Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

[siegecrossbow]

As it seem, it is indeed true, the J-20B prototype serial numbered 2031 performed its maiden flight today. So congrats again to CAC.

(Image via @siegecrossbow/SDF)

First J-20 demonstrator: 2001
First J-20 prototype: 2011
First J-20 prototype using WS-10 engines: 2021
First twin-seater J-20: 2031
First WS-15 equipped J-20: ????

 

[FighterJock]

Has the J-20B got a single canopy or two split canopy's for the back seater? It is hard to tell from the photo's.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Has the J-20B got a single canopy or two split canopy's for the back seater? It is hard to tell from the photo's.

It still is a single canopy.

 

[FighterJock]

Has the J-20B got a single canopy or two split canopy's for the back seater? It is hard to tell from the photo's.

It still is a single canopy.

Thanks siegecrossbow.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Pretty cool. They're just chugging along, making things happen.

 

[Hank58]

I cannot wait to see what the new twin seat trainer variant of the J-20 looks like, I certainly hope that they have not just crammed in the second cockpit at the expense of fuel.

Looking good in my humble opinion, if the artist renditions are legit.

Those are non official artistic renditions, and the second one depicts a more dramatic "strike" twin seater.

This image below is one that was featured for a brief second in an AVIC video last year which is probably the most likely appearance at this stage imo.


Also, I would be surprised if it operates as a trainer. If it operates in any form as a trainer, it would likely be for advanced tactics development.
A more plausible role, one floated by one of the more credible insiders over a year ago, is that of an enhanced battle management and UAV controller aircraft.


View attachment 666703

Yep. No way is it a trainer. We already know they don't need one. Think Growler but with the back seater controlling UCAVs.

Ok so no trainer variant, the twin seater will be a UCAV controller with the UCAV’s carrying the anti-radar missiles. Sounds like an interesting development and one that I will be following with interest.

The back-seater certainly has no forward visibility. Can't help a student on landing approach at all. Kind of rules out "trainer". Looks like a worse view than the WSO in an F-4. Must be like the back-seater in a MiG-31... concentrating on mission tasks with no flight controls (but even the FOXHOUND back-seater gets that pop-up periscope)!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I cannot wait to see what the new twin seat trainer variant of the J-20 looks like, I certainly hope that they have not just crammed in the second cockpit at the expense of fuel.

Looking good in my humble opinion, if the artist renditions are legit.

Those are non official artistic renditions, and the second one depicts a more dramatic "strike" twin seater.

This image below is one that was featured for a brief second in an AVIC video last year which is probably the most likely appearance at this stage imo.


Also, I would be surprised if it operates as a trainer. If it operates in any form as a trainer, it would likely be for advanced tactics development.
A more plausible role, one floated by one of the more credible insiders over a year ago, is that of an enhanced battle management and UAV controller aircraft.


View attachment 666703

Yep. No way is it a trainer. We already know they don't need one. Think Growler but with the back seater controlling UCAVs.

Ok so no trainer variant, the twin seater will be a UCAV controller with the UCAV’s carrying the anti-radar missiles. Sounds like an interesting development and one that I will be following with interest.

The back-seater certainly has no forward visibility. Can't help a student on landing approach at all. Kind of rules out "trainer". Looks like a worse view than the WSO in an F-4. Must be like the back-seater in a MiG-31... concentrating on mission tasks with no flight controls (but even the FOXHOUND back-seater gets that pop-up periscope)!

It's very nose-high in that pic. I think the view is largely adequate.

 

[helmutkohl]

^ to add to that

aside from the J-20, F-22, and YF-23
most of the other 5th gen aircraft don't really have great rear views. the F-35 doesnt, partially due to the lift fans. neither does the Su-75 or Su-57. the latest FC-31 looks a lot like the F-35 as well.
even the proposed 6th gen designs dont seem to care much about the rear view now.
the FCAS and Tempest models, while being a "bubble" canopy, dont have a great rear view with the way its angled

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I rotated it in GIMP and, yes, the view is not great compared to the J-16 for example. I guess EODAS compensates, and a J-16 style canopy would not be good for supercruise.

 

[Deino]

A new one ...

 

[FighterJock]

Let's hope that this is a real photo Deino and not another photoshop effort, I am getting extremely wary of any photo's coming out of China now after being duped several times in the past.

 

[Blitzo]

Let's hope that this is a real photo Deino and not another photoshop effort, I am getting extremely wary of any photo's coming out of China now after being duped several times in the past.

That one is real, a screencap from a video.

Photoshopped pictures are pretty common, but also fairly easy to spot once the signs can be recognised.

 

[Blitzo]

I cannot wait to see what the new twin seat trainer variant of the J-20 looks like, I certainly hope that they have not just crammed in the second cockpit at the expense of fuel.

Looking good in my humble opinion, if the artist renditions are legit.

Those are non official artistic renditions, and the second one depicts a more dramatic "strike" twin seater.

This image below is one that was featured for a brief second in an AVIC video last year which is probably the most likely appearance at this stage imo.


Also, I would be surprised if it operates as a trainer. If it operates in any form as a trainer, it would likely be for advanced tactics development.
A more plausible role, one floated by one of the more credible insiders over a year ago, is that of an enhanced battle management and UAV controller aircraft.


View attachment 666703

Yep. No way is it a trainer. We already know they don't need one. Think Growler but with the back seater controlling UCAVs.

Ok so no trainer variant, the twin seater will be a UCAV controller with the UCAV’s carrying the anti-radar missiles. Sounds like an interesting development and one that I will be following with interest.

The back-seater certainly has no forward visibility. Can't help a student on landing approach at all. Kind of rules out "trainer". Looks like a worse view than the WSO in an F-4. Must be like the back-seater in a MiG-31... concentrating on mission tasks with no flight controls (but even the FOXHOUND back-seater gets that pop-up periscope)!

It's very nose-high in that pic. I think the view is largely adequate.

I think adequate is relative.

Compared to twin seaters that are intended to have dedicated conversion training roles from CAC, like J-10AS, or JF-17B, the visibility of J-20S and its rear crew member is pretty poor, see comparisons (J-20S is rotated to compensate for the nose up).

I'm sure J-20S could serve in an ad hoc role for advanced tactics if it was called upon, but I can't see it doing conversion training as a primary role.

 

[Hank58]

Must have had another flight by now. Any more photographs?

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464122524267130931

View: https://twitter.com/jesusfroman/status/1464122524267130931

 

[litzj]

F-22 and F-35 does not have two-seat variants while J-20 try.
Hmm, Could it mean J-20 will have Fighter-Bomber Role like FB-22 ? or SEAD thing like that
For pure training purpose, two-seats did not make much sense.

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget synthetic vision to asses the trainer role of that double seater!
With the sensor positioned right under the nose, the need for a complete forward field of view from the rear cockpit is reduced.

Also, everybody here assume that this revolutionary fighter for China came without teething problems for the pilot despite the fact the configuration is difficult to be faults prone (rear delta, high wing loading on the delta, giant canted canards). It might simply be that there is a need for an experienced instructor in the back to pass some of the flight domain syllabus.

 

[Hood]

Also, everybody here assume that this revolutionary fighter for China came without teething problems for the pilot despite the fact the configuration is difficult to be faults prone (rear delta, high wing loading on the delta, giant canted canards). It might simply be that there is a need for an experienced instructor in the back to pass some of the flight domain syllabus.

But surely enough simulator time should enable a competent pilot to master the handling without the need for a check flight with an instructor?

You could even take a JL-10 and fit it with modified fly-by-wire avionics which mimics the J-20's handling (a la BAe Hawk VISTA of 35 years ago) as a much cheaper option for that scenario.

 

[TomcatViP]

Think spin recovery training on the F-16.

 

[Blitzo]

Don't forget synthetic vision to asses the trainer role of that double seater!
With the sensor positioned right under the nose, the need for a complete forward field of view from the rear cockpit is reduced.

Also, everybody here assume that this revolutionary fighter for China came without teething problems for the pilot despite the fact the configuration is difficult to be faults prone (rear delta, high wing loading on the delta, giant canted canards). It might simply be that there is a need for an experienced instructor in the back to pass some of the flight domain syllabus.

Developing a whole new variant of a 5th generation fighter for conversion training like that makes no sense. Advanced LIFTs and modern simulators are there for a reason.
Nor have there been any indications of dissatisfaction or risk associated with the aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft, so you're reaching a bit there.

While advanced tactics training could be an ad-hoc role of the aircraft, the overwhelmingly most likely role of the second crewmember is to provide a much greater command and battle management capability compared to a single seater.

 

[TomcatViP]

OK. Where are then the extra antennas and electronic pods to suits that role?
Where are those videos of the 20 making at least mundane aerobatics?

 

[kaiserd]

There are 3 likely scenarios I can see:
- There is a “traditionalist” bent/ faction making the decision they absolutely need a 2-seat J-20 for conversion training. That appears unlikely given it’s a poor argument unrelated to modern fighters and simulators etc. plus would likely have appeared much earlier if this is the case. However you never know given how decisions are likely made in highly hierarchical organisations in highly authoritarian states, particularly if there is a generational gap or gaps between the end users in the field and decision makers.
- the 2nd seat is wanted/ needed for specific mission related tasks. This appears by far the most likely scenario given the delay in the appearance of the 2-seat version and the reality of modern fighters and the training around them.
- Some mixture of the 2 above with both views using the other to help get what they want for their own reasons.
May well not actually be 2 delineated factions involved, but trying to represent the likely decision making path in a manner easily understood.

 

[Blitzo]

OK. Where are then the extra antennas and electronic pods to suits that role?

There was never any expectation for any extra antennae or electronic pods for that role, because it would use the same avionics and networking suite as the single seat J-20.

The more capable command and battle management capability of the J-20S relative to J-20A arises from its second crew member, not from a more enhanced avionics suite, because the inherent sensor fusion, automation and networking capabilities of a normal 5th generation fighter are already so formidable.

Where are those videos of the 20 making at least mundane aerobatics?

Is the lack of video footage of J-20 making "aerobatics" your basis for suggesting there are somehow inherent flaws with its aerodynamics?

Come on, give us a break..

Next you're going to say there's an inherent flaws with J-20's weapons suite because we haven't seen videos of it launching a missile.

 

[GARGEAN]

Next you're going to say there's an inherent flaws with J-20's weapons suite because we haven't seen videos of it launching a missile.

You have no idea...

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Where are those videos of the 20 making at least mundane aerobatics?

Why does this argument always come up in this thread? As another poster mentioned already in this thread we know the Su-27 family has a magnificent aerodynamic design and has a few great display profiles it flies. But the J-11 displays have - like the J-20 - always been rather mundane with no hard manuvering... Ergo the J-11 which is a Su-27 copy must have bad aerodynamics? Cause that is the basis used for the argument against J-20...

The PLAAF just don't seem as interested to exhibit their aircraft at the edge of their capabilities. It doesn't make them poor designs.

 

[siegecrossbow]

OK. Where are then the extra antennas and electronic pods to suits that role?

There was never any expectation for any extra antennae or electronic pods for that role, because it would use the same avionics and networking suite as the single seat J-20.

The more capable command and battle management capability of the J-20S relative to J-20A arises from its second crew member, not from a more enhanced avionics suite, because the inherent sensor fusion, automation and networking capabilities of a normal 5th generation fighter are already so formidable.

Where are those videos of the 20 making at least mundane aerobatics?

Is the lack of video footage of J-20 making "aerobatics" your basis for suggesting there are somehow inherent flaws with its aerodynamics?

Come on, give us a break..

Next you're going to say there's an inherent flaws with J-20's weapons suite because we haven't seen videos of it launching a missile.

We actually do. They just made it hard to tell unless you really know how to look.

 

[TomcatViP]

Messing with Mass & balance can change a falcon into a jumbo...

(Sorry Disney. Not my intend!)

 

[Ainen]

automation and networking capabilities of a normal 5th generation fighter are already so formidable.

Do we have a way of knowing this at this stage? I mean, it may be everything - and the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
But the more fighter is expected to be a command node of sorts - the more you expect 1 or both pilots to perform as operators most of the time - the more reason to make it different.

p.s. small rant:
What is a "normal 5th generation fighter"?
2006 F-22A? 2016 J-20A? 2026 S-75? 2036 Tempest? Or 2046 FCAS?

 

[In_A_Dream]

What is a "normal 5th generation fighter"?
2006 F-22A? 2016 J-20A? 2026 S-75? 2036 Tempest? Or 2046 FCAS?

People shouldn't get too caught up in the "generations" of aircraft. That's more for hobbyists and aviation blogger headlines.

 

[FighterJock]

What is a "normal 5th generation fighter"?
2006 F-22A? 2016 J-20A? 2026 S-75? 2036 Tempest? Or 2046 FCAS?

People shouldn't get too caught up in the "generations" of aircraft. That's more for hobbyists and aviation blogger headlines.

I wonder who came up with the whole fighter generations thing anyway, because one thing is for sure it confuses me more than ever even when we are at the dawn of the supposed sixth generation?

 

[siegecrossbow]

What is a "normal 5th generation fighter"?
2006 F-22A? 2016 J-20A? 2026 S-75? 2036 Tempest? Or 2046 FCAS?

People shouldn't get too caught up in the "generations" of aircraft. That's more for hobbyists and aviation blogger headlines.

I wonder who came up with the whole fighter generations thing anyway, because one thing is for sure it confuses me more than ever even when we are at the dawn of the supposed sixth generation?

You can blame Lockheed Martin for introducing the generations concept and the Russians for introducing “Fifth gen” specifically.

 

[stealthflanker]

Yeah, it was LM i think which make a "mass use" of fighter generations. Nonetheless the concept existed for a while.. like 1980's. Things however is that everyone have their own definition of "generation".


This one is from AGARD paper.



Based on that, F-22,35, Su-57, J-20 etc are basically 7th Gen fighter.

 

[sferrin]

No it's not just Lockheed Martin marketing BS. The topic has only been discussed about 9000 times here. Research it.

 

[Blitzo]

automation and networking capabilities of a normal 5th generation fighter are already so formidable.

Do we have a way of knowing this at this stage? I mean, it may be everything - and the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
But the more fighter is expected to be a command node of sorts - the more you expect 1 or both pilots to perform as operators most of the time - the more reason to make it different.

p.s. small rant:
What is a "normal 5th generation fighter"?
2006 F-22A? 2016 J-20A? 2026 S-75? 2036 Tempest? Or 2046 FCAS?

Well, I never made any comparison of J-20s networking and automation and sensing capabilities with other aircraft.

However yes, I think we have enough credible rumours and a few official tidbits to assess that J-20s capabilities in that regard are can be described as formidable.


I'm aware of the issues surrounding the use of generations, but I think for colloquial use we have nothing better as shorthand.

 

[FighterJock]

automation and networking capabilities of a normal 5th generation fighter are already so formidable.

Do we have a way of knowing this at this stage? I mean, it may be everything - and the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
But the more fighter is expected to be a command node of sorts - the more you expect 1 or both pilots to perform as operators most of the time - the more reason to make it different.

p.s. small rant:
What is a "normal 5th generation fighter"?
2006 F-22A? 2016 J-20A? 2026 S-75? 2036 Tempest? Or 2046 FCAS?

Well, I never made any comparison of J-20s networking and automation and sensing capabilities with other aircraft.

However yes, I think we have enough credible rumours and a few official tidbits to assess that J-20s capabilities in that regard are can be described as formidable.


I'm aware of the issues surrounding the use of generations, but I think for colloquial use we have nothing better as shorthand.

I wish that the whole fighter generation thing could be got rid off permanently it really serves no purpose at all and is only used by the arms manufacturers to get sales.

 

[sferrin]

First note 5th Air Brigade J-20

First note 5th Air Brigade J-20 On 8 December 2021, a People's Liberation Army - Air Force (PLAAF) Chengdu J-20A with serial 61162 was noted on a test flight from Chengdu/Huangtian...

scramble.nl

 

[stealthflanker]

Beauty

 

[Deino]

Finally again a clearer image of the J-20AS (?) twin-seater prototype no. 2031 and it got its grey camouflage in the meantime.

Also noteworthy, now it is clear that like all J-20A single seaters it is powered by WS-10C engines.

(Image via @航空EXIA from Weibo)

 

[Hood]

So now 2031 has gained a dielectric radome?
Didn't look like it had one on rollout. Or this a case of creative painting camouflage?

 

[Deino]

So now 2031 has gained a dielectric radome?
Didn't look like it had one on rollout. Or this a case of creative painting camouflage?

Good point!