What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

.
49eca83dgy1hjkd3kpx8cg20hs07bqv8.gif
49eca83dgy1hjkclbed02j21hc0mon1g.jpg
49eca83dgy1hjkdonwhkzj21hc0mowij.jpg
49eca83dgy1hjkdop6ko5j21hc0mo0ws.jpg
49eca83dgy1hjkdor29wsj21hc0mogpy.jpg

Via 人民空军 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo
 
.
.
This J-20 assigned to a "brigade of the Southern Air Force" seems to be serial no. 6126x (x = maybe 2 or 3) ... so at least besides the known numbers 61160, 61165 & 61168, this is a new one from the rarely seen 5th Air Brigade at Guilin and also the one with the highest number.

View attachment 968740

So, noticing you having kept track of all the serial numbers since this aircraft started production, does all that compiled info support the current 200+/- number of J-20s?
 
.
So, noticing you having kept track of all the serial numbers since this aircraft started production, does all that compiled info support the current 200+/- number of J-20s?


In fact based on the numbers of confirmed individual serial numbers, NO!

As per my list I have altogether confirmed 65 confirmed individual J-20. Based on a good portion of gut-feeling and calculating always the highest number known within each known unit I come to maybe 188 operational J-20s again within the units known so far.

As such, a number of +200 - and by late 2023 it must even higher to maybe 240 - in service can only be real if there are units, we do not know yet; and on the list of such rumoured units are indeed enough even if highly likely not all of them are fully equipped.

So in essence, 200+ is likely, but I would love to get confirmation of at least one if not better two three units, which are so far only rumoured.
 
.
In fact based on the numbers of confirmed individual serial numbers, NO!

As per my list I have altogether confirmed 65 confirmed individual J-20. Based on a good portion of gut-feeling and calculating always the highest number known within each known unit I come to maybe 188 operational J-20s again within the units known so far.

As such, a number of +200 - and by late 2023 it must even higher to maybe 240 - in service can only be real if there are units, we do not know yet; and on the list of such rumoured units are indeed enough even if highly likely not all of them are fully equipped.

So in essence, 200+ is likely, but I would love to get confirmation of at least one if not better two three units, which are so far only rumoured.

That's what I thought. Still, if you've tallied 65 confirmed and came up with 188 based on analyzing all the individual numbers within the units plus educated guess also makes complete sense. All the other fellas guessing around 200 is not too far off, either. And that's not taking anything away from China's production capacity, quite the contrary. To be able to reasonably compile all available information on what is likely the most secretive aircraft production in the world and still come up with roughly 188 operational aircraft makes it quite the impressive accomplishment.

I am keeping an eye out on when they do end up fitting a gun on it, as other members alluded to. It is a bit unconventional, to say the least, that they would be manufacturing so many jets already and have a plan to retrofit what amounts to a pretty serious and complex modification/add-on to it. And whether they would simply start making them with a gun or actually go back to all the current aircraft and add a gun to each one will be a tremendous undertaking. But then again, if anyone can do it.....hell we know the US did that with the F-4 Phantom, so I suppose it's not completely out of the ordinary. But why not design & start initial production with it in the first place is probably the more important question. Unless they're plan is not to have one, which in all honesty doesn't make sense, even with today's standoff preference and overwhelming technology to support it.
 
.
Personally, I think if a 5th Gen fighter have to do gun fighting, it is already at the losing end. The 5th gen fighter jet are supposed to lock onto its enemy first and fire first at beyond visual range. And pull away after the BVR engagement. If they stay on to fight they are already making serious mistakes.

When both sides approach each other at WVR, the 5th gen fighter would have lose most of its advantages. Even an old F-5E or even A-4 Skyhawk would suddently be a very dangerous foe in close range gun fighting regardless if J20 is equiped with a gun or not, or if that 5th gen jet is F-22 or F-35 instead of J20.

Thus supports from J10C and J16 to J20 would be important if a large scale close range aerial engagement is expected. Otherwise royal wingmen (unmanned combat drones) should be a future normal.
 
Last edited:
.
Personally, I think if a 5th Gen fighter have to do gun fighting, it is already at the losing end. The 5th gen fighter jet are supposed to lock onto its enemy first and fire first at beyond visual range. And pull away after the BVR engagement. If they stay on to fight they are already making serious mistakes.

When both sides approach each other at WVR, the 5th gen fighter would have lose most of its advantages. Even an old F-5E or even A-4 Skyhawk would suddently be a very dangerous foe in close range gun fighting regardless if J20 is equiped with a gun or not, or if that 5th gen jet is F-22 or F-35 instead of J20.

Thus supports from J10C and J16 to J20 would be important if a large scale close range aerial engagement is expected. Otherwise royal wingmen (unmanned combat drones) should be a future normal.

I understand where you're coming from. I even asked a few pages back if the reason why they didn't put a gun in it if it was because they have a doctrine where it would never have the J-20's responsibility to approach any fighter at any time, and always leave that duty to J-10s or J-11 or even Su-35 escorts. However, that seriously hampers and limits its function, and adds more burden on other aircraft. It would seem unlikely that would be a doctrine imposed on all J-20 squadrons.

Then there's the other issue of how you can never predict how a battle will go. Say it was a situation where a J-20 was intercepting a lumbering US P-3 Orion over the South China Sea and out of nowhere, an F-22 takes off from Taiwan and within seconds, it's right? Or what if the J-20 faces an F-22 from the start at 200+km but both aircraft doge all each other's BVR missiles only to find themselves within gun range? Is the J-20 forced to escape and not fight? That would suck hence the limitation. Point is, if that is in fact the doctrine, then it limits the function of the J-20 which is not a good thing for that aircraft. Americans learned that back in early Vietnam war with short/medium range missiles.

It just doesn't seem to make sense knowing all the benefits and how little effort and resource it would've required to design it that way from the start. And it's a rather large aircraft so there shouldn't be any issue with space, despite the need to maximize its fuel capacity. And why even take away a fundamental weapon?

Perhaps the best solution would be to fit a stealthy gun pod? Or maybe even retrofit a permanently blended gun bay, similar to the small, narrow missile bays on the Su-57.
 
.
So, noticing you having kept track of all the serial numbers since this aircraft started production, does all that compiled info support the current 200+/- number of J-20s?

The US think tank believes that 70 J-20 airframes were delivered by 2022, and another 100 airframes will be delivered by the end of 2023.

The total airframes of the J-20 will be somewhere around 1000 by 2030; it is because the WS-15 has reached its maturity.

 
.
I understand where you're coming from. I even asked a few pages back if the reason why they didn't put a gun in it if it was because they have a doctrine where it would never have the J-20's responsibility to approach any fighter at any time, and always leave that duty to J-10s or J-11 or even Su-35 escorts. However, that seriously hampers and limits its function, and adds more burden on other aircraft. It would seem unlikely that would be a doctrine imposed on all J-20 squadrons.

Then there's the other issue of how you can never predict how a battle will go. Say it was a situation where a J-20 was intercepting a lumbering US P-3 Orion over the South China Sea and out of nowhere, an F-22 takes off from Taiwan and within seconds, it's right? Or what if the J-20 faces an F-22 from the start at 200+km but both aircraft doge all each other's BVR missiles only to find themselves within gun range? Is the J-20 forced to escape and not fight? That would suck hence the limitation. Point is, if that is in fact the doctrine, then it limits the function of the J-20 which is not a good thing for that aircraft. Americans learned that back in early Vietnam war with short/medium range missiles.

It just doesn't seem to make sense knowing all the benefits and how little effort and resource it would've required to design it that way from the start. And it's a rather large aircraft so there shouldn't be any issue with space, despite the need to maximize its fuel capacity. And why even take away a fundamental weapon?

Perhaps the best solution would be to fit a stealthy gun pod? Or maybe even retrofit a permanently blended gun bay, similar to the small, narrow missile bays on the Su-57.
J20 do not do air patrol duties, that is the job of other aircraft which PLAAF has plenty of choices. From KJ200, KJ500, KJ2000 to a comprehensive network of radars and sensors of all kind, from deep space to sea surface and island out posts.

F-22 or any other US military assets in Taiwan is a BIG No No because that breach the red line and means war and start of Armed Re-union of Taiwan. So this will not happen unless a war has already started.

In war time do J20 fly alone? Definitely no.

Is a burdern in combing other aircraft with J20? No, because we have been observing how PLAAF combining J20 and J16 in a same air brigade, meaning many PLAAF air brigades operate various type of aircraft rather than single type as in many Western airforces with limited budgets.

Combining different aircraft may be a big burden as you described. Yes is is a burden for most of the airforce in the World. But China can and has been practised in doing so, to them it is simply a normal practise.

BVR and WVR missiles were not as effective as today during Vietnam war, nor were radar range of 1960s fighter jets. It was a US mistake of having adopted advertised new air-to-air missile technology (which proved to be unreliable) before they are truely matured, and abandon gun on F-4B/C. And US still made the same mistake today in they acquisition of ZUmwalt destroyers.

So, is China repeating US's mistake? No, todays AAM technology has improved by miles away from the Vietnam war missiles technology. How many aircrafts were shot down by AAM since Vietnam war to current Russia-Ukraine war, and how many were shot down by gun?
 
.
The US think tank believes that 70 J-20 airframes were delivered by 2022, and another 100 airframes will be delivered by the end of 2023.

The total airframes of the J-20 will be somewhere around 1000 by 2030; it is because the WS-15 has reached its maturity.


Tremendous. Thanks for posting that.

If these predictions and numbers are correct, 100+ aircraft a year amounts to a monthly production of 9 aircraft a month or 2-1/4 aircraft a week. When you look at the numbers in that perspective and know what goes into the production of a fighter jet, it's impressive as hell.

The other impressive part is this right here:

"However, blurry videos have displayed both a notable shortened takeoff run than previous J-20s powered by the Al-31 or the WS-10, as well as a distinctly lower sound."

So not only does the new WS-15 engine have more thrust than the WS-10 by noticing shorter takeoff runs, but it's also noticeably quieter. That's some good stuff.
 
.
The US think tank believes that 70 J-20 airframes were delivered by 2022, and another 100 airframes will be delivered by the end of 2023.

The total airframes of the J-20 will be somewhere around 1000 by 2030; it is because the WS-15 has reached its maturity.



Well, I know such claims since months and even if recent information - in fact only hints of it - based on construction numbers, so far we have NO PROOF at all for this.

In fact neither the number of J-20s seen at CAC on satellite images and especially not the number of units fit. About 200 is fine, but with the 8th AB being the most rfecent unit under conversion, which is confirmed, at least two if not three or even four more units must exist to fit to the numbers you claim.

As such, no-one will downgrade thsi type, but modest of these reports are at a leviel like the SCMP‘s claims of already 200-250 J-20s in service three two years ago.
 
.
Tremendous. Thanks for posting that.

If these predictions and numbers are correct, 100+ aircraft a year amounts to a monthly production of 9 aircraft a month or 2-1/4 aircraft a week. When you look at the numbers in that perspective and know what goes into the production of a fighter jet, it's impressive as hell.

The other impressive part is this right here:

"However, blurry videos have displayed both a notable shortened takeoff run than previous J-20s powered by the Al-31 or the WS-10, as well as a distinctly lower sound."

So not only does the new WS-15 engine have more thrust than the WS-10 by noticing shorter takeoff runs, but it's also noticeably quieter. That's some good stuff.

Check the takeoff of J-20 vs F-22 on the runway.

J-20 took 9.5 seconds, and F-22 took 13.5 seconds.




But I don't think the US minds anymore about F-22, because now their foremost goal is to compete with China on the 6th gen aircraft fighter.

Well, I know such claims since months and even if recent information - in fact only hints of it - based on construction numbers, so far we have NO PROOF at all for this.

In fact neither the number of J-20s seen at CAC on satellite images and especially not the number of units fit. About 200 is fine, but with the 8th AB being the most rfecent unit under conversion, which is confirmed, at least two if not three or even four more units must exist to fit to the numbers you claim.

As such, no-one will downgrade thsi type, but modest of these reports are at a leviel like the SCMP‘s claims of already 200-250 J-20s in service three two years ago.

J-20 right now has at least 6 production lines.

And this is a well known secret among the Chinese online community.
 
.
...

J-20 right now has at least 6 production lines.

And this is a well known secret among the Chinese online community.


Well, the point is, this number is constantly raising within the remaining years from 2 to 4 and now even six with almost unbelievable yearly rates.

This all might indeed be true, but you all forget one important argument: Where are all these J-20s?

the more J-20s operational, the more units operating them, the more often at least blurry images showing them in use must appear, but unfortunately they don't.

Like I said, with a good portion of gut-feeling, good-will and guesswork 200 are possible in service based on the known units, but if there are indeed close to 300 already in use like you claim, we must at least know much more.

So far - and please correct me if I'm wrong - we have rumours for the following units:

- 97th AB ... so far NOTHING
- 55th AB ... again NOTHING
- 131st AB ... even to the contrary, still images of J-10C in service.
- 41st AB ... again NOTHING.
- 4th AB(the most recent rumour I heard) ... again NOTHING!

So I'm surely not a PLAAF critic and even if I'm well aware we are often almost one year behind in getting proof for a converted unit, but since October 2022, when the first image of a J-20 under the 8th AB was posted - we have NOTHING on allegedly 100 J-20s more than a year ago.

And this simply does not fit! @ChineseTiger1986 ??
 
Last edited:
.
Check the takeoff of J-20 vs F-22 on the runway.

J-20 took 9.5 seconds, and F-22 took 13.5 seconds.

I must've watched two different videos, ma bro. :D To me, it looked like the J-20 took about 10 seconds compared to the F-22 which looked like it took 11.5 seconds to take off. Still -- advantage J-20! lol --. What do you consider the point of "taking off" the instant it lifts its front gear, or the instant the main landing gear lifts off the runway? I used the front gear. There does seem to be a longer lag time to get all wheels off the ground in the F-22 than the J-20, for sure.

BTW, on a separate note re. the article you posted, I'm trying to see what the author was referring to when he mentioned a lightly redesigned radome in the new J-20 with the WS-15 engines but I can't see anything. Do you or @Deino or @siegecrossbow or @LKJ86 notice anything different? I thought immediately that he was referring to the stealth ridges on the chin of the radome and maybe they made them a little sharper or more pronounced than the original ones, but hard to really tell. Any ideas from anyone?

1699378917727.png

View attachment 942121
Via @白龙_龙腾四海 from Weibo

So nice must see twice!
So I had to capture & crop it! :victory:

1699380117385.png


It almost looks like it has a pair of big truck exhaust stacks coming out from behind the canards lol, the way those vortices look like they're blowing exhaust smoke.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom