Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[cirr]

 

[Deino]

... but is this a real image of a real PL-10 on a real J-20?

I remember a quite amazing CG from some years ago ... need to look when I'm back home.

 

[LKJ86]

The author confirms that it is PSed.

 

[Figaro]

He is right.

The U.S. Air Force’s ability to improve the capabilities of the Raptor is limited largely due to the termination of production of the fighter, meaning it is no longer a “live program” undergoing continuous development in the same way as the F-35, F-15, and J-20. The age of the Raptor’s design, meaning it uses software and computer architecture developed in the 1990s with a core processor speed of just 25MHz, further complicates upgrades – causing particular issues when attempting to equip the fighter with newly developed weapons systems. The J-20’s far newer computer architecture is far easier to work with for China’s own military. While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22 upon its induction into service, the far faster rate at which upgrades can be applied are set to rapidly narrow the gap and could well lead the Chinese fighter to soon surpass the capabilities of its U.S. counterpart and in future go on to transcend them entirely. With both fighters representing the elite of each country’s respective aerial warfare capabilities, this will inevitably have significant implications for the balance of power in the Pacific.
Abraham Ait is a military analyst specializing in Asia-Pacific security and the role of air power in modern warfare. He is chief editor of Military Watch Magazine.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/how...ighter-could-soon-surpass-the-us-f-22-raptor/
​

Raptor's electronic technology is old 90's technology that need upgrade

I wouldn't trust an article that says this ... "While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22".

Underestimate the enemy at your peril ...

 

[gambit]

I wouldn't trust an article that says this ... "While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22".

Underestimate the enemy at your peril ...

And overrate yourself is equally perilous.

For the interests of the readers out there who wonders how legitimate is the claim that the J-20's avionics is 'superior' to the F-22, here is an excellent example of what distinguish one technology from the other...

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/iss...rs-The-End-of-Vacuum-Gyro-Systems_6847-1.html

In a recent policy statement, the FAA gave the regulatory green light to replace traditional vacuum-driven attitude instruments with electronically driven replacement indicators. This means you can remove the vacuum system from the aircraft, since the policy doesn’t require a backup spinning gyro. In many cases, you won’t need a backup at all.

For decades, backup instruments were raw air data sourced. The technology -- spinning gyros, bellows, gears -- remains the same from one era to another. Each manufacturer can only make superficial changes to their products such as a thinner glass or lighter casing. The FEATURES and the EXECUTION of these mechanical and analog devices were the same from one aircraft to another.

The reason for this constancy is reliability, as in assurance level. Raw air data maybe coarse, but if a pilot has to resort to using backup instruments to maintain controlled flight, it matters little if the airspeed graduation is 5 or 10 km/hr. He just need to know if his airspeed is within an acceptable range to prevent stall, for one example. He just need to know if he is below 10,000 ft altitude, not 10,001 or 10,010, for oxygen, for another example.

Assurance level is what make the majority of technology in aviation at least 5 yrs behind the consumer market. The criticism that the F-22's processor speed is 'only' so-and-so mhz is a stupid one, propagated by stupid people who do not know what they are talking about but eager to suck up to anyone non-US. What distinguish the F-22's avionics from previous generations of avionics are features and execution, not the processing speed of its processors.

In previous avionics design, each flight control axis have its own computer which have its own processor. The F-22's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) design eliminated that physical separation, or as one source used the word 'federated' to describe the old vs new avionics design...

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm

Today's fighters have some of the same sensing capabilities and subsystems to be controlled, but their federated architecture (that is, each avionics function has its own processor and essentially works independently) makes the pilot the integrator of data and the manager of all the supporting subsystems.

Coherent presentation and control (the pilot's view of integration) is not simply a way of organizing functions or routing lots of data to a single display. It actually includes additional functionality, such as situation assessment and weapons fire control.

The word 'federated' implies other notions such conjoining or cooperative. The F-22's CIP architecture removed all separation, physical and/or notional. The analogy is instead of having distinct states or provinces, each with its own administrator, all boundaries are dissolved. All decision making are centralized. All data sources can be better collated thru faster rerouting to accommodate situational changes. If the radar detects a cluster of target in one sector, the CIP architecture can faster collect OTHER information, such as air defense threats or even weather, in that sector, and display it. In the older -- federated -- design, it is the pilot who has to turn his head towards the RWR display and find threat information for that sector. And so on and on...Workload.

It is well known in the computer design world that the bottleneck in every system is memory, not processor speed. It is applicable in the gaming computer and in the F-22 avionics. In a federated architecture, physical memory are often unused. With the F-22's CIP architecture, memory space are consolidated AS SITUATIONS REQUIRES, making the entire avionics suite faster in terms of information integration and display.

The electronics used in the F-22 are not meant to impress but to give its designers the highest level of assurance that the electronics will perform WITH NO MARGINS OF ERROR. This goes back to the first F-16 with its analog electronics. Basically, the FBW architecture says: If the electronics fails for any reason, the aircraft crash.

There are two CIPs in each F-22, with 66 module slots per CIP.

...if the CIP module that is acting as radio dies, one of the other modules would automatically reload the radio program and take over the radio function. This approach to avionics makes the equipment extremely tolerant to combat damage as well as flexible from a design upgrade point of view.

Does the J-20 have this avionics design? If not, then it does not matter if its electronics have capacitors with newer dielectrics or its processor speed is faster. In short, if the J-20 remains with the federated architecture, its pilot workload are the same as '4th-gen' fighters, making it a far less capable platform than the F-22.

Deal with it.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Does the J-20 have this avionics design? If not, then it does not matter if its electronics have capacitors with newer dielectrics or its processor speed is faster. In short, if the J-20 remains with the federated architecture, its pilot workload are the same as '4th-gen' fighters, making it a far less capable platform than the F-22.

Deal with it.

we don't know whether J-20 using federated system/CIP architecture or something new @gambit

 

[gambit]

we don't know whether J-20 using federated system/CIP architecture or something new @gambit

Do not know? That is the problem. We should not make blanket statements from ignorance. Like these guys continually does.

 

[cirr]

The next iteration of J-20 includes laser weapon test?

The PLA Daily, 13.06.2018.

 

[Armchair]

Did anyone notice the LEVCON on the J/H-20?

 

[LKJ86]

https://m.weibo.cn/2859620437/4250815532817183

 

[Deino]

Did anyone notice the LEVCON on the J/H-20?

But isn't this JH-20 not more a fan-art yet?

View attachment 480363
https://m.weibo.cn/2859620437/4250815532817183

Strange ... looks very much a Russian Ch-29 AGM and not like any known Chinese store??!!

 

[Beast]

But isn't this JH-20 not more a fan-art yet?



Strange ... looks very much a Russian Ch-29 AGM and not like any known Chinese store??!!

View attachment 480364

It looks more like PGM than AGM inside the J-20 weapon bay. The fin and shape is all wrong as a AGM.

 

[Deino]

It looks more like PGM than AGM inside the J-20 weapon bay. The fin and shape is all wrong as a AGM.

But I would have expeted something more akin to the LS-500J LGM or one of the newer designs we've already seen at Zhuhai. This design is either something completely new or - IMO more likely - just a placeholder since it looks in no way stealthy.

LGB

But again, wouldn't then be a system based on the LS-500J with a new seeker be much more likely?

 

[Armchair]

But isn't this JH-20 not more a fan-art yet?



Strange ... looks very much a Russian Ch-29 AGM and not like any known Chinese store??!!

View attachment 480364

Fan art or not, did you notice it? : )

 

[Deino]

LGB

But again, wouldn't then be a system based on the LS-500J with a new seeker be much more likely?

Fan art or not, did you notice it? : )

Yes ... similar to the PAK-FA and the new French-German fighter concept. But if it is a fan-art, it's irrelevant anyway!