Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

helmutkohl said:
bloody sky said:
siegecrossbow said:
www.flightglobal.com

F-35s have encountered J-20s over East China Sea: USAF general

A top US Air Force (USAF) general says that Lockheed Martin F-35s have had at least one encounter with Chengdu J-20s, and that the Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft has a key role in long-range air-to-air kill chains.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

First encounter between two hostile fifth gen fighter aircraft in human history.
Click to expand...
Can we see the bloody sky in the nearly future?
Click to expand...

unfortunatley its paywalled. can you tell us more about what the article said?
Click to expand...

I've linked the video interview above.
 
siegecrossbow said:
View: https://youtu.be/GNPo6S5uwZQ?t=2848


Interview with USAF general loaded with classified information: 23 likes.

Arm chair general makes video about how Rafales can kill the F-35: 35 thousand likes.

This is the world we live in.
Click to expand...
thanks for the link.
also in that video what I find interesting was how he's a big advocate of the E-7.. the E-3 having too many issues with hydraulics and maintenance
 
helmutkohl said:
siegecrossbow said:
View: https://youtu.be/GNPo6S5uwZQ?t=2848


Interview with USAF general loaded with classified information: 23 likes.

Arm chair general makes video about how Rafales can kill the F-35: 35 thousand likes.

This is the world we live in.
Click to expand...
thanks for the link.
also in that video what I find interesting was how he's a big advocate of the E-7.. the E-3 having too many issues with hydraulics and maintenance
Click to expand...

E-3 is an older platform so problem is to be expected. But the surprising part is that only four are stationed in West Pacific. I guess Japan and South Korea are doing the heavy lifting?

E-7 with AESA radar will be able to pick up LO targets much more consistently and at far greater range. E-3’s radar is not only PESA but requires the rotodome to be mechanically rotated, which could leave gaps in detection.
 
These are not compact fighters by any measure. I don't believe China can miniaturize stealth skin components so large skins are necessary. In the stealth realm its easier to build stealth on larger aircraft.

The J-20 looks like they stapled together two J-10's and applied stealth skin. I'm surprised, frankly, they continue to build J-10 with the underside intakes. They could have advanced their progress towards stealth development by giving at least a J-10 prototype a pair of similar but smaller side intakes.
 
sferrin said:
bigsister said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1545219798774460416
View: https://twitter.com/dafengcao/status/1545219798774460416
https://twitter.com/x/status/1545230121187299329
View: https://twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA/status/1545230121187299329
Click to expand...
Seems like they've finished envelope expansion.
Click to expand...
Why would you say that?
Click to expand...
My mistake. I thought they removed the noseboom after envelope expansion. On second thought, they've already finished air data calibration with single seat aircrafts.
 
Vanessa1402 said:
Why does J-20 have clear serration on the trailing edge of its wings and canard but F-35 and F-22 both don't have that?
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing, others here who know the art much better than I might know but not be able to tell you. Having said that, I think it's because trailing edge materials used on the J-20 are mostly radar transparent and they're relying on the shaping (saw tooth) edges to do most of the work of directing the energy in the saw tooth directions. As opposed to the US, which appears to stick with the main sweep spikes of the leading and trailing edges and is probably using materials that disperse the energy differently? I don't know if what they did has as much to do with LO in and of itself as it does with maintenance of the trailing edge surfaces? Just some guesses on why the differences.
 
even if I know what are the 611 and 611 Institutes (SAC & CAC), what is Institute 627?
 
Vanessa1402 said:
Why does J-20 have clear serration on the trailing edge of its wings and canard but F-35 and F-22 both don't have that?
Click to expand...
There are 2 main reasons
First reason is the location of the horizonal stabilizer/canard.
Because small parts of aircraft will generate creeping wave earlier than big part. The small fin/canard will generate creeping much sooner. On F-35 and F-22, the horizonal stabilizer is behind the main wing, so the creeping wave return if generated will be partly blocked by the main wing. On J-22, the canard is in front, so they need away to redirect the creeping wave
1.jpg Capture.PNG


The second reason is platform alignment.
On F-35 and F-22 the leading edge of the main wing have the similar direction as the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer
the trailing edge also have similar direction as the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer
On J-20, the leading edge of the main wing also have the same direction as the leading edge of the canard. But the trailing edge of the canard and the trailing edge of the main wing are different
2.jpg 4.jpg
 
collins355 said:
Deino said:
even if I know what are the 611 and 611 Institutes (SAC & CAC), what is Institute 627?
Click to expand...
Harbin Institute of Aerodynamics.
Click to expand...
would have been interesting had they been assigned to build the next gen fighter.
Harbin, thus far, only produces helicopters and big planes. like bombers, transports, etc. But no fighter jets or attack aircraft.
 
Ronny said:
Vanessa1402 said:
Why does J-20 have clear serration on the trailing edge of its wings and canard but F-35 and F-22 both don't have that?
Click to expand...
There are 2 main reasons
First reason is the location of the horizonal stabilizer/canard.
Because small parts of aircraft will generate creeping wave earlier than big part. The small fin/canard will generate creeping much sooner. On F-35 and F-22, the horizonal stabilizer is behind the main wing, so the creeping wave return if generated will be partly blocked by the main wing. On J-22, the canard is in front, so they need away to redirect the creeping wave
View attachment 682425View attachment 682427


The second reason is platform alignment.
On F-35 and F-22 the leading edge of the main wing have the similar direction as the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer
the trailing edge also have similar direction as the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer
On J-20, the leading edge of the main wing also have the same direction as the leading edge of the canard. But the trailing edge of the canard and the trailing edge of the main wing are different
View attachment 682430View attachment 682431
Click to expand...

Actually the trailing edge of the left canard matches the angle of the trailing edge of the right wing, and vice versa, at least as much as the leading edges match. Its hard to tell exact alignment from photos as the canards are rarely flat but at an angle.
 
Without having members of the team that designed the J-20 on our board, this is just conjecture. And unless the people doing the conjecturing are LO Engineers themselves, then this is basically just guesswork from non-informed amateurs, so I'd refrain from making statements like this. At least preface your ideas with "I think" or something.
 
siegecrossbow said:
View attachment 682697
Click to expand...
Just a critical thought … but how likely is it that the latest image of the J-20AS no. 2032 is a photoshop fake? Either it has a different, much lighter colour scheme than no. 2031 or due to different lighting conditions or it is still the same yellow primer psed to grey.

DC4CC79E-FACC-4510-B698-EF04A13F19E8.jpeg 1D24EAE9-C1EE-4ABD-BF37-2A49DEB555C6.jpeg
 
^ good eye
to me it seems like the second one
primer that has been color adjsuted
 
Trailer of a soon to be released Chinese aviation blockbuster a la TopGun featuring the J-20:

View: https://youtu.be/piqTEFLVYnM

More information here:
eurasiantimes.com

China’s Own ‘Top Gun’ – Born To Fly – Promoting J-20 Stealth Fighter Jets To Showcase PLAAF's Might

China is going above and beyond to promote its J-20 Stealth fighter jet by releasing its own version of the Hollywood blockbuster Top Gun, which is primarily based on the life and work of the US naval fighter pilots.
eurasiantimes.com eurasiantimes.com
 
That thing is nice. For me it's a tie between that and the F-23 (not YF-23) for best looking 5th gen. Back in the 80s when the ATF program was going, but the public hadn't seen anything but concepts, I fully expected the ATF to produce something that looked like the J-20.
 
sferrin said:
That thing is nice. For me it's a tie between that and the F-23 (not YF-23) for best looking 5th gen. Back in the 80s when the ATF program was going, but the public hadn't seen anything but concepts, I fully expected the ATF to produce something that looked like the J-20.
Click to expand...
The original concept art for the ATF was for a delta-canard. It was used for the F-22 in the F-29 Retaliator video game on the Amiga.

1660810358890.png
 
Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
That thing is nice. For me it's a tie between that and the F-23 (not YF-23) for best looking 5th gen. Back in the 80s when the ATF program was going, but the public hadn't seen anything but concepts, I fully expected the ATF to produce something that looked like the J-20.
Click to expand...
The original concept art for the ATF was for a delta-canard. It was used for the F-22 in the F-29 Retaliator video game on the Amiga.

View attachment 682746
Click to expand...
That might be Lockheed's original but it was purely speculative. It was done by Syd Mead for Lockheed. :D

 
was there any evidence whatsoever of mig involvement? or it's just "everything is a copy of the wright brothers?"
 
Given how Kamov were commissioned to do preliminary design studies for the Z-10, it's not beyond the realms of possibility Mikoyan did something similar. I've not seen any evidence though.
 
From my understanding, it was far more involved by Kamov than just preliminary design study on Z-10. Y-20 absolutely had Antonov involvement, but not as detailed as Kamov's involment in Z-10. As to J-20, i am mostly joking there. There are some whispers, but they mostly boil down to speculation, there hasnt been concrete evidence or acknowledgment. None the less, i do think there are some parellels between MiG 1.44/1.42 and J-20, both in terms of the design by also the overall philosophy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom