Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[rcrmj]

I'm confused about the IPE designation. Is it the TVC variant equipping the J-10B and J-20 prototypes or is it the supposedly 150kn version of Ws-10 that was meant as a backup to the WS-15? or neither?
thanks

IPE is around 141kn, J-10B is not using WS-10B (well, they planned too) but AL-31 variants instead`````and it was never a back-up or anything,

in fact AL-31 variants on J-20 is a back-up in case new WS-10 variant goes under```WS-15 project is very important, once has it completed successfully, then we can proudly to say that we are only behind U.S on high performance turbofan engine tech on this planet```i'd say 20 years behind by then```

 

[ILC]

^^
The pics we have seen of J20 with ws10, was ws10IPE or ws10B?

 

[帅的一匹]

^^
The pics we have seen of J20 with ws10, was ws10IPE or ws10B?

I think it's IPE.

 

[wulff]

IPE is around 141kn, J-10B is not using WS-10B (well, they planned too) but AL-31 variants instead`````and it was never a back-up or anything,

in fact AL-31 variants on J-20 is a back-up in case new WS-10 variant goes under```WS-15 project is very important, once has it completed successfully, then we can proudly to say that we are only behind U.S on high performance turbofan engine tech on this planet```i'd say 20 years behind by then```

Thank you for clarifying those points. But I think I didnt write clearly enough in my first post.

I was referring to this engine:

That is the TVC variant i was talking about. Is this the WS-10 IPE with 141 kN thrust?

Reg. the 150 kN WS-10, there was a lot of talk some years back about a "large diameter" WS-10 variant with 150+ kN thrust target that was being developed in parallel with the WS-15 effort. This large fan WS-10 variant was supposed to power the J-20 in case the WS-15 did not succeed.

I mean, even if this large fan WS-10 variant doesn't end up on the J-20, it will still make a terrific upgrade to the J-10 and J-11 family. Has there been any update or news on this WS-10 variant?

 

[LKJ86]

 

[Figaro]

Thank you for clarifying those points. But I think I didnt write clearly enough in my first post.

I was referring to this engine:
View attachment 479122 View attachment 479123

That is the TVC variant i was talking about. Is this the WS-10 IPE with 141 kN thrust?

Reg. the 150 kN WS-10, there was a lot of talk some years back about a "large diameter" WS-10 variant with 150+ kN thrust target that was being developed in parallel with the WS-15 effort. This large fan WS-10 variant was supposed to power the J-20 in case the WS-15 did not succeed.

I mean, even if this large fan WS-10 variant doesn't end up on the J-20, it will still make a terrific upgrade to the J-10 and J-11 family. Has there been any update or news on this WS-10 variant?

I think so. There has to be a greater thrust in this engine to offset the thrust loss caused by TVC deflection. Pupu said that the WS-10B has a thrust of 14 tons, so I’d expect this TVC engine to have around 14.5 tons of thrust. Regarding a 150+ kN WS-15 back up, I highly doubt its viability as the thrust target would be stretching the WS-10 core to its limit. The WS-10 was designed to be around 12 to 14 tons ... not F-119 thrust class, which requires an entirely new design. Hence I doubt that there is a serious backup effort ... the resources they pour into a 150+ kN WS-10 might as well go into the WS-15. The WS-15 is the PLAAF’s best bet.

not really, WS-10 is a hybird to begine with```its Chinese engineering architect with American core, Russian control system, and AL-31 style low pressure bypass stage ```

well, they wanted everything to be indigenous, however they realized that we were much behind the U.S and Russia in heavy turbofan engine techs, so in order to speed up the project, they draw on the experiences of the U.S and Russia's```

and that is the major reason that WS-10 project was sucessfully finished in 2005, but takes so long to upgrade and improve, as many problems occured when in service (as happened to any U.S or Russia's engines too) , and because of it is kind a mix mash, so solving a problem often became like to make a new start, or start it all over again (before to make improvements and adjustment, you need datas for the part or few parts that you plan to work on, and because its a mix mash of American, Chinese, Russian standards, so you can imagine the difficulties of accquire them! )````

Luckily, with the finalization of WS-10B and WS-10IPE, then the problem is effectively solved```sometimes we ridicule them by saying "We are so prould of them that they can actually manage to squish 3 different systems and school of thoughts into one and to make a working engine```"

btw, WS-15 is the first high performance heavy thrust turbofan engine that we actually started of from scratch```


2025 if I am optimistic````WS-19 would be probably quicker than WS-15

I thought Beast meant that the WS-10 uses a hybrid Sino-Russian engine core (I.e. Frankenstein engine).

 

[Clutch]

View attachment 479513 View attachment 479514

Huh?

 

[rcrmj]

Thank you for clarifying those points. But I think I didnt write clearly enough in my first post.

I was referring to this engine:
View attachment 479122 View attachment 479123

That is the TVC variant i was talking about. Is this the WS-10 IPE with 141 kN thrust?

Reg. the 150 kN WS-10, there was a lot of talk some years back about a "large diameter" WS-10 variant with 150+ kN thrust target that was being developed in parallel with the WS-15 effort. This large fan WS-10 variant was supposed to power the J-20 in case the WS-15 did not succeed.

I mean, even if this large fan WS-10 variant doesn't end up on the J-20, it will still make a terrific upgrade to the J-10 and J-11 family. Has there been any update or news on this WS-10 variant?

I dont know where is 150Kn WS-10 coming from```and there is no such thing called "parallel development with WS-15" ````and you said large fan? do you know to change the size of lower pressure stage = start all over again```it will change ws-10's performance to great extend and will be very like to make it "useless" ?

WS-15 and WS-10 are two independent projects, which means their core, engneering archetect, system structure are distinct to each other````the only thing they might "share' would be the new material designed alone the WS-15. Do you know the main problem facing WS-10 is not material, but its system structure and engneering archetect`

 

[wulff]

I think so. There has to be a greater thrust in this engine to offset the thrust loss caused by TVC deflection. Pupu said that the WS-10B has a thrust of 14 tons, so I’d expect this TVC engine to have around 14.5 tons of thrust. Regarding a 150+ kN WS-15 back up, I highly doubt its viability as the thrust target would be stretching the WS-10 core to its limit. The WS-10 was designed to be around 12 to 14 tons ... not F-119 thrust class, which requires an entirely new design. Hence I doubt that there is a serious backup effort ... the resources they pour into a 150+ kN WS-10 might as well go into the WS-15. The WS-15 is the PLAAF’s best bet.


I thought Beast meant that the WS-10 uses a hybrid Sino-Russian engine core (I.e. Frankenstein engine).

I dont know where is 150Kn WS-10 coming from```and there is no such thing called "parallel development with WS-15" ````and you said large fan? do you know to change the size of lower pressure stage = start all over again```it will change ws-10's performance to great extend and will be very like to make it "useless" ?

WS-15 and WS-10 are two independent projects, which means their core, engneering archetect, system structure are distinct to each other````the only thing they might "share' would be the new material designed alone the WS-15. Do you know the main problem facing WS-10 is not material, but its system structure and engneering archetect`

Appreciate your response. I've been trying to find those posts talking about an enlarged Ws-10 but haven't had much luck. They are years old and were posted at another forum. But I definitely remember that post/posts. I suppose like so many other things it was just an unsubstantiated rumor.

However, in terms of what is possible and useful: changing the low pressure stage or increasing fan diameter would definitely be possible with the WS-10-- The EJ2x0, among other things, replaces the LPC of the EJ200 with a new one to increase wet thrust from 90 kN to 120 kN. Similarly the F414 replaces both the LPC of the F404 and also introduces a larger fan derived from the YF120. So it is something that has definitely been done before, should it be required.

 

[rcrmj]

Appreciate your response. I've been trying to find those posts talking about an enlarged Ws-10 but haven't had much luck. They are years old and were posted at another forum. But I definitely remember that post/posts. I suppose like so many other things it was just an unsubstantiated rumor.

However, in terms of what is possible and useful: changing the low pressure stage or increasing fan diameter would definitely be possible with the WS-10-- The EJ2x0, among other things, replaces the LPC of the EJ200 with a new one to increase wet thrust from 90 kN to 120 kN. Similarly the F414 replaces both the LPC of the F404 and also introduces a larger fan derived from the YF120. So it is something that has definitely been done before, should it be required.

well as far as I know there is no such thing```if you heard it from English or foreign forums then it is 100% false```

 

[gambit]

Of course the J-20's avionics and sensor suite is much better than that of the F-22. One was designed in the late 80s while the other just entered service.

Wrong. There is no 'of course' about this. The claim is utter nonsense and ignorance based.

Let us take the ADA programming language, for example.

Boeing flies with ADA. There are newer languages, but does that automatically mean: newer = better? Absolutely not.

For the end user, in this case it is the pilot, the base technology of the avionics suite is -- and must be -- transparent to him. For the pilot, what make an avionics suite 'better' than the others, assuming he has access to alternatives and was able to make objective comparisons, are two equally important items: FEATURES and EXECUTION.

Each feature must be transparent in execution, meaning no lag, must be precise, and must end cleanly.

So let us take the HUD, for example.

The J-20 have a HUD. Everyone knows it stands for 'Heads Up Display'. But for those of us who are end users, which none of you guys are of the device, the original conceptual label was 'Eyes Up Display'. The initials HUD are just more speech friendly.

As a side note about linguistics, the original label was 'Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation' or LOSER. No one liked that acronym so LASER was used instead. Look it up, if you doubt.

Anyway...

The overall mission of the HUD are as followed in no order of importance and priority:

- Reduced pilot workload. My mental workload is reduced when vital flight and aircraft data are properly aligned and referenced to outside the cockpit.

- Increased flight precision. Can I fly the aircraft and my sortie with reduced fuel and time?

- Direct visualization of performances. How many layers of interpretations must any data -- aircraft and mission -- travels before reaching the HUD, therefore, me?

- Increased flight safety. Can I execute maneuvers without jeopardizing aircraft boundaries?

At the end user level, the base technology of those four items are essentially irrelevant. Yes, the base technology can, and often does, improve the performance of those items, but since the HUD is real estate limited, it means each feature of the HUD must fight or justify itself on the display, or in the words of HUD designers: Not one pixel can be wasted.

So if a 1980s era electronics technology can display and execute the various HUD features vis-a-vis the four mission items above as well as the electronics technology 20 yrs newer, for the end user, there are no differences and therefore, no advantages.

So just on the HUD alone, explain how is the J-20's HUD is superior the F-15's?

The HUD is a flight visual aid. So explain to us how is the J-20's HUD symbology superior to the F-15 that would raise the bar of those four items above. Do you have any info on the projection technology that reduces mass and volume? Do you have any lag time figures? The J-20 and F-22 have widely spaced vertical stabs to facilitate high AOA maneuvers, so how is the HUD sideslip cue in the J-20 superior to the F-22?

And this is just on the HUD alone.

 

[antonius123]

Wrong. There is no 'of course' about this. The claim is utter nonsense and ignorance based.

Let us take the ADA programming language, for example.

Boeing flies with ADA. There are newer languages, but does that automatically mean: newer = better? Absolutely not.

For the end user, in this case it is the pilot, the base technology of the avionics suite is -- and must be -- transparent to him. For the pilot, what make an avionics suite 'better' than the others, assuming he has access to alternatives and was able to make objective comparisons, are two equally important items: FEATURES and EXECUTION.

Each feature must be transparent in execution, meaning no lag, must be precise, and must end cleanly.

So let us take the HUD, for example.

The J-20 have a HUD. Everyone knows it stands for 'Heads Up Display'. But for those of us who are end users, which none of you guys are of the device, the original conceptual label was 'Eyes Up Display'. The initials HUD are just more speech friendly.

As a side note about linguistics, the original label was 'Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation' or LOSER. No one liked that acronym so LASER was used instead. Look it up, if you doubt.

Anyway...

The overall mission of the HUD are as followed in no order of importance and priority:

- Reduced pilot workload. My mental workload is reduced when vital flight and aircraft data are properly aligned and referenced to outside the cockpit.

- Increased flight precision. Can I fly the aircraft and my sortie with reduced fuel and time?

- Direct visualization of performances. How many layers of interpretations must any data -- aircraft and mission -- travels before reaching the HUD, therefore, me?

- Increased flight safety. Can I execute maneuvers without jeopardizing aircraft boundaries?

At the end user level, the base technology of those four items are essentially irrelevant. Yes, the base technology can, and often does, improve the performance of those items, but since the HUD is real estate limited, it means each feature of the HUD must fight or justify itself on the display, or in the words of HUD designers: Not one pixel can be wasted.

So if a 1980s era electronics technology can display and execute the various HUD features vis-a-vis the four mission items above as well as the electronics technology 20 yrs newer, for the end user, there are no differences and therefore, no advantages.

So just on the HUD alone, explain how is the J-20's HUD is superior the F-15's?

The HUD is a flight visual aid. So explain to us how is the J-20's HUD symbology superior to the F-15 that would raise the bar of those four items above. Do you have any info on the projection technology that reduces mass and volume? Do you have any lag time figures? The J-20 and F-22 have widely spaced vertical stabs to facilitate high AOA maneuvers, so how is the HUD sideslip cue in the J-20 superior to the F-22?

And this is just on the HUD alone.

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

 

[Deino]

Via

https://twitter.com/x/status/1006722821064515584

 

[gambit]

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

Good...Then you can take his place in explaining how the J-20's HUD is better than the F-15's. Remember, features and execution.

 

[LKJ86]

View attachment 474438