability. This is only the second time the J-20 has showcased its missiles. The first was at the 2018 edition of Airshow China in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province. The aircraft did not open its main weapon bay on Thursday. A series of aerobatic maneuvers, including high-speed dives, climbs and rolls from the country's most advanced fighter jets marveled the crowd. The maneuvers were combat-oriented, as each one had a tactical meaning and were used in actual combat scenarios to gain a superior position or avoid an attack, analysts said. ...

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... siles.html


Image

Chinese PL-10E*
Image

French MICA
Image

* Any similarity is purely coincidental.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2019, 17:04
by sferrin
inst wrote:You can see the discolored tiles that form a band.


Yeah, that doesn't make them bypass doors. They're pretty obviously just panel lines. The F-35 has stuff like that all over the upper side too. They aren't bypass ducts either. Now who says they're "suspected to be bypass ducts"? Which source.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2019, 22:03
by charlielima223
element1loop wrote:
Chinese PL-10E*
Image

French MICA
Image

* Any similarity is purely coincidental.


I believe that form follows function but I also believe the term "copy right" and its definition doesn't translate to Mandarin and Cantonese.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2019, 02:05
by weasel1962
Again, if merely the presence of wings means they copied, then every plane is a copy. If that's the standard, because the f-35b can take off vertically would mean it's also a copy. Colonel Sanders would have copied the Macdonalds burgers because they have the same overall shape. I think clearly the 2 main items the rocket motor and seeker are clearly different, the location, shape and size of the strakes, missile would mean different aerodynamics.

What is interesting is that of all the missiles the Chinese could have "copied" e.g aim-9/python/r-73, they chose the mica design. Why? Bay size constraints?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2019, 03:51
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Again, if merely the presence of wings means they copied, then every plane is a copy. ... What is interesting is that of all the missiles the Chinese could have "copied" e.g aim-9/python/r-73, they chose the mica design. Why? Bay size constraints?


I said "similarity", not copy.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2019, 10:49
by weasel1962
charlielima223 wrote:I believe that form follows function but I also believe the term "copy right" and its definition doesn't translate to Mandarin and Cantonese.


In totally irrelevant trivia, the word "right" (as in left-right) is actually pronounced as "you" in mandarin. thus copy right would be to copy you. Potentially explaining the cultural difference.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2019, 10:38
by element1loop
Images show J-20 fighter fitted with new engines

Andreas Rupprecht, Mainz - Jane's Defence Weekly

01 November 2019

Images have emerged on Chinese online forums showing a Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG) J-20 fifth-generation multirole fighter aircraft equipped with new engines. The photographs, which emerged in late October, show a J-20 painted in yellow primer both in the air and on the ground at Chengdu-Huangtianba airfield, the location of the CAIG manufacturing facility.

The new engine, the exact designation of which has not been disclosed, appears to be a variant of the indigenous Liming WS10A Taihang engine and features serrated afterburner nozzles to enhance its stealth capability. This engine variant was first tested on J-20 prototype number ‘2021’ on 19 September 2017 and then on prototype ‘2022’ in January 2018, after which the aircraft were transferred to the China Flight Testing Establishment at Xian-Yanliang airbase.

(151 of 490 words)


http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.co ... r-jet.html

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 04:07
by weasel1962
This was taken from a Chinese forum that formed the source of the Rupprecht article.
J-20 WS-10C.png


Also summarized the article below on the WS-10 variants.
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/09/ws-1 ... -variants/

WS-10 [2005] – J-11 (prototype only)
WS-10A [2005] – J-10/J-11B (few installed)
WS-10B [2008] – J-10C
WS-10B2 – J-16 (more than 200 engines installed)
WS-10B TVC – J-10B (air show exhibit only)
WS-10H – J-15 (test only)
WS-10C – J-20

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 05:13
by Corsair1963
j20L.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 15:20
by mixelflick
Well this should be interesting..

Who gets "stage 2" engines operational on their fighter(s) first? The Russians with the SU-57, or the Chinese with the J-20?

I'm betting on the Chinese..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 16:29
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:Well this should be interesting..

Who gets "stage 2" engines operational on their fighter(s) first? The Russians with the SU-57, or the Chinese with the J-20?

I'm betting on the Chinese..


Su-57 first, probably, since they already have izd.30 prototype flying on a test aircraft. WS-15 is not there yet.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2019, 05:07
by Scorpion1alpha
weasel1962 wrote:This was taken from a Chinese forum that formed the source of the Rupprecht article.
J-20 WS-10C.png


Also summarized the article below on the WS-10 variants.
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/09/ws-1 ... -variants/

WS-10 [2005] – J-11 (prototype only)
WS-10A [2005] – J-10/J-11B (few installed)
WS-10B [2008] – J-10C
WS-10B2 – J-16 (more than 200 engines installed)
WS-10B TVC – J-10B (air show exhibit only)
WS-10H – J-15 (test only)
WS-10C – J-20


Eh, what the heck. The photos are a year old, but in keeping with the primer look...
Image
Image
Image
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2019, 15:20
by mixelflick
It's really shaping up to be a nice fighter.

It's big, but not as big as it looks. Going to have to be, will need lots of internal fuel if those engines are thirsty.The weapons loadout shown so far is interesting.. Most observers have the J-20 pegged as a "strike" aircraft, not a pure air to air fighter. Yet thus far only AAM's have appeared in its internal bays.

I'm guessing they have judged American AWACS/Tankers to be priority target #1 in an air battle, and probably rightfully so. Fighter escorts for those assets are nice, but the more I read about miniature defensive missile/laser systems, the more I think they're going to be a necessity, not a luxury.

It would also free up those fighters for their intended mission...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 12:24
by Scorpion1alpha
Keeping an eye on (one of) the competition.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Assuming the name is Wen Xiaotong, the person who created the following CGI works:
Image

Stealthy external combat config. Although stealthy external weapon pods are not a new concept, Nobody has or uses them operationally. Interesting this person is already thinking about it on the J-20 and if this is part of the J-20's future, would be formidable.
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 13:05
by madrat
mixelflick wrote:It's really shaping up to be a nice fighter.

It's big, but not as big as it looks. Going to have to be, will need lots of internal fuel if those engines are thirsty.The weapons loadout shown so far is interesting.


It's big alright. At 70 feet long it's right up there with some of the biggest fighters in history, especially relics like J-8II. Nobody is going to mistake it for an F-16.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 14:13
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It's really shaping up to be a nice fighter.

It's big, but not as big as it looks. Going to have to be, will need lots of internal fuel if those engines are thirsty.The weapons loadout shown so far is interesting.


It's big alright. At 70 feet long it's right up there with some of the biggest fighters in history, especially relics like J-8II. Nobody is going to mistake it for an F-16.


Must be a trend then. The SU-57 is even longer, at 72 feet...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 00:01
by madrat
The J-20 is reckoned to be about two feet longer than Su-57. But it also seems to be size guess-timated on the notion it used Al-31 engines. I have a feeling the original prototypes did not, because the tails never seemed to match up with Al-31s.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 03:36
by weasel1962
In the age of GE, no need to guess the J-20 size. Note the sat pic taken at Dingxin Airbase on 17 Mar 2020. Smaller than a sukhoi next to it and shorter than 20m based on a simple GE measure.

As a control, I took the measurement of the sukhoi which came up to 21.08m, so the J-20 is ~2m shorter.

J-20 length 17 Mar 2020.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 04:06
by madrat
That line is off center and at an angle. Whomever used the tool screwed up. It would probably help if the picture was rotated, but then you get inaccuracies from anti-aliasing.

Even using this crap picture I got 69.5 feet. The probability of error is well within a foot.

Using this picture below I got the same 69.5 feet.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... L&usqp=CAU

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 04:27
by weasel1962
Raising my hand here on who did the calc. If you have done a more accurate calc, do show. Happy to be corrected.

Even at 71 ft, are you saying that the SU-57 is 69 ft?

At the same time, what was your calculation of the sukhoi length next to it? Sukhoi fighters length are pretty well known. So that acts as a control.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 05:18
by weasel1962
Used the same GE line tool to draw a 21.3m (70 ft line) as a comparison which is the yellow line. I think the J-20 is clearly shorter than that.
J-20 vs 70 ft.png


Decided to check out an alternate pic (this time at Chengdu). The line tool shows 19.62m. 2nd pic shows a 21.3m line. And the 3rd pic shows the J-10 length at 15.93m.
J-20 length 18 Dec 2017.jpg

J-20 length 70 ft.jpg

J-10 length.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 05:23
by madrat
I was using 71.2 feet for Flanker. Some sources say it is 72, which would make my calculations off by 8-9 inches. I figure a foot is well within the probability of error.

You're not taking time to get measurements accurately. All of your lines are diagonal to your object, leading to inaccuracy. I realize it is easy to do, but it helps if you straighten out the image using rotation to get the object parallel to the outside edge of the canvas. And in most image creation tools you can get a straight line parallel to the outside edge of the canvas simply by holding down control or shift when you draw the line.

You're also measuring to the tailpipe and not the tail. That throws off your measurement yet more.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 05:29
by weasel1962
Anybody can claim they got xx ft or whatever. If you have a better calc, show it.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 14:51
by jessmo112
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 15:41
by madrat
weasel1962 wrote:Anybody can claim they got xx ft or whatever. If you have a better calc, show it.


I used your image the first time and provided the link to the second image. You want me to demonstrate a straight line? I explained exactly how to do it more accurately. I even gave you the length of the Flanker at 71.2 feet, which is not in agreement with all sources. You said how easy it was then demonstrated it incorrectly. The lines you posted are off the mark and you came up with erroneous measurements. I mean, come on man. My point was that you need to correct your method. You don't have to agree with my measurement, but don't pass off those you did earlier as anything relevant to reality.

This is a recurring argument across the internet. I'm a bit bored with showing the method over and over.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 19:04
by disconnectedradical
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

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 23:22
by zhangmdev
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?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 02:00
by jessmo112
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 02:35
by weasel1962
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 09:39
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 12:07
by zero-one
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 14:37
by jessmo112
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 15:11
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 15:15
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 17:14
by zero-one
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?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 21:15
by jessmo112
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 21:59
by basher54321
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 22:12
by zhangmdev
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 22:19
by basher54321
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 22:30
by jessmo112
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.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 23:34
by disconnectedradical
jessmo112 wrote:
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.


What a pile of total tripe. I work for a US defense contractor. Unless you're accusing me of working for the Chinese government because what I say don't agree with your views? LOL.

Didn't I say J-20 probably won't be lighter than Su-27, which itself is heavier than F-35? My point is J-20 may be large for a fighter but not especially so and not F-111 size.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 23:43
by disconnectedradical
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.


weasel1962 might have a point, the engines on the Flankers is probably the WS-10. Compare that nozzle with the AL-31 nozzle, it's clear the J-20 has AL-31 while Flanker nozzle does not and looks like a WS-10 nozzle.

Here is WS-10 on the left, AL-31 on the right, mounted on the J-10. Seems like WS-10 nozzle is bigger diameter.
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2020, 00:27
by zhangmdev
Hard to tell from images. Al-31 nozzle seems extented longer, may give an impression that it is narrower. Tail boom structure could be different. Also nozzle exit area is changable.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2020, 01:27
by weasel1962
The J-16 unit is identified per below (90 years celebration). J-16s are WS-10 equipped. Only the J-10/11s have both types of engines. 78x7x are serials for 176 brigade.
J-16 78077 - 176. Brigade 20170731.jpg


Clearer images of J-20As from the same unit show the saw tooth edges that define the AL-31F equipped J-20As.
J-20A 78277.jpg

78276 J-20A.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 01:12
by jessmo112
J-20 is a real real stealth fighter now

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.c ... ter-thrust

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 03:25
by Corsair1963
The question now is can China produce the J-20 and later the J-31 is sufficient numbers to counter the US and her Allies???

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 16:18
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:The question now is can China produce the J-20 and later the J-31 is sufficient numbers to counter the US and her Allies???


Not really a question. Of course they can. They have the money, the know how, and the will.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2020, 13:37
by mixelflick
jessmo112 wrote:J-20 is a real real stealth fighter now

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.c ... ter-thrust


But wait, isn't that what they said before... when they introduced it?

I wouldn't be so certain of Chine being able to produce it in really big numbers. The US with all its $ and other resources only built 195 Raptors. Sure we're building thousands of F-35's, but that's a light/medium fighter specifically designed to be built in numbers. Plus, the Chinese have a LOT of other big $ projects to fund: 3 different types of up-rated Flankers, up-rated J-10C's, new ultra long range AAM's, new Stealth bomber (possibly 2), space program, new Ford sized aircraft carriers, new hypersonic weapons etc..

They have a lot of $ and a lot of talent, but their resources (like ours) are not unlimited...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 03:38
by weasel1962
Firstly, the Chinese don't have to spend US$33.582 billion on F-22 R&D. Secondly, J-10s and J-11/16s don't really have vey high unit cost of production. What is noted is they have a build rate of ~70+ fighters & bombers per year which sustains about 70+ air brigades. Factually, what the Chinese have built thus far are ~10 pre-production J-20s and enough production J-20s to fill 2 training brigades and start a combat brigade in the span of a few short years (~30-50).

The pace of production is currently similar to J-10. Over the course of 20+ years, ~400-500 J-10s have been built used by ~15 identified brigades (each brigade generally has 24/28 fighters). Over the next decade, I think we can expect to see J-20s in a few more airbases.

What should be reassuring is that although China's defense spending is relatively high by China standards, its actually 1981/82 levels by US standards. But the fact that they are doing what they are doing at that expenditure levels is a reflection of its very low cost base. They have a lot more budget leeway (as a % of GDP) to ramp up if they need to which is what we will likely see to pay for the CVs, etc coming up.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 11:48
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:J-20 is a real real stealth fighter now

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.c ... ter-thrust


But wait, isn't that what they said before... when they introduced it?

I wouldn't be so certain of Chine being able to produce it in really big numbers. The US with all its $ and other resources only built 195 Raptors.


That was a political decision. You can thank Bob Gates and Gordon England for that.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 11:50
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:What should be reassuring is that although China's defense spending is relatively high by China standards, its actually 1981/82 levels by US standards.


How much does an Engineer make in the US? How much in China? A soldier? A yard worker? How much does it cost to train, equip, and feed a soldier in the US vs China? How much does paperwork cost in the US vs China? In real terms, China probably passed the US years ago.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 19:01
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:They have a lot of $ and a lot of talent, but their resources (like ours) are not unlimited...


First, they are totally different economical system probable no where you have anything similar so counting money doesn't work. For example buying paper yuan is quite hard outside China.

Second, their military budget isn't spend on wars, veterans, lobbyists etc.

Third, building almost anything in China is lot cheaper then anywhere in world, and this isn't just because of cheapness, but because of their industrial might.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 22:12
by jessmo112
The industrial might that can barely build an 80s engine?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 22:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
jessmo112 wrote:The industrial might that can barely build an 80s engine?

The F119 is an 80s engine. Has anyone built a better supercruise engine? No? Okay then. If they pull off an F119 analog then they are in 2nd place in the global engine war, even if they are 40 years behind the US.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 05:34
by milosh
jessmo112 wrote:The industrial might that can barely build an 80s engine?


Germany in WW2 built excellent jet fighter while 100% US jet was worse then propeller, but US industrial might was much bigger then German one.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 05:42
by disconnectedradical
jessmo112 wrote:The industrial might that can barely build an 80s engine?


And I thought the forums can do better than this kind of rah rah chest pounding posts.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 12:08
by knowan
milosh wrote:Germany in WW2 built excellent jet fighter while 100% US jet was worse then propeller, but US industrial might was much bigger then German one.


P-59 was mediocre, but the P-80 was the equal of the Me 262.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 13:30
by jessmo112
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:The industrial might that can barely build an 80s engine?

The F119 is an 80s engine. Has anyone built a better supercruise engine? No? Okay then. If they pull off an F119 analog then they are in 2nd place in the global engine war, even if they are 40 years behind the US.


WT* they can barely pull off an F-100; equivalent. They are miles away from an f-119. I mean I guess if you ignore it blowing up after 10 minutes it would count.
The U.S. will soon field advent which is a 6th generation engine. The F-119 and F-135 are 5th gen engines.
Lets see them tey and perfect a f-100 1st.
BTW notice how stovl and super cruise are both absent in design despite everything else being copied.
The reason is because thrust is only 1/2 of the issue. To make a stovl plane you need a RELIABLE engine.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 14:03
by sprstdlyscottsmn
jessmo112 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:The industrial might that can barely build an 80s engine?

The F119 is an 80s engine. Has anyone built a better supercruise engine? No? Okay then. If they pull off an F119 analog then they are in 2nd place in the global engine war, even if they are 40 years behind the US.


WT* they can barely pull off an F-100; equivalent.

So you MEANT that they can barely pull off a 1970s engine, got it.

FYI, I don't think they are there yet either, just wanted to point out that when comparing engine tech to the US everyone is farther behind than it may seem.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 14:21
by jessmo112
Correct

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 10:15
by milosh
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:Germany in WW2 built excellent jet fighter while 100% US jet was worse then propeller, but US industrial might was much bigger then German one.


P-59 was mediocre, but the P-80 was the equal of the Me 262.


P-80 isn't 100% US tech. It use British jet engine tech. Also lot of bugs weren't solved with early P-80, P-80C production started in june 1948 and that is P-80 which we all know. P-80 used in 1945 were prototypes (YP-80), today it would be something like Su-57 and Syria.

But I think my point is clear, China can and will make J-20 with mediocre engines, and numbers they are talking about aren't small at all. Serial production will have four lines with one plane per month on each.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 12:42
by knowan
milosh wrote:P-80 isn't 100% US tech. It use British jet engine tech. Also lot of bugs weren't solved with early P-80, P-80C production started in june 1948 and that is P-80 which we all know. P-80 used in 1945 were prototypes (YP-80), today it would be something like Su-57 and Syria.


The USA started with British engine tech, but by the P-80 they were developing their own engines; the J31 that powered the P-59 was based on a British engine, but the J33 that powered the P-80 was a significantly larger and more powerful engine.

P-80A were in service in early 1945, but were deployed overseas too late for combat operations.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 13:31
by jessmo112
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:Germany in WW2 built excellent jet fighter while 100% US jet was worse then propeller, but US industrial might was much bigger then German one.


P-59 was mediocre, but the P-80 was the equal of the Me 262.


P-80 isn't 100% US tech. It use British jet engine tech. Also lot of bugs weren't solved with early P-80, P-80C production started in june 1948 and that is P-80 which we all know. P-80 used in 1945 were prototypes (YP-80), today it would be something like Su-57 and Syria.

But I think my point is clear, China can and will make J-20 with mediocre engines, and numbers they are talking about aren't small at all. Serial production will have four lines with one plane per month on each.


So do you think they will our produce the F-35?
They may have had some regional superiority in numbers of 5th gen aircraft. But that was before they pissed off all of Asia. Now you have Japan, SK, Singapore, Australia, and Britain all in the neighborhood with some version of the F-35. Just the non U.S. users alone will have F-35s in the hundreds. If it wasnt for politics Taiwan and India would have it. Its not just the engine problem thats working against China. Their brand of politics and bullying has come to light. So they must produce enough 5th generation fighters to fight not only the U.S. but Britain and all of Asia.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 13:40
by jessmo112
Ot Im going to make a thread soon discussing if the U S.
Should prioritize a Asian Nato alliance
And invite Vietnam, India, and others to participate.
Its very hard to talk about planes and China but not the politics.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 14:48
by milosh
jessmo112 wrote:So do you think they will our produce the F-35?


Nope but J-20 will surely be build in noticeable larger numbers then F-22. 60 planes per year even it production last a decade is 600 planes.

J-31 is what they are planing to be their F-35. So if they plan to build ~600 J-20 I expect they will build twice more J-31.

Btw asian NATO is problematic, members don't love each other, Japan and Korea are in trade war and Korea is playing on Chinese card to be less depend from Japan, Taiwan and Japan have senkaku problem.

Smaller economies are quite dependent on Chinese market so joining some anti chinese military alliance would impact economy heavily, that would be big problem for Australia too.

And on top of that is falling US. Economical recesion which can turn in depresion, mini street wars (I can only imagine what will happen if Trump lost and call its dudes to streets in November) so anti China alliance I would say that train was left station years or even decade ago (before 2008 it could happen).

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 16:58
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Hillary Clinton supporters/liberals are the ones who throw/threw temper tantrums when they lost. They're brainwashed in liberal colleges to believe they're entitled to whatever they want, especially without working for it. Go ahead, peruse Youtube for what liberals do on a variety of issues when they don't get their way. There's your definition of "sore loser" and "civil unrest".

Then you can come back here and tell me what candidate's supporters you should worry about..


I just point out what is quite possible to happen, and I used Doni supporters because Doni is one which is talking about election fraud. So on top of what you already have US society can get in even deeper s.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 17:54
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Hillary Clinton supporters/liberals are the ones who throw/threw temper tantrums when they lost. They're brainwashed in liberal colleges to believe they're entitled to whatever they want, especially without working for it. Go ahead, peruse Youtube for what liberals do on a variety of issues when they don't get their way. There's your definition of "sore loser" and "civil unrest".

Then you can come back here and tell me what candidate's supporters you should worry about..


I just point out what is quite possible to happen, and I used Doni supporters because Doni is one which is talking about election fraud. So on top of what you already have US society can get in even deeper s.


Yes. that's very true. In one respect, it doesnt' matter who's causing it - it's still civil unrest. But it's telling liberals are always the ones partaking. Personally, I think a 2nd civil war is coming..

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 18:31
by jessmo112
milosh wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:So do you think they will our produce the F-35?


Nope but J-20 will surely be build in noticeable larger numbers then F-22. 60 planes per year even it production last a decade is 600 planes.

J-31 is what they are planing to be their F-35. So if they plan to build ~600 J-20 I expect they will build twice more J-31.

Btw asian NATO is problematic, members don't love each other, Japan and Korea are in trade war and Korea is playing on Chinese card to be less depend from Japan, Taiwan and Japan have senkaku problem.

Smaller economies are quite dependent on Chinese market so joining some anti chinese military alliance would impact economy heavily, that would be big problem for Australia too.

And on top of that is falling US. Economical recesion which can turn in depresion, mini street wars (I can only imagine what will happen if Trump lost and call its dudes to streets in November) so anti China alliance I would say that train was left station years or even decade ago (before 2008 it could happen).


But your talking as if the J-20 is equal to the F-22.
It certainly is not. And the J-31 is worse.
Your talking about F-35 numbers close to 3000 or more.
The USAF will buy 1200+ alone. The Chinese need a 2:1 kill ratio over just the USAF just to beat them.
Im telling you in a shooting war Chinas gonna get pounded

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 23:46
by wrightwing
milosh wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:So do you think they will our produce the F-35?


Nope but J-20 will surely be build in noticeable larger numbers then F-22. 60 planes per year even it production last a decade is 600 planes.

J-31 is what they are planing to be their F-35. So if they plan to build ~600 J-20 I expect they will build twice more J-31.

Btw asian NATO is problematic, members don't love each other, Japan and Korea are in trade war and Korea is playing on Chinese card to be less depend from Japan, Taiwan and Japan have senkaku problem.

Smaller economies are quite dependent on Chinese market so joining some anti chinese military alliance would impact economy heavily, that would be big problem for Australia too.

And on top of that is falling US. Economical recesion which can turn in depresion, mini street wars (I can only imagine what will happen if Trump lost and call its dudes to streets in November) so anti China alliance I would say that train was left station years or even decade ago (before 2008 it could happen).

China hasn't even built 600 Flankers or J-10s. It's highly doubtful they're planning on 600 J-20s. I'd be surprised if they even build 600 J-31s.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2020, 23:48
by wrightwing
jessmo112 wrote:



But your talking as if the J-20 is equal to the F-22.
It certainly is not. And the J-31 is worse.
Your talking about F-35 numbers close to 3000 or more.
The USAF will buy 1200+ alone. The Chinese need a 2:1 kill ratio over just the USAF just to beat them.
Im telling you in a shooting war Chinas gonna get pounded

The USAF is buying 1,763 F-35s (and that number will likely increase in the out years.)

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 01:06
by weasel1962
wrightwing wrote:China hasn't even built 600 Flankers or J-10s. It's highly doubtful they're planning on 600 J-20s. I'd be surprised if they even build 600 J-31s.


Fairly close though. 23 brigades of flankers, 15 brigades of J-10s. Its more than 600+ flankers in inventory but not all built. maybe a quarter bought/imported. More than a thousand flankers/J-10s in total.

Estimated build rates are ~30 each of flankers and J-10s annually. I wouldn't quote SCMP on J-20 build rates. At 48 a year, one should be spotting ~2 J-20 brigades a year. Its currently ~1 every 2-3 years so still LRIP rates. There's ~20+ brigades still equipped with obsolete aircraft.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 01:16
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
China hasn't even built 600 Flankers or J-10s. It's highly doubtful they're planning on 600 J-20s. I'd be surprised if they even build 600 J-31s.


While, I would be surprised to see China produce 600+ J-20's. I wouldn't be surprised if they do produce well over 600 J-31's. Otherwise, what is the point of the current military build up???

As the US and her Allies will operate large numbers of F-35's plus some modest numbers of F-22's, KFX's, etc.


So, is China going to give up all hope of even regional superiority in some respect or another??? :|

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 01:44
by weasel1962
No indication of J-31 entering service. The plane did its first flight in 2012. To date, there are only the same 2 prototypes 8 years after first flight. We'll see whether its still the same next year.

With the exception of the carrier air brigades at Huangdicun, the fighter force structure hasn't changed. Its generally replacement of existing obsolete aircraft. The PLAAF command structure has changed though which coincides with the military region re-alignment to theater commands. Pilot proficiency is likely to have improved since those flankers and J-10s have been in service for 20+ years.

What isn't reported much is the UAV/UCAV force structure. That has gone underneath the radar especially for a country that is now the leading exporter of armed/unarmed drones,

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 02:57
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
China hasn't even built 600 Flankers or J-10s. It's highly doubtful they're planning on 600 J-20s. I'd be surprised if they even build 600 J-31s.


While, I would be surprised to see China produce 600+ J-20's. I wouldn't be surprised if they do produce well over 600 J-31's. Otherwise, what is the point of the current military build up???

As the US and her Allies will operate large numbers of F-35's plus some modest numbers of F-22's, KFX's, etc.


So, is China going to give up all hope of even regional superiority in some respect or another??? :|

China doesn't need the same force structure as the US, as their sphere of interest/operations is far more localized. They don't have to worry about deployments around the globe, as their primary interests are 1000 miles or closer. This allows their force structure to be more defensive in nature, rather than expeditionary.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 07:14
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
China doesn't need the same force structure as the US, as their sphere of interest/operations is far more localized. They don't have to worry about deployments around the globe, as their primary interests are 1000 miles or closer. This allows their force structure to be more defensive in nature, rather than expeditionary.


The PLA vast military is near useless without Air Superiority. Which, they have no hope of maintaining without a large number of Stealth Fighters. Even against weaker opponents.

Are you stating the PLA is about to drastically cut back on it's military ambitions??? :?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 16:47
by milosh
wrightwing wrote:China hasn't even built 600 Flankers or J-10s. It's highly doubtful they're planning on 600 J-20s. I'd be surprised if they even build 600 J-31s.


You didn't had Xi back then nor Chinese GDP of 2020s, so no wonder they didn't build lot of Flankers in past.

When we talk about J-20 we have numbers. Earlier I read they are planing 60 J-20 per year, and it is at least 48 J-20 per year:
CAC set up its fourth production line in 2019, each one with a capacity to make about one J-20 a month.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... ter-thrust

I really doubt they will run production for just couple of years, if we are talking about decade of production that is at least 480 J-20.

And then we have lighter stealth, will that be J-31 or something else I don't know but J-31 is close to became that.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 16:57
by mixelflick
China building hundreds or even thousands of Flankers and J-10C's etc. should make the US jump for joy. While our armed forces are flooded with F-35's (and those of our allies), those aircraft will be entirely outclassed. Because when you're dealing with an invisible enemy (or damn close to it), it's going to be real hard to land a punch, nevermind win the fight.

And let's not forget the US isn't just counting on thousands and thousands of F-35's. There are F-22's and nothing's close (or going to be) for likely another 10 years. Then we'll have 144 brand new F-15EX's, likely around 750 upgraded F-16's, and somewhere around 300 Super Hornets, and another what, 200 Super Dupers??

Never underestimate your enemy... but the way I'm looking at it, our "B" team just might be the equal of their "A" team. :mrgreen:

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 17:34
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
China doesn't need the same force structure as the US, as their sphere of interest/operations is far more localized. They don't have to worry about deployments around the globe, as their primary interests are 1000 miles or closer. This allows their force structure to be more defensive in nature, rather than expeditionary.


The PLA vast military is near useless without Air Superiority. Which, they have no hope of maintaining without a large number of Stealth Fighters. Even against weaker opponents.

Are you stating the PLA is about to drastically cut back on it's military ambitions??? :?

I said what I said (nowhere did I suggest cuts). China's force structure is based primarily around protecting it's interests in the South China Sea/Sea of Japan/Pacific Ocean, and in maintaining a localized A2AD capability. They don't have to worry about expeditionary forces, and maintaining air superiority in multiple theaters.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2020, 17:56
by jessmo112
How many F-35As can the USAF surge?
How many will be Japans final number?
How many can the USN and marines surge?
Even though the USAF will have nearly 1800 F-35s
100 F-22s, 120 F-15EX. And hundreds of F-16s I would assume basing and tanker capability are bottlenecks.
Even regional superiority isnt a given know how every Chinese base within 200 miles of the coast will likely be hit. The Chinese should actually fear the Bomber fleet ratger than tactical fighters. The U S has enough long range bombing to send continuous waves of B-2s, BUFfs and Bones. It will get worse when the B-21 comes on line.
A2D2 is what we call in the states a rope a Dope strategy.
Guam, is just a tripwire. There is more than enough fire power to keep up pressure from The navy, expeditionary strike packages from the USAF, and bombers from conus.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 01:56
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
I said what I said (nowhere did I suggest cuts). China's force structure is based primarily around protecting it's interests in the South China Sea/Sea of Japan/Pacific Ocean, and in maintaining a localized A2AD capability. They don't have to worry about expeditionary forces, and maintaining air superiority in multiple theaters.



China will still have to produce several hundred Stealth Fighters. To counter the vast number of threats for multiple directions. This is easily supportable....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 02:21
by boogieman
I think it really depends on what contingency you are talking about. Defence of Taiwan? PRC grap for the Senkakus? Spratly's turned hot? At any rate the PLARF would be a significant problem - I suspect we would stand to lose more of our aircraft on the ground to Chinese BM and LACM than to their fighters of SAMs. Then there is the nuclear problem - if striking targets in mainland China is perceived to risk nuclear escalation, the RoE might not permit it, and this would really complicate things like OCA, SEAD and ISR delamination.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 02:31
by Corsair1963
boogieman wrote:I think it really depends on what contingency you are talking about. Defence of Taiwan? PRC grap for the Senkakus? Spratly's turned hot? At any rate the PLARF would be a significant problem - I suspect we would stand to lose more of our aircraft on the ground to Chinese BM and LACM than to their fighters of SAMs. Then there is the nuclear problem - if striking targets in mainland China is perceived to risk nuclear escalation, the RoE might not permit it, and this would really complicate things like OCA, SEAD and ISR delamination.


Nothing to really debate. As China has a vast military and she plans on acquiring a large number of Stealth Fighters and Bomber to protect it.


Regardless, if some care to believe that or not.....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 05:28
by jessmo112
I think that throwing the U.S. army into the mix will really complicate Chinese planning.
With enough ground launched missiles you can forget about completely shutting down the U S. In theater.
It was already going to be difficult
Hitting all of the allied bases in theatre, the 7th fleet Taiwan, and possibility SK.
Now they have to play wack a mole with U.S.
IRBMs or possibly ground launched TLAMS.
The Chinese dont have enough ballistic missiles to keep allied forces suppressed.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 08:49
by jessmo112
Here is another problem that the Chinese have
Firing solution:

1. Is there evidence that they have beaten or caught up with Lockheed in the sensors domain?

2. Can they simultaneously track and achieve firing solution on Multiple F-35s/22s?

3. Can they jam the hostile radars of the enemy?
Can they Jam or spoof LPI radar?
The F-35 did it way back in testing.

4. Has China demonstrated a real LPI capability?

If they cant track, and shoot at F-35s or 22s they may as well be 4th generation fighters.
Even the tankers and awacs will be harder to kill soon with anti-missile defenses.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 10:57
by boogieman
I don't think anyone here questions the fact that our jets would kick all kinds of PLAAF posterior in the air if push came to shove. As I said earlier, the Chinese answer to this problem is probably not to tackle us Battle of Britain style in the air, but to cripple our airpower by interdicting our airbases with BM and LACM launched from within China's own borders, while using the threat of nuclear escalation to deter attacks on mainland China itself.

I suspect our RoE may have a significant impact on the outcome since fighting China without being able to hit them on the mainland (while they shower the first and second island chains with DF-XX and CJ/DH-XX) would be like fighting with one arm tied behind our back.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 11:36
by weasel1962
Depends. No need to strike mainland China in a NK scenario but likely to be different for Taiwan.

Probably declare a no fly, no launch zone across a couple of Chinese eastern provinces in two stages. First stage maybe 300nm, then push out 500-700nm from ROC. Kill zone will make it easier to enforce (Serbian/Iraq precedent).

May not need Linebacker-styled campaigns. Linebacker stories anyone?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 14:07
by boogieman
Plausible. Although bear in mind that would mean operating in the presence of OTH/VHF land based radars, long range SAM (HQ9) etc etc. Not ideal to say the least.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 15:18
by weasel1962
SAMs are over-rated. Sam/GCI radars will be taken out early. The F-35's stealth is exactly designed for those missions. The only reason why it won't be a short war is cos target rich environment. Will take time to go thru that target list.

The Chinese are starting to realise this. Hence emphasis on air combat vs stealth. J-20s went to aggressor training brigades first before combat operational brigade.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 18:14
by milosh
boogieman wrote:I don't think anyone here questions the fact that our jets would kick all kinds of PLAAF posterior in the air if push came to shove. As I said earlier, the Chinese answer to this problem is probably not to tackle us Battle of Britain style in the air, but to cripple our airpower by interdicting our airbases with BM and LACM launched from within China's own borders, while using the threat of nuclear escalation to deter attacks on mainland China itself.

I suspect our RoE may have a significant impact on the outcome since fighting China without being able to hit them on the mainland (while they shower the first and second island chains with DF-XX and CJ/DH-XX) would be like fighting with one arm tied behind our back.


I think J-20 and J-31 will narrow gap a lot. Stealth vs Stealth will be more like WVR then BVR. And J-20/31 will have support of whole chinese war machinery if war is close to China. Massive radar network and SAM network also AEW primarily stealthy flying radars like massive Divine eagle which is still in development and IMO is main reason why Chinese AWACS fleet development is quite slow.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2020, 21:08
by jessmo112
milosh wrote:
boogieman wrote:I don't think anyone here questions the fact that our jets would kick all kinds of PLAAF posterior in the air if push came to shove. As I said earlier, the Chinese answer to this problem is probably not to tackle us Battle of Britain style in the air, but to cripple our airpower by interdicting our airbases with BM and LACM launched from within China's own borders, while using the threat of nuclear escalation to deter attacks on mainland China itself.

I suspect our RoE may have a significant impact on the outcome since fighting China without being able to hit them on the mainland (while they shower the first and second island chains with DF-XX and CJ/DH-XX) would be like fighting with one arm tied behind our back.


I think J-20 and J-31 will narrow gap a lot. Stealth vs Stealth will be more like WVR then BVR. And J-20/31 will have support of whole chinese war machinery if war is close to China. Massive radar network and SAM network also AEW primarily stealthy flying radars like massive Divine eagle which is still in development and IMO is main reason why Chinese AWACS fleet development is quite slow.


Thats the problem your not understanding.

1. If China hasn't mastered how to fight in this paradigm the results will be the same. The U.S. has had time to hone stealth versus stealth for 20+ years now.
The F-35 flying test bed was developing tactics way back in 2010 this is public record.

2. You can have a large honking awacs or a digital Aesa. But its hard to do both. Even the USN has to stop the E-2 dish from spinning to put the radar in another digital mode. The reason for this is physics. When your dealing with stealth and radars it comes down to physics.

3. The Majority of planes on both sides will die on the ground. The problem the Chinese have is that currently the F-35 is flying figure 8s over the very same air defenses the Chinese are using.
The Allies have a dedicated plan for stopping Chinese tac air. The Chinese do not. S-300 400 and the like are all compromised. Shutting down the bases is not a realistic strategy. They allies basing is to dispersed and numerous. Throw Stovl stealth planes and tactical bombers in the mix, and now its impossible.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2020, 00:25
by boogieman
milosh wrote:
boogieman wrote:I don't think anyone here questions the fact that our jets would kick all kinds of PLAAF posterior in the air if push came to shove. As I said earlier, the Chinese answer to this problem is probably not to tackle us Battle of Britain style in the air, but to cripple our airpower by interdicting our airbases with BM and LACM launched from within China's own borders, while using the threat of nuclear escalation to deter attacks on mainland China itself.

I suspect our RoE may have a significant impact on the outcome since fighting China without being able to hit them on the mainland (while they shower the first and second island chains with DF-XX and CJ/DH-XX) would be like fighting with one arm tied behind our back.


I think J-20 and J-31 will narrow gap a lot. Stealth vs Stealth will be more like WVR then BVR. And J-20/31 will have support of whole chinese war machinery if war is close to China. Massive radar network and SAM network also AEW primarily stealthy flying radars like massive Divine eagle which is still in development and IMO is main reason why Chinese AWACS fleet development is quite slow.

I guess it depends on how quickly the PLAAF can field significant quantities of J20, J31, JH-XX and H-20. They would certainly make for more difficult opponents than the current crop of J-10/11/15/16, JH-7 and H-6. By the time J20 and J31 are widespread in the PLAAF (if ever for the latter) the U.S and allies will have modernised too, so it's difficult to stare into the crystal ball and predict exactly how everything will stack up. I do expect them to continue to modernise rapidly, so it will be interesting to see what the U.S can achieve now that it is shifting from ~20 years of focus on COIN to prioritising peer competition.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2020, 18:56
by milosh
jessmo112 wrote:2. You can have a large honking awacs or a digital Aesa. But its hard to do both. Even the USN has to stop the E-2 dish from spinning to put the radar in another digital mode. The reason for this is physics. When your dealing with stealth and radars it comes down to physics.


I am not talking about classic AWACS, I am talking abou UAV which replace AWACS. Divine Eagle for example, it is still prototype and final shape will be different.

jessmo112 wrote:3. The Majority of planes on both sides will die on the ground. The problem the Chinese have is that currently the F-35 is flying figure 8s over the very same air defenses the Chinese are using.
The Allies have a dedicated plan for stopping Chinese tac air. The Chinese do not. S-300 400 and the like are all compromised. Shutting down the bases is not a realistic strategy. They allies basing is to dispersed and numerous. Throw Stovl stealth planes and tactical bombers in the mix, and now its impossible.


I really doubt F-35 can fly close to modern SAM but it surely penalized them a lot. But I am not talking about SAMs, I talking about air force and SAM&radar network symbiosis.

Chinese air force will be back by SAMs and radar network, so if China have lot of stealths those stealths don't need to rely on its radars to detect F-35. They will get info from other radars. On other hand I don't see from where F-35 will get info expect from its own radar. E-3 replacement isn't even on paper and even that can't detect J-20/31 from safe distance.

What is need is big UAV with long wave band radar.

So from defensive standpoint Chinese stealths have noticable advantage over F-35, on other hand they will be in similar problem if they attack Japan for example. Then ground radars and SAM will be big bonus to F-35.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2020, 22:16
by jessmo112
1. Milosh your doubts are irrelevant.
The F-22 and F-35 have flow all around the S-300 and S-400 with no problems.

2. A large area search Radar must be a certain size its limited by physics. Thats the reason why wide area search radars are very large. And fire control radars are smaller and in the X-band. You can put an Aesa on a drone but it still will be in the X-band.
The bandwidth is affected by array size.
(If Im explaining it wrong someone correct me)

3. Your not going to have those ground radar tracks in a wartime. GCI will die a painful death.
Anything emmiting will be bombed burned microwaved, Electromagnetic pulsed, or jammed.

The U.S. has been playing this game far longer than the Chinese. But hey... Some part of me welcomes the ignorance and arrogance of modern China.
Its one thing to not know, its another thing to not know you don't know.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2020, 22:32
by nutshell
Wasnt "Chip" Burke the one that accidently spilled the beans on the F35 not getting painted by S300? (RedFlag 17 or 18, memory is failing).

Was a pilot, anyway.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2020, 23:19
by charlielima223
milosh wrote: On other hand I don't see from where F-35 will get info expect from its own radar. E-3 replacement isn't even on paper and even that can't detect J-20/31 from safe distance.

So from defensive standpoint Chinese stealths have noticable advantage over F-35, on other hand they will be in similar problem if they attack Japan for example. Then ground radars and SAM will be big bonus to F-35.


F-22 and F-35 require little to no support from E-3 and E-2 or other aircraft of similar role/capacity. Their own radars, sensors, and integration with the same aircraft type allow for their own self contained capability. This has been echoed by both F-22 and F-35 pilots and strategists.
This has been seen in high end exercises with F-22 and F-35s flying ahead of everyone else. In Syria F-22s were used as forward ISR.

In a hypothetical of a Chinese J-20 or J-31 attempting to penetrate in Japanese airspace (trying to act stupid) will have a harder time than an F-35 going into Chinese airspace. The main reason I can think of this is because of the F-35s ability to connect and communicate with other systems and platforms.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2020, 23:30
by charlielima223
nutshell wrote:Wasnt "Chip" Burke the one that accidently spilled the beans on the F35 not getting painted by S300? (RedFlag 17 or 18, memory is failing).

Was a pilot, anyway.


It could've been, he is the most vocal of the F-35s capabilities. Then again its been pretty much echoed by F-22 and F-35 pilots and planners, basically staying undetected in various exercises until the last moment.

Not just staying undetected but just how good the sensors are. F-22 and F-35s have been outsmarting the test and training ranges...

https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/f-2 ... ges-awacs/

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 00:24
by boogieman
jessmo112 wrote:3. Your not going to have those ground radar tracks in a wartime. GCI will die a painful death.
Anything emmiting will be bombed burned microwaved, Electromagnetic pulsed, or jammed.

In milosh's defence, I think he may have been responding to my concern about ROE prohibiting the destruction of ISR sites in mainland China to avoid nuclear escalation. While F22 and F35 are still well designed to operate in the presence of an intact Chinese IADS network, the inability to systematically dismantle it would definitely make life a lot harder.

A solution to this problem that I have seen raised here in the past is for the U.S and allies to simply sit outside the Chinese A2/AD bubble and impose a naval blockade to economically strangle it. Even this approach is not without its problems though:
When assessing a potential military approach, one must appreciate its strengths, weaknesses, and inherent limits. An oil blockade is not itself a strategy; rather, it is an action appropriately subsumed into a larger economic, diplomatic, and military campaign. It is also an action that in physical, trade-warfare terms would be akin to a nuclear strike on the global economy. An open military conflict between the United States and China would be a globally cataclysmic event on many levels. Furthermore, physically interdicting one of the largest channels in the global oil trade—and with it, major parts of the Chinese economy—very likely would open a Pandora’s box of unforeseen secondary and tertiary adverse consequences whose effects could be worse than even the most pessimistic analyses might suggest.

For this reason, properly understanding the issue and constructing and maintaining an effective and sustainable security architecture designed to prevent such a conflict from ever coming to pass should be core U.S. national security priorities. In this respect, continued advocacy on behalf of a blockade-centric approach (i.e., offshore control) risks undermining U.S. strategic credibility in East Asia. Favoring a blockade-based deterrence policy goes in exactly the opposite direction by communicating that the U.S. political and military communities lack the will to engage in the intense conflict that may in fact be necessary to repel territorial seizures and other actions aimed at undermining U.S. security guarantees and Washington’s standing in the eyes of its allies and others across Asia. Treating a distant blockade as the centerpiece of Washington’s China-facing military stance also risks warping domestic procurement debates, with potentially grave long-term strategic consequences. If a critical mass of Congress comes to believe that the Navy simply can close off China’s maritime oil arteries, members may become more reluctant to appropriate the hundreds of billions of dollars needed in coming decades to fund the personnel costs and hardware acquisitions needed to support and sustain a robust U.S. forward presence in Asia. History strongly suggests that even if a potential foe appears vulnerable to over-the-horizon pressure on its seaborne commerce, a blockade never should be substituted for war or a campaign strategy. As U.S. policy makers contemplate options for potential conflict with China, they forget this lesson at their peril.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 07:06
by weasel1962
boogieman wrote:In milosh's defence, I think he may have been responding to my concern about ROE prohibiting the destruction of ISR sites in mainland China to avoid nuclear escalation. While F22 and F35 are still well designed to operate in the presence of an intact Chinese IADS network, the inability to systematically dismantle it would definitely make life a lot harder.


Imposing a no-fly, SAM-free buffer zone even within the A2/AD (esp on just a couple of provinces) wouldn't escalate to nukes.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 09:40
by boogieman
weasel1962 wrote:
boogieman wrote:In milosh's defence, I think he may have been responding to my concern about ROE prohibiting the destruction of ISR sites in mainland China to avoid nuclear escalation. While F22 and F35 are still well designed to operate in the presence of an intact Chinese IADS network, the inability to systematically dismantle it would definitely make life a lot harder.


Imposing a no-fly, SAM-free buffer zone even within the A2/AD (esp on just a couple of provinces) wouldn't escalate to nukes.

No and I'm not saying that it would. Just that the CCP may very well consider their home turf sacred ground and threaten to go for the nuke option if and when we started dismantling OTH-B, mainland JY-27, HQ-9/19, DF-XX Brigades etc etc. Whether we would or should believe that threat is a matter I leave to the experts.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 12:07
by weasel1962
China can also threaten nuclear destruction if one calls Xi a pooh-bear (threatening nuke destruction is something Kim does regularly) but that's unlikely to materialize. What is clear is that no fly zones have legal basis in international law.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... ontext=ils

Not saying that one shouldn't tread lightly with a nuclear power but I can certainly see US building up a case for enforcing a no fly zone. TEZ or total exclusion zone is the naval equivalent (which was imposed on Falklands 1982). Not exactly a new tactic and definitely an option.

imho, building up a strong case for its legality in peacetime (and getting consensus early) in itself acts as a deterrent against misadventure because it ups the risks/costs to the aggressor (they can lose control over sovereign airspace and they can lose it for a long time thereafter). Effectively a counter access denial.

And if it fails as a deterrent, what it does do is to delimit/predefine the combat zone. That should the risk of escalation.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 12:35
by boogieman
Yes, although the likelihood of Xi following through on the threat would be rather different! I suspect it would ultimately depend on the specific scenario and how committed the PRC were to their strategic objectives.

A no-fly zone sounds good in theory, but if the PRC felt confident in their ability to prevail I don't see why they would be deterred or even influenced by it.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 14:28
by weasel1962
And if it fails as a deterrent, what it does do is to delimit/predefine the combat zone. That should reduce the risk of nuke escalation.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 14:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
nuke escalation is an omnipresent threat, but it is also 100% suicide. As soon as one nation launches a nuke the whole world ends.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 22:02
by jessmo112
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:nuke escalation is an omnipresent threat, but it is also 100% suicide. As soon as one nation launches a nuke the whole world ends.


No, not the whole world, lol only China ends.
You guys are behaving like China could match us nuke for nuke.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 22:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
They don't have to match us

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2020, 22:53
by nutshell
charlielima223 wrote:
nutshell wrote:Wasnt "Chip" Burke the one that accidently spilled the beans on the F35 not getting painted by S300? (RedFlag 17 or 18, memory is failing).

Was a pilot, anyway.


It could've been, he is the most vocal of the F-35s capabilities. Then again its been pretty much echoed by F-22 and F-35 pilots and planners, basically staying undetected in various exercises until the last moment.

Not just staying undetected but just how good the sensors are. F-22 and F-35s have been outsmarting the test and training ranges...

https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/f-2 ... ges-awacs/


Ive watched a video of an american pilot explaining how the spike management """""works""""""".

Pulling a James Harden, dribbling your way past dozen of AA sams must be the ultimate "feels good man" moment.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 08:54
by loke
F-22, F-35 (and B-2) are amazing and very difficult to handle. However China is big and the target list would be very long.

Look at Libya, a tiny fraction of China, it also had quite outdated SAMs. Still the number of cruise missiles and other munitions launched in Libya was quite staggering.

The US would run out of ammunition long before they run out of targets in China.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 10:10
by jessmo112
loke wrote:F-22, F-35 (and B-2) are amazing and very difficult to handle. However China is big and the target list would be very long.

Look at Libya, a tiny fraction of China, it also had quite outdated SAMs. Still the number of cruise missiles and other munitions launched in Libya was quite staggering.

The US would run out of ammunition long before they run out of targets in China.


This is true andca very big concern. Im not sure if we would run out of Jdam kits but Jsow, Jassm, SDB, and Other stand off weapons woukd run out in a week.
I thought the USAF was working on A kit that turns a dumb bomb into a cheap cruise missile

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 12:43
by nutshell
loke wrote:F-22, F-35 (and B-2) are amazing and very difficult to handle. However China is big and the target list would be very long.

Look at Libya, a tiny fraction of China, it also had quite outdated SAMs. Still the number of cruise missiles and other munitions launched in Libya was quite staggering.

The US would run out of ammunition long before they run out of targets in China.


War is unsustainable for both way. More so if it's your soil that is hosting the conflict.

You only need to hit "that much" to force your opponent to sit on a table.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 15:14
by milosh
jessmo112 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:nuke escalation is an omnipresent threat, but it is also 100% suicide. As soon as one nation launches a nuke the whole world ends.


No, not the whole world, lol only China ends.
You guys are behaving like China could match us nuke for nuke.


No one really knows how many ICBM China have but with its massive rural population they don't need to have many, their economy for sure will allow them to match US or Russia if they really want.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 15:33
by milosh
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote: On other hand I don't see from where F-35 will get info expect from its own radar. E-3 replacement isn't even on paper and even that can't detect J-20/31 from safe distance.

So from defensive standpoint Chinese stealths have noticable advantage over F-35, on other hand they will be in similar problem if they attack Japan for example. Then ground radars and SAM will be big bonus to F-35.


F-22 and F-35 require little to no support from E-3 and E-2 or other aircraft of similar role/capacity. Their own radars, sensors, and integration with the same aircraft type allow for their own self contained capability. This has been echoed by both F-22 and F-35 pilots and strategists.
This has been seen in high end exercises with F-22 and F-35s flying ahead of everyone else. In Syria F-22s were used as forward ISR.

In a hypothetical of a Chinese J-20 or J-31 attempting to penetrate in Japanese airspace (trying to act stupid) will have a harder time than an F-35 going into Chinese airspace. The main reason I can think of this is because of the F-35s ability to connect and communicate with other systems and platforms.


E-3 or E-2 or any other AWACS is past with new weapons. I am talking about big stealthy drone which fly with J-20/31 and provide them multiband radar picture. You can put big a$$ L/S-band antennas in that thing and also X-band antennas. That is what China right now is doing with Divine Eagle. If they succeed they will have noticeable advantage.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 16:22
by jessmo112
milosh wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote: On other hand I don't see from where F-35 will get info expect from its own radar. E-3 replacement isn't even on paper and even that can't detect J-20/31 from safe distance.

So from defensive standpoint Chinese stealths have noticable advantage over F-35, on other hand they will be in similar problem if they attack Japan for example. Then ground radars and SAM will be big bonus to F-35.


F-22 and F-35 require little to no support from E-3 and E-2 or other aircraft of similar role/capacity. Their own radars, sensors, and integration with the same aircraft type allow for their own self contained capability. This has been echoed by both F-22 and F-35 pilots and strategists.
This has been seen in high end exercises with F-22 and F-35s flying ahead of everyone else. In Syria F-22s were used as forward ISR.

In a hypothetical of a Chinese J-20 or J-31 attempting to penetrate in Japanese airspace (trying to act stupid) will have a harder time than an F-35 going into Chinese airspace. The main reason I can think of this is because of the F-35s ability to connect and communicate with other systems and platforms.


E-3 or E-2 or any other AWACS is past with new weapons. I am talking about big stealthy drone which fly with J-20/31 and provide them multiband radar picture. You can put big a$$ L/S-band antennas in that thing and also X-band antennas. That is what China right now is doing with Divine Eagle. If they succeed they will have noticeable advantage.


So how do you run a L-band antenna on a UAV?
How do you make signal LPI?
How do the make the data link stealthy?
Hiw do you cool it?
Just one of these issues left unattended will either compromise the plane or its kill chain.
Even if the plane is stealthy but it radiates, its a giant tatget.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2020, 16:55
by milosh
@jessmo112
Just one of these issues left unattended will either compromise the plane or its kill chain.
Even if the plane is stealthy but it radiates, its a giant tatget.


Agree but I didn't said Chinese will be able to pull all right I said they are working on that, and if they are that is noticeable advantage. Btw even if they don't pull everything right it is still way better then using crewed AWACS which easy to track when it doesn't use its radar at all.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 02:11
by jessmo112
China is moving heavy bombers to the India frontier.
China had better get all of the wizbang Gizmos running quick. Because they will need the Fancy J-20, the invisible drones, and sneaky tac-air tactics.
I wonder whats Chinas plan for fighting, In the west as well as the SCS. The Brahmos will give China fits.
Also In surprised that drones haven't taken over the tacair work. No worries about thin air, or pilots.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 03:53
by weasel1962
Its only a H-6 detachment to Kashgar airport (not new and they do it routinely). Delhi is actually within unrefuelled range of H-6 bases in Shaodong/Hengyang (~3500km). However, Kashgar (~1000+km) allows strikes with significant reduction in warning times.

India faces 2 theater commands (Western-WTC and Southern-STC). Tibet is in WTC. Southern covers Yunnan and Sichuan provinces. WTC has 9 brigades (5 J7, 1 J8, 1 JH7, 2 J11). STC has 23 brigades (5 J7, 5 J10, 7 J11/Su30, 2 JH7, 4 H6). Each PLAAF air brigade has ~28 aircraft vs 18 per IAF sqn, that’s equivalent of 48 IAF squadrons facing India before reinforcements.

Deployment wise, the Ladakh sector (WTC) has 23 airports within 750nm of Ladakh (flanker radius), 8 of which are within 500nm. Of the 23, only 3 are located at extreme high altitudes (EHEL). These can be regarded as defensive

STC has significantly more airports and also more of these are at extreme high altitudes. However there are no regular PLAAF/PLAN brigades based at EHEL locations. Most of these airbases are within flanker range of Arunachal Pradesh. STC also has broader sector responsibilities with India in the west, SCS in the south and Taiwan in the east, hence the larger number of brigades. The IAF only has 3 sqns of fighters (all Su-30s) based in the east but can also redeploy if required. Nevertheless, this will likely be the most heavily outnumbered sector. Air superiority is key in mountainous regions because of the ability to stage enveloping air/heliborne assaults and basically cut off the logistics.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 04:09
by weasel1962
The PLA strategy for SCS is simple. Do nothing.

The USAF/USN can basically destroy all Chinese infrastructure in the SCS. However, this is basically a declaration of war where the initiative is on the Chinese side to decide the level of escalation e.g. striking Guam or even Hawaii in return. There are no permanent air basing on the island so the benefits of striking these are limited at best.

The USN can of course invade the ("artificial") islands but basically they turn into an occupation force itself because the US has no ownership claims. It can of course pass the ownership to various claimants. However none of these are capable of defending the islands on their own which necessitates a permanent (and likely illegal) US occupation force.

This would be complex to execute because all this happens within the range of the full submarine fleet of the PLAN to which shipping interdiction is what they are designed for. With no SoSUS equivalent, the US would have to deploy a large part of its fleet and air assets to sanitize the area. That basically means no one (including Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc) can use the SCS for commercial shipping. Now what would the US gain out of this? Absolutely nothing.

FONOPs are the appropriate response to the SCS to which the Chinese themselves can't do anything. Note, none of these actually need a J-20.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 04:10
by weasel1962
weasel1962 wrote:Its only a H-6 detachment to Kashgar airport (not new and they do it routinely). Delhi is actually within unrefuelled range of H-6 bases in Shaodong/Hengyang (~3500km). However, Kashgar (~1000+km) allows strikes with significant reduction in warning times.

India faces 2 theater commands (Western-WTC and Southern-STC). Tibet is in WTC. Southern covers Yunnan and Sichuan provinces. WTC has 9 brigades (5 J7, 1 J8, 1 JH7, 2 J11). STC has 23 brigades (5 J7, 5 J10, 7 J11/Su30, 2 JH7, 4 H6). Each PLAAF air brigade has ~28 aircraft vs 18 per IAF sqn, that’s equivalent of 48 IAF squadrons facing India before reinforcements.

Deployment wise, the Ladakh sector (WTC) has 23 airports within 750nm of Ladakh (flanker radius), 8 of which are within 500nm. Of the 23, only 3 are located at extreme high altitudes (EHEL). These can be regarded as defensive

STC has significantly more airports and also more of these are at extreme high altitudes. However there are no regular PLAAF/PLAN brigades based at EHEL locations. Most of these airbases are within flanker range of Arunachal Pradesh. STC also has broader sector responsibilities with India in the west, SCS in the south and Taiwan in the east, hence the larger number of brigades. The IAF only has 3 sqns of fighters (all Su-30s) based in the east but can also redeploy if required. Nevertheless, this will likely be the most heavily outnumbered sector. Air superiority is key in mountainous regions because of the ability to stage enveloping air/heliborne assaults and basically cut off the logistics.


Bump.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 08:11
by jessmo112
weasel1962 wrote:The PLA strategy for SCS is simple. Do nothing.

The USAF/USN can basically destroy all Chinese infrastructure in the SCS. However, this is basically a declaration of war where the initiative is on the Chinese side to decide the level of escalation e.g. striking Guam or even Hawaii in return. There are no permanent air basing on the island so the benefits of striking these are limited at best.

The USN can of course invade the ("artificial") islands but basically they turn into an occupation force itself because the US has no ownership claims. It can of course pass the ownership to various claimants. However none of these are capable of defending the islands on their own which necessitates a permanent (and likely illegal) US occupation force.

This would be complex to execute because all this happens within the range of the full submarine fleet of the PLAN to which shipping interdiction is what they are designed for. With no SoSUS equivalent, the US would have to deploy a large part of its fleet and air assets to sanitize the area. That basically means no one (including Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc) can use the SCS for commercial shipping. Now what would the US gain out of this? Absolutely nothing.

FONOPs are the appropriate response to the SCS to which the Chinese themselves can't do anything. Note, none of these actually need a J-20.


Really did yoy just throw the Chinese Submarine force our as a credible force? Are you smoking?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 08:24
by weasel1962
jessmo112 wrote:Really did yoy just throw the Chinese Submarine force our as a credible force? Are you smoking?


Its not really difficult interdicting commercial shipping esp in the littorals.

P.s. I don't smoke.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 09:53
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The PLA strategy for SCS is simple. Do nothing.

The USAF/USN can basically destroy all Chinese infrastructure in the SCS. However, this is basically a declaration of war where the initiative is on the Chinese side to decide the level of escalation e.g. striking Guam or even Hawaii in return. There are no permanent air basing on the island so the benefits of striking these are limited at best.

The USN can of course invade the ("artificial") islands but basically they turn into an occupation force itself because the US has no ownership claims. It can of course pass the ownership to various claimants. However none of these are capable of defending the islands on their own which necessitates a permanent (and likely illegal) US occupation force.

This would be complex to execute because all this happens within the range of the full submarine fleet of the PLAN to which shipping interdiction is what they are designed for. With no SoSUS equivalent, the US would have to deploy a large part of its fleet and air assets to sanitize the area. That basically means no one (including Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc) can use the SCS for commercial shipping. Now what would the US gain out of this? Absolutely nothing.

FONOPs are the appropriate response to the SCS to which the Chinese themselves can't do anything. Note, none of these actually need a J-20.


The US and her Allies have a similar strategy. They just ignore Chinese Claims and travel within the 12 miles of any of the islands that they have reclaimed. Which, they're powerless to stop...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 19:20
by jessmo112
China seems to have now pissed off Russia.
The foreign policy of this regime is a mess.
You can't fight the entire world.

Gravitas: Why Russia suspended the delivery of S-…: https://youtu.be/NGRm26JE2fg
Russian equipment is extremely important at this point for China.
The need the engine to power the J-20.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2020, 23:02
by madrat
Your ambassador cannot claim a Russian city as your own without blow back.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2020, 00:53
by jessmo112
Are you talking about them claiming vladivostok?
Lol Russia is one of there last allies.

https://www.financialexpress.com/world- ... a/2015817/

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2020, 02:17
by madrat
jessmo112 wrote:Are you talking about them claiming vladivostok?
Lol Russia is one of there last allies.

https://www.financialexpress.com/world- ... a/2015817/


That left a mark with Putin and the other hardliners I'm sure. It is one of Russia's major historical victories.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2020, 02:29
by jessmo112
Its going to be the boxer rebellion all over again.
China cant fight the world.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2020, 03:25
by madrat
jessmo112 wrote:Its going to be the boxer rebellion all over again.
China cant fight the world.


There is a 'Lifeboat Theory' out there in the intelligence community. CCP leaders allegedly have planned perhaps to run away from the boogieman (itself) during a foreboding crisis (manmade flooding) that throws the nation in turmoil from both internal and external actors. Leaders do seem to be plotting a train wreck while stockpiling assets around the globe for golden parachutes. The idea almost evokes the idea of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns, but from the safety of the Nile.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2020, 03:36
by weasel1962
Border agreements signed in the post opium war period tend not to attract positive reviews in China. The full border demarcation was agreed in 2008 but that's pre-Xi (then under Hu).

So why dig up history again? From an external perspective, it can be called leverage. Xi could be learning from Trump. However, more likely this whole Vladivostok show is more an internal show. The Hu clique is gaining some support over the past few years and this can be a reminder to internal elements on who "lost" Vladivostok. That's my 2 yuan worth.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2020, 23:10
by nutshell
China has one and one only ally: China.

I learned this aftee years of dealing with chinese coworkers.

Anyway, i want to casually remind China has strategicassets for its economy even in Africa.

Stuff that needs to be defended.

Last thing, dont forget India. I cant see them not taking advantage of a, let's say , distracted China.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2020, 17:25
by mixelflick
nutshell wrote:China has one and one only ally: China.

I learned this aftee years of dealing with chinese coworkers.

Anyway, i want to casually remind China has strategicassets for its economy even in Africa.

Stuff that needs to be defended.

Last thing, dont forget India. I cant see them not taking advantage of a, let's say , distracted China.


If that's the case (assets need to be defended elsewhere), they need to really beef up their air/sea power. Which I understand is underway but let's be honest - there's a lot of work still left to do. The Chinese Navy is still a white water fleet, and will likely stay that way for some time. Their air power is growing by leaps and bounds, but still comes up woefully short on key assets like air to air refueling, AWACS and heavy transport aircraft.

They really need a bomber with intercontinental range, a large and diverse tanker/transport fleet as well as greatly expanded air to ground capability of its tactical aircraft. That's a lot to fund, a lot to keep funding and a lot to learn. It's in perhaps this last metric where they're found most wanting. It may well be China ends up exactly as it (incorrectly) predicted US armed forces to be at one time: A paper tiger...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2020, 17:58
by weasel1962
Since they settled on the kj-500, they've got the production line churning those out. It's now standard to see those operating with the fighters. Seems to have relegated the ~10 kj-200s "balanced beam" and 4 kj-2000s.

Also photos of the new kj-600 with balanced beam also spotted. These should equip the next CV. AWACs capability is definitely growing.

At the rate they are churning out those Y-20s, it won't be "woefully short" for long. What's interesting is their use of "civilian" transports. Not exactly a small fleet but heavies are relatively fewer right now. Trains/sea are still their primary mode of transport in country. No significant overseas deployment required yet.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2020, 22:12
by jessmo112
J-20 versus Rafael.
It seems the war of words is heating up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpec ... alth-jets/

The article is kinda glossing over the fact that the French planes won't even detect the J-20.
India needs a stealth fighter yesterday.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2020, 09:55
by wil59
jessmo112 wrote:J-20 versus Rafael.
It seems the war of words is heating up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpec ... alth-jets/

The article is kinda glossing over the fact that the French planes won't even detect the J-20.
India needs a stealth fighter yesterday.

Crap article from A to Z. Chinese propaganda that says the Rafale is a 3rd generation aircraft. To say that the Meteor at a range of 50mn !. I don't know how a newspaper like Forb that should be serious about publishing a Chinese-style press article. Article that should not even appear on the Forum.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2020, 10:48
by disconnectedradical
wil59 wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:J-20 versus Rafael.
It seems the war of words is heating up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpec ... alth-jets/

The article is kinda glossing over the fact that the French planes won't even detect the J-20.
India needs a stealth fighter yesterday.

Crap article from A to Z. Chinese propaganda that says the Rafale is a 3rd generation aircraft. To say that the Meteor at a range of 50mn !. I don't know how a newspaper like Forb that should be serious about publishing a Chinese-style press article. Article that should not even appear on the Forum.


Chinese define fighter generations differently, what we can 4th gen, by their definition is 3rd gen. By their definition they consider F-22, F-35, J-20 to be 4th gen.

India gambled on working with Russia to have a version of the Su-57 as their stealth fighter, but they were unsatisfied and left the project. There’s nothing they can really do at this point, and no, I don’t trust them enough to sell them F-35s anytime soon. They’ll have to make do with whatever advanced 4th gen fighter is available right now or try to develop their own.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2020, 10:55
by weasel1962
Yup. J5/6 = 1G. J7/8 = 2G, J-10/11 = 3G, J-20/31 = 4G. That's how they view it.

China of course thinks their aircraft are unbeatable. Same goes for the Indians. Reflected in how people o/s China view the respective transport fleets also. India with a transport fleet capacity of 3000 tons is massive. China with a transport fleet capacity of 4000 to 5000 tons is small, underpowered, lacking etc.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2020, 11:24
by milosh
It look like they are working on new stealth (two seater) which use J-20 as base:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... gn=3097183

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2020, 06:10
by jessmo112
Its already underpowered, they are going to make it heavier?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2020, 12:01
by Scorpion1alpha
Whatever you think of the J-20, you gotta admit, this is a cool photo of it.
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2020, 14:08
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:It look like they are working on new stealth (two seater) which use J-20 as base:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... gn=3097183


I'm wondering if its stealth properties are better than they had hoped, and thus this version being produced.

The point about it being under-powered is a good one, as the weight of a 2nd crew member, E/W suite etc. will just exacerbate that. I'm thinking that might not last for long though, depending on how successful their espionage efforts are. The last thing I heard about work on a more powerful engine was that it wasn't going so well. But who knows, that might have just been mis-information put out by the Chinese.

Good looking bird though IMO. Certainly "different" than our stealth designs...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2020, 18:18
by milosh
Two seater variant if it is true have side by side cockpit isn't design to be fighter nor interceptor as basic J-20 is.

So lacking thrust doesn't mean lot if they are working on some kind of stealthy F-111.

There was info earlier China is working on two bombers, one strategic (H-20) and one regional. Regional one. So this thing could be that regional bomber.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 00:48
by madrat
There is one reason to publish this 'project'. That is solely to elicit responses from regional competitors.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 04:21
by weasel1962
I don't think there is enough weight data to validate a claim that the J-20 is under-powered. The F-35 carries 13-18k lbs of fuel but has only 75% thrust of the twin AL-35F J-20. No one here thinks the F-35 is under-powered. The Su-27/34 are larger planes than the J-20. Is the Su-34 also under-powered?

The 58k lb thrust F-15E is a d*mn good bomb truck. Based on those specs, Not sure why a J-20 can't replicate some of those qualities. They could be however trade offs e.g. smaller fuel tank/payloads?

On a separate note, China TV had a broadcast on its JSOW equivalent (1000lb class 60+km ranged wingkit cargo bomb).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAqF3l-HHw0

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 12:16
by jessmo112
It has an internal weapons bay.
That alone will make it heavier than a Flanker.
Someone said before" empty space is heavy"
Shes a fat pig with a long movement arm.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 14:56
by weasel1962
Not by as much as one thinks.

Consider the empty weight of the Su-57 which also has internal bays vs the Su-27 or worse the Su-34.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2020, 01:55
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:I don't think there is enough weight data to validate a claim that the J-20 is under-powered. The F-35 carries 13-18k lbs of fuel but has only 75% thrust of the twin AL-35F J-20. No one here thinks the F-35 is under-powered. The Su-27/34 are larger planes than the J-20. Is the Su-34 also under-powered?

The 58k lb thrust F-15E is a d*mn good bomb truck. Based on those specs, Not sure why a J-20 can't replicate some of those qualities. They could be however trade offs e.g. smaller fuel tank/payloads?

On a separate note, China TV had a broadcast on its JSOW equivalent (1000lb class 60+km ranged wingkit cargo bomb).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAqF3l-HHw0


With max fuel and weapons as fuel burns down the J-20 P:W is quite similar to J-10. F-15E always has better P:W and it gets quite a bit better, sooner, as its fuel burns down to and past 50% level. I don't think they compare well.

The J-20 does have F-35 sensor/comms and network ISR targeting layout which is IMO, the real issue even if it doesn't have attack weapons yet, or the mature sensors. It's going to be a big threat even without the attack weapons on board. Especially if it does get a real engine capability improvement in 5 to 10 years that enables external standoff weapon delivery, on top of internal stealthy A2A.

It's how those J20 sensors and comms are exploited as network data which will be the problem, near term, as opposed to becoming a bomb truck later. Their P:W is a bit meh, if they just use it with VLO tactics to leverage the ISR data flow for targeting, instead of lose them engaging in aggressive A2A. I don't see why they would focus on A2A more than absolutely needed, to kill tankers or other main enablers, they need a lot more numbers and system maturity first.

weasel1962 wrote:Is the Su-34 also under-powered?


Su34 isn't a dedicated A2A platform though, and J20 isn't a bomb truck. It does need more thrust than it has to compete with the F-22A at high altitude. That's what it's supposed to be a reply to. But LO design means it can get by without the added thrust to do that, for now.

[Better hope it never has an F-35A chasing its tail though ... :D ]

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2020, 05:02
by weasel1962
element1loop wrote:With max fuel and weapons as fuel burns down the J-20 P:W is quite similar to J-10. F-15E always has better P:W and it gets quite a bit better, sooner, as its fuel burns down to and past 50% level. I don't think they compare well.


I don't think there is enough public data to validate that point. No one knows what the fuel capacity of the J-20 really is. What we do know is the F-15E's MTOW is ~81k lbs whereas the J-20 is est at 75k lbs. Agree that F-15E MTOW will only be achieved with CFTs.

For the J-20, there's a bit of over-estimation on the fuel loads and weight based on MTOW. Clearly with the J-20 seen lugging 2 EFTs, the T-W without those EFT's probably higher. Single engined fighters like J-10 without the 2 EFTs probably has quite a bit of performance boost on the T-W front. I suspect it'd probably mirror twin engined fighters better.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2020, 06:07
by Corsair1963
J-20s from 9th Air Brigade scored 17:0 in training exercise

Posted on September 15, 2020


The PLA News reported on Sept. 15 that the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu recently achieved 17:0 in aerial victories during a training exercise.


J20XXX.jpg


The 9th Air Brigade is assigned under the 3rd Air Division of the Eastern Theater Command.


http://alert5.com/2020/09/15/j-20s-from ... more-84603

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2020, 08:45
by weasel1962
Lots of salt needed.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2020, 11:00
by hornetfinn
weasel1962 wrote:Lots of salt needed.


You mean that kill ratio? I think it would be pretty bad if J-20 wasn't significantly better than any of their previous aircraft. They could've faced plain Su-27s/J-11s or even ancient J-7s and they should be easy targets for J-20 unless they were heavily outnumbered (unlikely at this point IMO). They also currently likely have their best pilots flying J-20s as there are not that many of them around.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2020, 11:50
by weasel1962
The PLA daily report didn't even specify the plane flown (they showed a pic of the Su-30MKK which the unit operated), just the pilot name but the attribution is made by media to 9 Bde's J-20. It could be performed against JJ-7s or JL-10s. It could be heavily scripted or most likely just plane propaganda vis recent Indian gaslighting. Salty....

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2020, 14:16
by jessmo112
element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I don't think there is enough weight data to validate a claim that the J-20 is under-powered. The F-35 carries 13-18k lbs of fuel but has only 75% thrust of the twin AL-35F J-20. No one here thinks the F-35 is under-powered. The Su-27/34 are larger planes than the J-20. Is the Su-34 also under-powered?

The 58k lb thrust F-15E is a d*mn good bomb truck. Based on those specs, Not sure why a J-20 can't replicate some of those qualities. They could be however trade offs e.g. smaller fuel tank/payloads?

On a separate note, China TV had a broadcast on its JSOW equivalent (1000lb class 60+km ranged wingkit cargo bomb).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAqF3l-HHw0


With max fuel and weapons as fuel burns down the J-20 P:W is quite similar to J-10. F-15E always has better P:W and it gets quite a bit better, sooner, as its fuel burns down to and past 50% level. I don't think they compare well.

The J-20 does have F-35 sensor/comms and network ISR targeting layout which is IMO, the real issue even if it doesn't have attack weapons yet, or the mature sensors. It's going to be a big threat even without the attack weapons on board. Especially if it does get a real engine capability improvement in 5 to 10 years that enables external standoff weapon delivery, on top of internal stealthy A2A.

It's how those J20 sensors and comms are exploited as network data which will be the problem, near term, as opposed to becoming a bomb truck later. Their P:W is a bit meh, if they just use it with VLO tactics to leverage the ISR data flow for targeting, instead of lose them engaging in aggressive A2A. I don't see why they would focus on A2A more than absolutely needed, to kill tankers or other main enablers, they need a lot more numbers and system maturity first.

weasel1962 wrote:Is the Su-34 also under-powered?


Su34 isn't a dedicated A2A platform though, and J20 isn't a bomb truck. It does need more thrust than it has to compete with the F-22A at high altitude. That's what it's supposed to be a reply to. But LO design means it can get by without the added thrust to do that, for now.

[Better hope it never has an F-35A chasing its tail though ... :D ]


The main problem that the J-20 will always have is that
Its playing in the F-35s/ F-22s domain.
If its hunting high value assets then its likely that these assets will be heavily defended.
Im am not confident in the J-20s rear aspect stealth to say that they would be able to fire weapons and escape.
And what about firing solution? Have they mastered LPI techniques? Can they close the kill chain versus other stealth fighters? We know the other fighters can.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2020, 19:51
by jessmo112

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2020, 17:21
by mixelflick
If they get powerful enough engines on this baby, it'll be a serious threat. That and they'll probably build more than 200, thus surpassing the Raptor in #'s. Yes, I realize the F-35's procurement will be massive but I'm not sure if it'll become a dedicated J-20 hunter. More likely when the situation calls for self defense, as was seen in DS where two F/A-18C's took out two Mig-21's.

Of course, now that we know NGAD/PCA has flown they'll need to counter that too. The $ that's going to take is mind boggling, and doesn't take into account the $ they're spending on J-20, J-31, H-2 and whatever other stealth birds they have.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2020, 18:20
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:If they get powerful enough engines on this baby, it'll be a serious threat. That and they'll probably build more than 200, thus surpassing the Raptor in #'s. Yes, I realize the F-35's procurement will be massive but I'm not sure if it'll become a dedicated J-20 hunter. More likely when the situation calls for self defense, as was seen in DS where two F/A-18C's took out two Mig-21's.

Of course, now that we know NGAD/PCA has flown they'll need to counter that too. The $ that's going to take is mind boggling, and doesn't take into account the $ they're spending on J-20, J-31, H-2 and whatever other stealth birds they have.


Last thing US need is China do massive increase of military budget. I mean they are spending something like 2%, even with that they are outruning US in new procurment and PLAAN growth is something we didn't saw expect in WW1/2, they will double fleet of modern destroyers in just 5 years from ~20 in 2020 to ~40 in 2025!

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2020, 18:16
by sferrin
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:If they get powerful enough engines on this baby, it'll be a serious threat. That and they'll probably build more than 200, thus surpassing the Raptor in #'s. Yes, I realize the F-35's procurement will be massive but I'm not sure if it'll become a dedicated J-20 hunter. More likely when the situation calls for self defense, as was seen in DS where two F/A-18C's took out two Mig-21's.

Of course, now that we know NGAD/PCA has flown they'll need to counter that too. The $ that's going to take is mind boggling, and doesn't take into account the $ they're spending on J-20, J-31, H-2 and whatever other stealth birds they have.


Last thing US need is China do massive increase of military budget. I mean they are spending something like 2%, even with that they are outruning US in new procurment and PLAAN growth is something we didn't saw expect in WW1/2, they will double fleet of modern destroyers in just 5 years from ~20 in 2020 to ~40 in 2025!


Just go look at the amount of cranes in the shipyard they're building carrier 003 in. The crane at Newport News is the biggest in the Western hemisphere. China has several cranes as big, or bigger, in that ship yard alone, and several others there close to it. More at Dalian.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2020, 19:07
by jessmo112
Your missing something though.
China has been dependent on the west for tech and free trade. How will you keep the gravy train rolling with no new tech to steal, and a economic contraction?
To make matters worse Chinas shipping is increasingly vulnerable to U.S. and allied intervention and blockade.
Very few countries are going to let the Chinese willingly build bases to defend oil shipping.
Most countries in Africa are now pissed at China for behavior during the COVID crisis.
They are bullying India, Australia Britain and every country far and wide that they contact.
Its been revealed in the last few months that They believe the Russians stole vladivostok from them.
The only real ally they have is Pakistan.
Chinas foreign policy has been a disaster in 2020.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2020, 01:39
by jessmo112
More J-20 info. Cost and development issues.


https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htair ... 01002.aspx

tight. China also revealed that development of the J20 has, cost $4.4 billion as of 2018 and that the construction cost for each aircraft is $110 million. In addition to the manufacturing difficulties, there were performance problems with the prototypes and six production models turned over to the Chinese Air Force by 2018.

Also did you guys know they are having these kinds of
Development issues?

China has had persistent problems developing high-performance jet engines. China has been developing the more powerful (and supercruise ready) WS-15 engine since the 1990s, for a larger aircraft like the J20. Despite a lot of effort, the WS-15 was still not able to work reliably enough for service (rather than a prototype) aircraft. Officials also confirmed rumors that a WS-15 exploded during a 2015 static (on the ground) test. That failure had been a secret but when an engine this big fails by blowing up the incident is difficult to hide. It also turned out that the WS-1

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2020, 05:37
by jessmo112
Corsair1963 wrote:J-20s from 9th Air Brigade scored 17:0 in training exercise

Posted on September 15, 2020


The PLA News reported on Sept. 15 that the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu recently achieved 17:0 in aerial victories during a training exercise.


J20XXX.jpg


The 9th Air Brigade is assigned under the 3rd Air Division of the Eastern Theater Command.


http://alert5.com/2020/09/15/j-20s-from ... more-84603


This should be sobering for the Chinese.
Not because of the J-20s numbers but because they have to realize how vulnerable they are to allied stealth aircraft, Which will soon be in theater by the hundreds.
Japan alone is really going all in on the F-35.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2020, 16:16
by mixelflick
I for one wasn't aware they were having such issues, so thank you.

I mean, I think we all assumed the engine difficulties were always there. But a whole bird exploding on the ground? That was news to me. Cost of $110 million/copy is a bit of a surprise, meaning I thought it would cost a lot more. If the 110 figure is true, it means its within the F-35's price range and far easier for them to buy more.

Given all of the design changes and ongoing issues, it sounds like their teething problems aren't done yet...

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2020, 20:40
by jessmo112
I think we all took for granted that all Chinese equipment is cheap and affordable. That's what they have been pushing for years.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2020, 00:46
by weasel1962
mixelflick wrote:Given all of the design changes and ongoing issues, it sounds like their teething problems aren't done yet...


If one looks at PLAAF fighter production, its improvement by batches. Example, the original J-10A replaced its intakes with DSI in J-10B, followed by AESA & localized engine in J-10C. They don't do retrofit. They upgraded the AL-31FN to the series 3 and at the same time developed their local engine.

Same modus operandi will apply to J-20. Later batches will incorporate changes in design, construction, engine & avionics upgrades.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2020, 08:38
by jessmo112
weasel1962 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Given all of the design changes and ongoing issues, it sounds like their teething problems aren't done yet...


If one looks at PLAAF fighter production, its improvement by batches. Example, the original J-10A replaced its intakes with DSI in J-10B, followed by AESA & localized engine in J-10C. They don't do retrofit. They upgraded the AL-31FN to the series 3 and at the same time developed their local engine.

Same modus operandi will apply to J-20. Later batches will incorporate changes in design, construction, engine & avionics upgrades.


Sooo.. some of the batches take 20-30:years? Got it.

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2020, 12:33
by mixelflick
jessmo112 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Given all of the design changes and ongoing issues, it sounds like their teething problems aren't done yet...


If one looks at PLAAF fighter production, its improvement by batches. Example, the original J-10A replaced its intakes with DSI in J-10B, followed by AESA & localized engine in J-10C. They don't do retrofit. They upgraded the AL-31FN to the series 3 and at the same time developed their local engine.

Same modus operandi will apply to J-20. Later batches will incorporate changes in design, construction, engine & avionics upgrades.


Sooo.. some of the batches take 20-30:years? Got it.


Precisely where did I say "some of the batches take 20-30 years"?

Re: J-20 goes operational again

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2020, 02:31
by jessmo112
The current engine is a cold war era design.
And the newer engine is blowing up on ghe stands.
Even when they get it to work it will be a copy of a cold war era design. You cant rant about incremental upgrades all you like but its not going to change the facts.
If they are doing improvements in batches then this batch is a 20 year batch. At this the The U.S. will be installing 6 or 7th generation engines, before the Chinese can get a indigenous engine to super-cruise.