• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

China's J-20 Stealth Fighter; already doing more then expected

C

CWOJackson

Charter Member
China's J-20 Stealth Fighter; already doing more then expected

New pictures of the China's J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter have surfaced and are making their way across military blogs.

This newest round of photos show the J-20 in the skies somewhere over mainland China.


The prototype is said to be using the Saturn AL-31 turbofan engine developed by the Russian's for their Su-27 air superiority fighter.


Reuben Johnson at The Washington Times reports the Chinese may be as much as 10 years away from producing an original stealth engine to slip into the J-20.
In the meantime, they'll have to take comfort in the fact that while the F-22 Raptor may be more agile and made entirely in the U.S., the Dragon carries more fuel and weapons than Lockheed's fighter.



The J-20's development is also moving along much faster than anyone had expected. Back in 2009, Gen. He Weirong, deputy commander of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force said in a TV interview that the J-20 wouldn't be operational until 2017-2019. That estimate will likely be revised if work continues at the current pace.


Bill Sweetman at AviationWeek points out that for all its headway, no one is yet sure what the J-20 is for. He speculates that given the aircraft's size and weapons bays, it may be used to "threaten intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and tankers, by using stealth and speed to defeat their escorts."
 
She look a little large for a fighter. Looks more like a interceptor. Maybe she is more agile than she looks. Also they have no engine? Really? This is China were talking about. They can and will copy anything....
 
Most of Communist China's weapons systems are geared for defense of the mainland, or to support the attempt to invade and forcibly annex Taiwan, when that does occur. Given this thing's size and alleged weapons-carrying ability it makes sense it will support that strategy. The weapons-carrying ability could be turned into extra internal fuel tankage, at least partially, increasing its range and allowing it to potentially operate east of Taiwan. Sweetman's assessment this thing could threaten ISR assets makes sense. It could also be used to defeat E-2 AEW coverage for the US carrier battle groups, taking out the EW assets and leaving the carrier group, and its aircraft, to depend on radar coverage provided by the ships themselves, which is far more limited than that provided by the E-2. In addition, the loss of the E-2s would force the US carrier battle groups to emit radar signals, both to guide their own aircraft and detect incoming threats. Both tasks can be performed by E-2s. This situation would betray the carrier groups' locations and render EMCON (emissions control) useless. It could be a real game-changer.
 
I realize the horse is already out of the barn, but I do read labels and try to avoid supporting China's military growth with my consumer dollars. My government, on the other hand...
 
Looks like a copy of the Su-50, which it likely is. I think if the Chinese were serious about forceably retaking Taiwan, they would have a good sized amphibious capability and they have practically none.

:running:
 
There is an inherent problem with many efforts in China when the higher tech meets the low tech mentalities.

I recall looking at images of a very decent looking vessel built in a small Chinese shipyard. Just from the images, the vessel didn't look that bad at all (I would love to do a complete inspection of it), BUT when it came time to launch it they ended up sinking it. Somehow they were able to build a modern vessel (whether through copy or design I don't know) but couldn't figure out how to safely launch it.

I do wonder how this problem works out in the construction, operation and maintenance of advanced weapons systems?

Still, I like the "looks" of this plane.
 
Toastmaker
I think if the Chinese were serious about forceably retaking Taiwan, they would have a good sized amphibious capability and they have practically none.
Click to expand...
...I agree.

Most likely as world economies continue in decline, Taiwan will find less market for global export, friends with less ability to back them up physically. Watching carefully, the People's Republic will probably lure them back with a heap of carrots, rather than a stick.

Except for turning on themselves, the Han Chinese have notably been dismal in military efforts. They have, however, proven to be the world's best shopkeepers, merchants, and loans officers. The 21st century will have PRof China simply buy whatever they desire, rather than resort to armed extortion. The J20 is an estate lawn guard dog.
 
Admittedly I am not the most knowledgeable about aircraft and airfoil design, but it seems to me that the wings are somewhat small for this size aircraft. To me it doesn't look like a very stable or manuverable fighter though.... Just my thoughts.
 
1) You wouldn't want it stable. You want it unstable for agility, just like the F-16 and F-22.

2) It's clearly been optimized for Supercruise, hence the layout and wing size.

3) I don't know how anyone can say it carries more weapons than a Raptor when nobody, to the best of my knowledge, knows how many weapons it will carry. We went through this with the Russian T-50, until the Russians stated it doesn't carry more missiles than a Raptor. I think too many people make observations without knowing anything about aircraft design. It's almost as if they forget the aircraft has to have room for the structure inside as well.

Here's a video of it maneuvering at low speed. There's a bunch of J-10s at the beginning, a standard two seater and a single seater with the diverterless inlet.

http://youtu.be/E-zL42UKrnI
 
Yes, it needs to be unstable, much like the F-16, but still, this does not look right. The Falcon has very good fly by wire computers that offer artificial stabilization through constant monitering and manipulation of flight surfaces... I do not think the chinese have a computer system that can handle anything drasticly outside of the envelope of normal stability. I think that we are thinking different types of stability... You are thinking of it in a manuvering sense, I am thinking of it from a systems stand point.

About the wing, I also doubt that this aircraft can supercruise based on the fact that the engines currently in the aircraft are not specifically designed to maintain supercruise. Also, if you look at comparable aircraft, such as the raptor, you will see that they have a relatively large wing surface area, while this aircraft has a fat fuselage, and relatively small wings. The raptor's body also acts as additional lifting surface... This plane, not so much... I don't think this plane is as close to being a potent threat as people would have us think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top