Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Okay. I agree with you.
Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions
- Thread starter lawxx
- Start date
Okay. I agree with you.
The Great One
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,601
- Reaction score
- -23
- Country
- Location
@Deino you banned @gambit and @The enlightened for what reason exactly? For proving your Chinese pals wrong?
Gambit is a proven troll. Good that he is banned.
Sasquatch
RETIRED INTL MOD
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,344
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Gambit received an infraction for an off topic post, he had infractions from a prior thread which resulted in his ban. Deino did not ban him I did, Enlightened was banned for trolling/off topic posts in another thread.
longlong
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2013
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 1
Sorry and You take Strategypage for a reliable source !????... even more if right the first sentence is already wrong ? '2015' is not the fifth but already the sixth J-20 to fly.
Deino
Strategypage need go back to primary school to learn how to do finger count.
So far (as till 26 Feb 2015), J-20 with number painting 2001, 2002, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 are fly tested and sighted.
ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
It should be 2001-2002-2011-2012-2013-2015.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
To date, there have been six Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter prototypes.
1. 2001
2. 2002
3. 2011 - When the numbering system moves into the tenth place, it means a major upgrade or finalized specifications. Both EOTS (ie. eletro-optical targeting system) and DAS (ie. distributed aperture system) first showed up on J-20 2011.
4. 2012
5. 2013
[2014] - Since "14" is a homonym for "I die" in Chinese, the designation is not used.
6. 2015
----------
China Defense Blog: December 2014
J-20 prototype 2015 conducts its maiden flight
Other J-20 prototypes that are still flying
1. 2001
2. 2002
3. 2011 - When the numbering system moves into the tenth place, it means a major upgrade or finalized specifications. Both EOTS (ie. eletro-optical targeting system) and DAS (ie. distributed aperture system) first showed up on J-20 2011.
4. 2012
5. 2013
[2014] - Since "14" is a homonym for "I die" in Chinese, the designation is not used.
6. 2015
----------
China Defense Blog: December 2014
J-20 prototype 2015 conducts its maiden flight
Other J-20 prototypes that are still flying
Taygibay
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
@Martian2
Just a small call, mate!
[ … that considering some tensions on fora and specifically between some nationalities, I feel obligated to mention is not an ad patriam attack at all. ]
That composite image with the dual and expanded views of the tail surface is most likely a non-issue.
It does not conclusively show differences in shape between the two images.
If we start with the AC at level and rate that 0 degrees, then tilt it to the left to get the first view it reaches somewhere in the vicinity of 65+ degrees. The one at top right has passed 105 degrees, probably 110+. ( The directional line of progression is also different from one to the other. )
The tail surface we are looking at is made of two plane parts ( both meanings of plane incl. geometry one ). The stabilizer add-on is seen almost face on and the main fuselage extension encircled is a complex trapezoidal shape to boot tapering from a thick facet inside to sharp edge outboard. By comparison, in the above right image, the stabilizer is reduced to a sliver due tot the different angle and the piece seen protruding below the red circle is now the J_20's portside vertical fin.
To show how perspective influences resulting views, ( which I surmise you know but not clearly whomever made that )
just check how this surface seems close to the port/encircled engine and how big a gap shows on the top/starboard engine on the same leftmost pic, which we then find reproduced the other way around on the second image ( the same gap is seen in circle but would not appear if we had a view of the other side that is cut by top picture border ).
The exact same considerations apply to the rear angle the poster interpreted as being differently shaped. Knowing the implications of the above explanations and again specifying that the two images have the planes shown facing in different directions ( top is coming towards our right as observers while left/bottom is moving straight tight if not somewhat away ), I am far from convinced to say the least that the discrepancy even exists.
To verify this doubt, just compare the original uncut view of #215 ( your top most image ) to the one of #213 ( your bottom most one ) which have less of a tilt spread between their PoV angles and you'll find the mirrored angles of that edge to be pretty darn similar.
One could finally add that the shaded areas in the composite are a manipulation : the cut of leftmost being made to fit the wing sweep; the canard and wing of top right extending into the close-up & an unexplained shadow protruding over the wing that does not fit any part of the plane in the close-up as if a botched attempt to show the vertical fin extending but spaced leftward inexplicably.
My conclusion is that the composite image is at best meaningless and at worst made-up, i.e. a lie.
I, for one, am NOT saying this is means anything regarding the program or the number of J-20 produced/flying. It only raises serious questions as to either the understanding or integrity of the person that manipulated these images and does not in any way detracts from the program's worth or China's honesty …
but its value as an informative piece is non-existent.
Thank you BTW for your statement on the decimal meaning to which I agree entirely, the 01-02 being testbeds for the aerodynamic formula and flight qualities of the platform without much or any military electronics and the ones past the ten mark those fitted with war systems, something that I had arrived at on my own ( A.K.A development program jump/increment ).
Ni Hao, Tay.
Just a small call, mate!
[ … that considering some tensions on fora and specifically between some nationalities, I feel obligated to mention is not an ad patriam attack at all. ]
That composite image with the dual and expanded views of the tail surface is most likely a non-issue.
It does not conclusively show differences in shape between the two images.
If we start with the AC at level and rate that 0 degrees, then tilt it to the left to get the first view it reaches somewhere in the vicinity of 65+ degrees. The one at top right has passed 105 degrees, probably 110+. ( The directional line of progression is also different from one to the other. )
The tail surface we are looking at is made of two plane parts ( both meanings of plane incl. geometry one ). The stabilizer add-on is seen almost face on and the main fuselage extension encircled is a complex trapezoidal shape to boot tapering from a thick facet inside to sharp edge outboard. By comparison, in the above right image, the stabilizer is reduced to a sliver due tot the different angle and the piece seen protruding below the red circle is now the J_20's portside vertical fin.
To show how perspective influences resulting views, ( which I surmise you know but not clearly whomever made that )
just check how this surface seems close to the port/encircled engine and how big a gap shows on the top/starboard engine on the same leftmost pic, which we then find reproduced the other way around on the second image ( the same gap is seen in circle but would not appear if we had a view of the other side that is cut by top picture border ).
The exact same considerations apply to the rear angle the poster interpreted as being differently shaped. Knowing the implications of the above explanations and again specifying that the two images have the planes shown facing in different directions ( top is coming towards our right as observers while left/bottom is moving straight tight if not somewhat away ), I am far from convinced to say the least that the discrepancy even exists.
To verify this doubt, just compare the original uncut view of #215 ( your top most image ) to the one of #213 ( your bottom most one ) which have less of a tilt spread between their PoV angles and you'll find the mirrored angles of that edge to be pretty darn similar.
One could finally add that the shaded areas in the composite are a manipulation : the cut of leftmost being made to fit the wing sweep; the canard and wing of top right extending into the close-up & an unexplained shadow protruding over the wing that does not fit any part of the plane in the close-up as if a botched attempt to show the vertical fin extending but spaced leftward inexplicably.
My conclusion is that the composite image is at best meaningless and at worst made-up, i.e. a lie.
I, for one, am NOT saying this is means anything regarding the program or the number of J-20 produced/flying. It only raises serious questions as to either the understanding or integrity of the person that manipulated these images and does not in any way detracts from the program's worth or China's honesty …
but its value as an informative piece is non-existent.
Thank you BTW for your statement on the decimal meaning to which I agree entirely, the 01-02 being testbeds for the aerodynamic formula and flight qualities of the platform without much or any military electronics and the ones past the ten mark those fitted with war systems, something that I had arrived at on my own ( A.K.A development program jump/increment ).
Ni Hao, Tay.
Last edited:
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Chengdu J-20 Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)
What is EOTS? Since we expect the Chengdu J-20 EOTS to have similar capabilities as the F-35 EOTS, let's use the Deagel definition for the F-35 EOTS.
EOTS
"The EOTS comprises a third generation FLIR, a laser, and a CCD-TV camera providing target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges, high resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared search and track IRST, laser designation, laser rangefinder, and laser spot tracking. The EOTS F-35 sub-system functionality could be expanded in the future."
----------
What is the range of an EOTS? About 40 to 100 km (assuming the Chengdu J-20 EOTS is comparable to a French Rafale EOTS).
http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf
----------
Criticism that F-35 EOTS is ten-year-old technology.
Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter '10 Years Behind' Older Jets - The Daily Beast
"The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.
'EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,' said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. 'I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.'"
Is The F-35's Targeting System Really 10 Years Behind Current Systems?
"First off, yes the F-35's EOTS hardware is now dated as it was based on emerging technology that would be included in the first generation SNIPER targeting pod, which is now more than 10 years old. Although some of the internal components of the systems can be upgraded, apparently it is not a plug-and-play affair. All the systems on the F-35 are 'fused' and many are related to one another. If something requires more processing power, cooling or power where will that processing power, cooling or power come from?
There are also limitations as to just how much EOTS can be upgraded even if it were replaced in full by a totally new system. This is due to the tight internal dimensions that the systems is housed in within the F-35's nose, as well as the field-of-view of the faceted sapphire glass window that it looks out of.
Bottom line, the system probably could could be upgraded for higher-resolution and magnification, but it would not be a cheap or easy affair when compared with strapping on a new targeting pod and integrating into an F-16's 'discreet' avionics suite."
What is EOTS? Since we expect the Chengdu J-20 EOTS to have similar capabilities as the F-35 EOTS, let's use the Deagel definition for the F-35 EOTS.
EOTS
"The EOTS comprises a third generation FLIR, a laser, and a CCD-TV camera providing target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges, high resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared search and track IRST, laser designation, laser rangefinder, and laser spot tracking. The EOTS F-35 sub-system functionality could be expanded in the future."
----------
What is the range of an EOTS? About 40 to 100 km (assuming the Chengdu J-20 EOTS is comparable to a French Rafale EOTS).
http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf
----------
Criticism that F-35 EOTS is ten-year-old technology.
Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter '10 Years Behind' Older Jets - The Daily Beast
"The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.
'EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,' said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. 'I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.'"
Is The F-35's Targeting System Really 10 Years Behind Current Systems?
"First off, yes the F-35's EOTS hardware is now dated as it was based on emerging technology that would be included in the first generation SNIPER targeting pod, which is now more than 10 years old. Although some of the internal components of the systems can be upgraded, apparently it is not a plug-and-play affair. All the systems on the F-35 are 'fused' and many are related to one another. If something requires more processing power, cooling or power where will that processing power, cooling or power come from?
There are also limitations as to just how much EOTS can be upgraded even if it were replaced in full by a totally new system. This is due to the tight internal dimensions that the systems is housed in within the F-35's nose, as well as the field-of-view of the faceted sapphire glass window that it looks out of.
Bottom line, the system probably could could be upgraded for higher-resolution and magnification, but it would not be a cheap or easy affair when compared with strapping on a new targeting pod and integrating into an F-16's 'discreet' avionics suite."
Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Not sure why so much bitterness and hate in such a minor detail ?? ... and simply YOU are wrong. We have so many images of all 201x-aircraft that clearly show that it is not an issue of perspective or angle of view but simply a reshaped tail boom and that alone on 2015. Why only on 2015 I don't know but it is undeniable, simply a fact ... nothing more, nothing special and even more nothing to make a mess about !
Deino
Taygibay
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Thank you for your pictures & information, Deino! It does prove the tail surface to be different which the one I analyzed did not. You are entirely right on that!
Then again, I only questioned and analyzed that single composite image with many manipulations which is stated clearly in my message.
At the same time however, I wonder about your tone? Bitterness? Hate? Mess? I do not know what in my post could be construed as such.
From top & intro : [ … that considering some tensions on fora and specifically between some nationalities, I feel obligated to mention is not an ad patriam attack at all. ]
The next to last paragraph said :
"I, for one, am NOT saying this means anything regarding the program or the number of J-20 produced/flying … and does not in any way detract from the program's worth or China's honesty …"
That got passed you? OK! Knowing then what eventually happens when management members take a personal view to any poster, I will take the adequate preventive measures to make sure problems do not resurface.
Xiéxie yě zai jiàn mǒurén yí ge yóuhǎo mínzú, Tay.
SOHEIL
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 15,796
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
