Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Beast]

China to develop the next(5th) generation anti-stealth radar.

Combining microwave and photonics technologies, the new radar is not only capable of detecting stealth fighter but also capable of distinguishing a particular aircraft type, even a specific aircraft.

中电科38所吴剑旗：进军第五代反隐身雷达

2月23日上午，安徽省科学技术奖励大会在合肥隆重召开，中国电科首席科学家、38所科技委主任吴剑旗获得2017年度安徽省重大科技成就奖。“这是对我和我们科研团队的充分肯定和认可，对我们来说既是鼓励更是鞭策。 ”吴剑旗表示，下一步将继续瞄准反隐身雷达研究，探寻更先进的反隐身技术，将荣誉转化为前进的动力，不辜负大家的厚爱与鼓励。

走进位于合肥市高新区的中国电科38所，一座巨型的雷达雕塑首先映入眼帘。自1990年进入38所，吴剑旗28年来献身雷达技术研究。作为雷达专家，他勇于创新、另辟蹊径，以不达目的誓不罢休的决心和韧劲，实现我国雷达研究由“跟跑”到“领跑”的转变。他领衔研发多型反隐身米波雷达，如一双双 “火眼金睛”，让一切敢于来犯之敌无处遁形，让祖国的蓝天云轻星粲。

隐身战机，被誉为现代战争中的超级装备。 1991年，海湾战争爆发，美国隐身飞机首次大规模投入实战，可以在不被对方发现的情况下纵深打击防空体系、指挥体系关键节点，致其瘫痪，后续常规力量再肆意轰炸。 “雷达不能反隐身，一个国家基本国防安全就没有保障。 ”吴剑旗说，当时全世界都没有反隐身雷达，我国雷达技术水平更是与发达国家存在代差，主要任务就是追赶并缩小差距。 “美国是世界上雷达技术最先进的国家，它是造‘矛’的一方，绝不会告诉我们造‘盾’的方法。 ”

吴剑旗坦言，研究反隐身雷达没有明确追赶、模仿的对象，只能靠独立自主地探索。

从基本理论，到设计方法，再到工程实现……为了填补反隐身雷达的空白，吴剑旗带领团队整整探索了20年，2011年反隐身雷达终于变成了装备。“刚开始时，反隐身雷达在国内立项阻力很大，质疑声很多，因为当时都是习惯于跟随式发展，国际上没有先例。但我们顶住了压力，最终将想法变成了实用装备。 ”吴剑旗透露，上世纪九十年代，从事国防技术研究待遇较低，从事雷达基础性预先研究更是条件差、工作时间长、收入少，研究团队中也有很多人经不住高薪和优厚待遇的诱惑，或出国或跳槽去了高薪揽才的民企，但他不能一走了之。

“作为一名雷达人，既要敬畏这份职业，又要担当起责任和使命。 ”吴剑旗说。 1999年，我国驻南联盟大使馆被炸，中国成了联合国5个常任理事国中唯一被隐身飞机轰炸过的国家，这更激起他们不造出反隐身雷达誓不罢休的斗志。 20年潜心研究，20年大胆实践。最终，吴剑旗带领团队探索形成了独有的反隐身先进米波雷达理论、建立了基础数据模型和相应的独有设计方法，研制出了中国独有的反隐身先进米波雷达，解决了我国防空骨干雷达能力被隐身飞机“清零”的问题。这些反隐身雷达从理论、设计到制造都是中国独有、独创，完全摆脱了对进口的依赖。

28年来，吴剑旗始终坚守使命、守望蓝天，他参与研制的DBF体制三坐标雷达，获得国家科技进步一等奖，标志着中国雷达首次赶上世界先进水平；主导研制的稀布阵综合脉冲孔径雷达试验系统、机动式米波三坐标雷达，先后获得国家科技进步二等奖，填补了我国反隐身雷达装备空白，主要指标世界领先。因成绩突出，他先后获得全国优秀科技工作者、全国创新争先奖等荣誉。

“下一步，我们将向第五代反隐身雷达进军，并努力实现分布式协同探测。”吴剑旗表示，第五代反隐身雷达从作战应用上来说，将用来“对付”具有超音速巡航、无人驾驶、两栖作战等特性的第五代隐形战机；从技术方向上来说，要将微波与光子技术结合，实现全息感知、智能化和软件化，不仅可以探测到隐形战机，还要能够辨别具体机型，甚至可以分辨出是哪一架飞机。

良好的创新环境，是科技创新的肥沃土壤。 “安徽为科技工作者创新、创业营造了非常好的环境，建立了‘四个一’创新主平台，创新生态和政策环境走在了全国前列。 ”吴剑旗表示，他将努力当好提升自主创新能力的开拓者、建设现代化经济体系的生力军、培养提携青年才俊的引路人，在反隐身雷达领域敢为人先、再进一步，并推动先进雷达技术服务于城市安全，为建设现代化五大发展美好安徽作出更多贡献。

The action must be spur by the fact J-20 thrashed KJ-500 in simulated air combat exercise

 

[siegecrossbow]

China to develop the next(5th) generation anti-stealth radar.

Combining microwave and photonics technologies, the new radar is not only capable of detecting stealth fighter but also capable of distinguishing a particular aircraft type, even a specific aircraft.

中电科38所吴剑旗：进军第五代反隐身雷达

2月23日上午，安徽省科学技术奖励大会在合肥隆重召开，中国电科首席科学家、38所科技委主任吴剑旗获得2017年度安徽省重大科技成就奖。“这是对我和我们科研团队的充分肯定和认可，对我们来说既是鼓励更是鞭策。 ”吴剑旗表示，下一步将继续瞄准反隐身雷达研究，探寻更先进的反隐身技术，将荣誉转化为前进的动力，不辜负大家的厚爱与鼓励。

走进位于合肥市高新区的中国电科38所，一座巨型的雷达雕塑首先映入眼帘。自1990年进入38所，吴剑旗28年来献身雷达技术研究。作为雷达专家，他勇于创新、另辟蹊径，以不达目的誓不罢休的决心和韧劲，实现我国雷达研究由“跟跑”到“领跑”的转变。他领衔研发多型反隐身米波雷达，如一双双 “火眼金睛”，让一切敢于来犯之敌无处遁形，让祖国的蓝天云轻星粲。

隐身战机，被誉为现代战争中的超级装备。 1991年，海湾战争爆发，美国隐身飞机首次大规模投入实战，可以在不被对方发现的情况下纵深打击防空体系、指挥体系关键节点，致其瘫痪，后续常规力量再肆意轰炸。 “雷达不能反隐身，一个国家基本国防安全就没有保障。 ”吴剑旗说，当时全世界都没有反隐身雷达，我国雷达技术水平更是与发达国家存在代差，主要任务就是追赶并缩小差距。 “美国是世界上雷达技术最先进的国家，它是造‘矛’的一方，绝不会告诉我们造‘盾’的方法。 ”

吴剑旗坦言，研究反隐身雷达没有明确追赶、模仿的对象，只能靠独立自主地探索。

从基本理论，到设计方法，再到工程实现……为了填补反隐身雷达的空白，吴剑旗带领团队整整探索了20年，2011年反隐身雷达终于变成了装备。“刚开始时，反隐身雷达在国内立项阻力很大，质疑声很多，因为当时都是习惯于跟随式发展，国际上没有先例。但我们顶住了压力，最终将想法变成了实用装备。 ”吴剑旗透露，上世纪九十年代，从事国防技术研究待遇较低，从事雷达基础性预先研究更是条件差、工作时间长、收入少，研究团队中也有很多人经不住高薪和优厚待遇的诱惑，或出国或跳槽去了高薪揽才的民企，但他不能一走了之。

“作为一名雷达人，既要敬畏这份职业，又要担当起责任和使命。 ”吴剑旗说。 1999年，我国驻南联盟大使馆被炸，中国成了联合国5个常任理事国中唯一被隐身飞机轰炸过的国家，这更激起他们不造出反隐身雷达誓不罢休的斗志。 20年潜心研究，20年大胆实践。最终，吴剑旗带领团队探索形成了独有的反隐身先进米波雷达理论、建立了基础数据模型和相应的独有设计方法，研制出了中国独有的反隐身先进米波雷达，解决了我国防空骨干雷达能力被隐身飞机“清零”的问题。这些反隐身雷达从理论、设计到制造都是中国独有、独创，完全摆脱了对进口的依赖。

28年来，吴剑旗始终坚守使命、守望蓝天，他参与研制的DBF体制三坐标雷达，获得国家科技进步一等奖，标志着中国雷达首次赶上世界先进水平；主导研制的稀布阵综合脉冲孔径雷达试验系统、机动式米波三坐标雷达，先后获得国家科技进步二等奖，填补了我国反隐身雷达装备空白，主要指标世界领先。因成绩突出，他先后获得全国优秀科技工作者、全国创新争先奖等荣誉。

“下一步，我们将向第五代反隐身雷达进军，并努力实现分布式协同探测。”吴剑旗表示，第五代反隐身雷达从作战应用上来说，将用来“对付”具有超音速巡航、无人驾驶、两栖作战等特性的第五代隐形战机；从技术方向上来说，要将微波与光子技术结合，实现全息感知、智能化和软件化，不仅可以探测到隐形战机，还要能够辨别具体机型，甚至可以分辨出是哪一架飞机。

良好的创新环境，是科技创新的肥沃土壤。 “安徽为科技工作者创新、创业营造了非常好的环境，建立了‘四个一’创新主平台，创新生态和政策环境走在了全国前列。 ”吴剑旗表示，他将努力当好提升自主创新能力的开拓者、建设现代化经济体系的生力军、培养提携青年才俊的引路人，在反隐身雷达领域敢为人先、再进一步，并推动先进雷达技术服务于城市安全，为建设现代化五大发展美好安徽作出更多贡献。

Just because you can track doesn't necessarily mean you can target and engage.

 

[Gomig-21]

 

[Brainsucker]

Just because you can track doesn't necessarily mean you can target and engage.

That's better than nothing.

 

[gambit]

That's better than nothing.

To be blunt -- it is next to nothing.

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/202684/raptor-debuts-at-red-flag-dominates-skies/

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

The Russian fanboys love to mock that statement but none of them have ever posted a credible argument refuting it at the technical level.

Your eyes detected the F-22, but this is not WW II where your eyes are good enough. Without the high freq high pulse rate radar, your eyes are useless against the F-22.

 

[siegecrossbow]

J-20 and H-6 in the same frame.

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1891346-1-1.html

 

[azesus]

I thought stealth only means shortens detect distance, not render completely ineffective. Didn't know that, thanx, learned

 

[gambit]

I thought stealth only means shortens detect distance, not render completely ineffective. Didn't know that, thanx, learned

It is. Just that some designs have shorter detection distance than others.

Right now, if we go by anecdotal experiences, the American 'stealth' designs are the best, so until the Russians and the Chinese are willing to submit theirs to similar inspections, we will not know how theirs will stand against the Americans. Of course, neither of them are obligated to put their 'stealth' jets under anyone's examinations. So in the end, all we have are everyone's claims.

 

[UKBengali]

It is. Just that some designs have shorter detection distance than others.

Right now, if we go by anecdotal experiences, the American 'stealth' designs are the best, so until the Russians and the Chinese are willing to submit theirs to similar inspections, we will not know how theirs will stand against the Americans. Of course, neither of them are obligated to put their 'stealth' jets under anyone's examinations. So in the end, all we have are everyone's claims.

Nope. 80% of stealth is aircraft shape.

We know roughly the stealth of the J-20(VLO) and PAK-FA(LO).

 

[Gomig-21]

@gambit , good discussion on the deflection of he canards BTW. Hopefully at some point we'll see more and better footage of the J-20's full landing sequence and much more tarmac taxiing etc.

Assuming the J-20 uses the concept of 'balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces', the behaviors we see on the J-20 are inline with the concept. The logic maybe different with the inclusion of the canards and the delta wings, but the logic is definitely inferable based upon what we know of flight controls laws in general and with the F-18SH in particular as reference.

I stand corrected on my original statement that only the J-20's canards are dihedral compared to the others. I listed the Eurocanards and also the J-10C but upon closer inspection of @clarkgap 's post on the J-10 thread, that beauty also has it's canards in a rather pronounced dihedral. Might be just a little less than the J-20 but it's still a considerable angle. The Chinese designers must have determined that they're either getting much better results from the upward angle of the canards than if they were simply level with the wings. I'm also guessing that it's much more of an aerodynamic reason as opposed to an RCS one.

 

[clarkgap]

@gambit , good discussion on the deflection of he canards BTW. Hopefully at some point we'll see more and better footage of the J-20's full landing sequence and much more tarmac taxiing etc.



I stand corrected on my original statement that only the J-20's canards are dihedral compared to the others. I listed the Eurocanards and also the J-10C but upon closer inspection of @clarkgap 's post on the J-10 thread, that beauty also has it's canards in a rather pronounced dihedral. Might be just a little less than the J-20 but it's still a considerable angle. The Chinese designers must have determined that they're either getting much better results from the upward angle of the canards than if they were simply level with the wings. I'm also guessing that it's much more of an aerodynamic reason as opposed to an RCS one.

"For the configurations with the canard in the wing chord plane, increasing the canard dihedral angle from -18.60 to 18.60 increased the maximum lift coefficient of the configuration. For the configurations with the canard above the wing chord plane, the highest maximum lift coefficient was developed when the canard had no dihedral."

So canard dihedral is important when the canard in the wing chord plane. But it cannot explain why canards on J-10 also have dihedral angle. I guess the special strucuture of airfoils on J-10 cause the result.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750004860.pdf

About RCS factors, I mean the configurations with the canard in the wing chord plane is less effective because "the configuration with the canards above the wing chord plane produced more linear pitching-moment curves throughout the angle-of-attack range than did the configuration with the canard in the wing chord plane." However, the canard above the wing chord plane also cause huge RCS, so they had to made choose among these factors.

 

[Maxpane]

 

[gambit]

@gambit , good discussion on the deflection of he canards BTW. Hopefully at some point we'll see more and better footage of the J-20's full landing sequence and much more tarmac taxiing etc.

I hope so, too. This is just one point of curiosity that any technically minded person would have, especially if you have relevant experience relating to the subject under discussion. At the very least, we did not speculate wildly but with a modicum of background info.

When I was active duty, I learned that we minimize the use of the drag chute for logistical reasons. As aircrafts gets more and more complex, support for deployments also got more and more complex. If we want to see the economics of that, look at the airliners. There were not many civil aviation aircrafts that uses the drag chute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Caravelle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-104

If the jet MUST use the drag chute on landing, that limits where you can fly, so now we are talking about return-on-investment (ROI) because not every airport have certified parachute riggers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_rigger

The course provides training on inspecting, packing, rigging, recovering, storing, and maintaining air item equipment.

A parachute is a composite of many individual cloth 'panels'. The rigger must inspect literally every panel no matter how large is the chute. Also under mandatory inspection are the cords and panel connection points for wear and tear. Keep in mind that as the drag chute is discarded by the aircraft, it gets tossed around on the runway before it is collected for reuse.

The parachute rigger is a dedicated specialty in every airborne regiment in every army. He must be jump qualified and willing to put his life on every chute he inspected, repaired if necessary, repacked, and certified for (re)use. So for the airliners, to have a certified parachute rigger at every airport is a financial factor to be avoided.

The drag chute is ideal for slowing down a landing aircraft at less than ideal length runways, meaning the target runway is not optimal for the aircraft. This mean if the J-20 is to be used in an expeditionary manner, as any military is expected to be, the drag chute and its human component must be available at all times. The military can afford this but civil aviation cannot. Or rather -- WILL NOT. The rigger may not jump with the jet's drag chute, but there is the pilot who is staking his life on the rigger's work.

Anyway...The drag chute is an additional logistical component for the J-20 and is why I believe the jet uses the flight control surfaces in a speedbrake function. But I could be wrong...

 

[Deino]

Looks like 7xx32 ... could be indeed 172. Brigade.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/972889584873951233

 

[cirr]

Looks like 7xx32 ... could be indeed 172. Brigade.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/972889584873951233


View attachment 458856

78232