What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Good points, I agree with everything except I don't put too much stock into AI-assisted technology, at least not now in its infancy. There's a reason why it's "artificial" and only assists in ways that humans have programmed it to do. Not saying it's useless by any means, just not a huge advantage.

As far as a larger airframe, there are some advantages and certainly some disadvantages, particularly if the initial design was primarily focused on stealth features. Having greater fuel capacity by sacrificing low observability is a bit counterproductive. But it seems the designers of the J-20 realized that and accepted the sacrifice for the sake of prioritization the jet's mission parameters.

At the same time, the F-22 has IFR to compensate for the requirements of additional fuel. As far as I know, there hasn't been any published photos of the J-20 actually performing in-flight refueling that I know of, are there? Do we know if this is in fact the retractable IFR probe for the J-20 or is the bottom pic a photoshop? If it does, does anyone have a better pic showing the IFRP?
I would not dismiss the role of AI so easily. It's the future of air combat and warfare in general. It could significantly enhances pilot decision-making and response time if done right, and replaces the pilot entirely 20 years down the road.

A larger airframe does not automatically mean larger RCS. It's all about signal return management through shaping and RAM. B-2 can rival and surpass F-22 and F-35 in low observability despite being a much larger plane. In-flight refueling is not a total replacement for larger internal fuel capacity. Your tankers might be denied access to area of operation (i.e. J-20 prowling around) due to risk of shot down.
True on the AIM-260. I should've been clearer in that it's expected to be operational in 2026. But the weapons advantage still goes to the Raptor since it carries 8 missiles to the J-20's 6. Some might think that's not a big deal, but that is a huge difference, especially in A2A combat. Not only having the 2 additional missiles, but back to my original gripe about the gun which also gives the Raptor the advantage. Those are super critical areas of consideration.
That's where we differ on what's "better". I rather have 6 PL-15s with 180km range than 8 AIM-120Ds with 120km range. The last air to air gun kill was in 1991 by a A-10 against an Iraqi Mi-8. Missiles have improved by miles in the 30 years that followed to the point where I think the relevancy of the gun is negligible.
 
.
Indeed. What China has accomplished in the aviation field is nothing short of miraculous. Miraculous in the sense that it's brought about by sheer will and effort, not by accident.

And those two categories I mentioned are not different in a significant way and I also could be wrong about them. But I do try and take every detail possible into account.



I remember seeing infographs on the statistics of the both engines and actually do remember them. The WS-15s AB thrust was around 178 kN but that's not significantly different from your 185, so no argument from me.

The F-119s thrust of 156 kN you listed is at sustained supersonic speed or super cruise not at afterburner ma bro. I don't believe its AB rating is publicly available to tell you the truth, at least I haven't seen actual or even semi-official data on its max. AB rating. But most credible info out there has it guesstimated a between 165–174 kN range. I'd say best case scenario it's right up there with the WS-15.



Hahaha, that is cool! Love those names. Those names couldn't be better since developing an engine is akin to climbing the highest mountain, only 100 x harder! :D



Good points, I agree with everything except I don't put too much stock into AI-assisted technology, at least not now in its infancy. There's a reason why it's "artificial" and only assists in ways that humans have programmed it to do. Not saying it's useless by any means, just not a huge advantage.

As far as a larger airframe, there are some advantages and certainly some disadvantages, particularly if the initial design was primarily focused on stealth features. Having greater fuel capacity by sacrificing low observability is a bit counterproductive. But it seems the designers of the J-20 realized that and accepted the sacrifice for the sake of prioritization the jet's mission parameters.

At the same time, the F-22 has IFR to compensate for the requirements of additional fuel. As far as I know, there hasn't been any published photos of the J-20 actually performing in-flight refueling that I know of, are there? Do we know if this is in fact the retractable IFR probe for the J-20 or is the bottom pic a photoshop? If it does, does anyone have a better pic showing the IFRP?

View attachment 972196



True on the AIM-260. I should've been clearer in that it's expected to be operational in 2026. But the weapons advantage still goes to the Raptor since it carries 8 missiles to the J-20's 6. Some might think that's not a big deal, but that is a huge difference, especially in A2A combat. Not only having the 2 additional missiles, but back to my original gripe about the gun which also gives the Raptor the advantage. Those are super critical areas of consideration.

But this here in this pic, is nothing short of outstanding! That's been one of my favorite features on the Black Eagle. Not only having a side bay, but being able to open the bay door, pop the missile out and close the door while keeping the missile racked up is just great.

View attachment 972202

Some would say oh having the missile racked up outside the fueselage ruins its stealth but what they don't realize is that those two side bays are for the short range PL missiles. So using them is within short ranges and within short ranges, the importance of stealth is negligable, at best. So IMO, that is a great feature because in anticipation of a close combat engagement, he can rack up the two missiles and not have to worry about the time it takes for the doors to open and fire the missile. This, IMO, is hardly unimportant but the opposite, a huge advantage.



When the J-20B first came out, first thing I thought was I'm glad it still looks great! Usually the 2-seat variants end up looking like ugly ducklings, but that thing is sweet. I am wondering why the radome seems a bit smaller though, and if that is the result of a new radar perhaps. I guess we'll soon find out.


The Air Force has already begun procuring AIM-260 with a significant ramp for fiscal 2024.
 
.
...
When the J-20B first came out, first thing I thought was I'm glad it still looks great! Usually the 2-seat variants end up looking like ugly ducklings, but that thing is sweet. I am wondering why the radome seems a bit smaller though, and if that is the result of a new radar perhaps. I guess we'll soon find out.


You cannot use thsi image since it is a PS-job ... the real one is rather different

J-20AS - 20230107 - @四川地产界高层-军事画匠.jpg
J-20AS 2032 grey - 20230105.jpg
 
.
However one must consider, louischeung_hk is a fan-boy and well-known spreader of ANY rumour. So this model is actually just a model
Every weapon model in that pic is based on products already available.

- Fuel tanks
- Rocket pods
- PL-12
- PL-15
- LS series glide bombs

The only thing I'm not sure about is the missile that resembles Stormshadow. I don't recall anything like it in China's current arsenals. There is something in development though.

1699480040190.png
 
Last edited:
.
Indeed. What China has accomplished in the aviation field is nothing short of miraculous. Miraculous in the sense that it's brought about by sheer will and effort, not by accident.

And those two categories I mentioned are not different in a significant way and I also could be wrong about them. But I do try and take every detail possible into account.



I remember seeing infographs on the statistics of the both engines and actually do remember them. The WS-15s AB thrust was around 178 kN but that's not significantly different from your 185, so no argument from me.

The F-119s thrust of 156 kN you listed is at sustained supersonic speed or super cruise not at afterburner ma bro. I don't believe its AB rating is publicly available to tell you the truth, at least I haven't seen actual or even semi-official data on its max. AB rating. But most credible info out there has it guesstimated a between 165–174 kN range. I'd say best case scenario it's right up there with the WS-15.



Hahaha, that is cool! Love those names. Those names couldn't be better since developing an engine is akin to climbing the highest mountain, only 100 x harder! :D



Good points, I agree with everything except I don't put too much stock into AI-assisted technology, at least not now in its infancy. There's a reason why it's "artificial" and only assists in ways that humans have programmed it to do. Not saying it's useless by any means, just not a huge advantage.

As far as a larger airframe, there are some advantages and certainly some disadvantages, particularly if the initial design was primarily focused on stealth features. Having greater fuel capacity by sacrificing low observability is a bit counterproductive. But it seems the designers of the J-20 realized that and accepted the sacrifice for the sake of prioritization the jet's mission parameters.

At the same time, the F-22 has IFR to compensate for the requirements of additional fuel. As far as I know, there hasn't been any published photos of the J-20 actually performing in-flight refueling that I know of, are there? Do we know if this is in fact the retractable IFR probe for the J-20 or is the bottom pic a photoshop? If it does, does anyone have a better pic showing the IFRP?

View attachment 972196



True on the AIM-260. I should've been clearer in that it's expected to be operational in 2026. But the weapons advantage still goes to the Raptor since it carries 8 missiles to the J-20's 6. Some might think that's not a big deal, but that is a huge difference, especially in A2A combat. Not only having the 2 additional missiles, but back to my original gripe about the gun which also gives the Raptor the advantage. Those are super critical areas of consideration.

But this here in this pic, is nothing short of outstanding! That's been one of my favorite features on the Black Eagle. Not only having a side bay, but being able to open the bay door, pop the missile out and close the door while keeping the missile racked up is just great.

View attachment 972202

Some would say oh having the missile racked up outside the fueselage ruins its stealth but what they don't realize is that those two side bays are for the short range PL missiles. So using them is within short ranges and within short ranges, the importance of stealth is negligable, at best. So IMO, that is a great feature because in anticipation of a close combat engagement, he can rack up the two missiles and not have to worry about the time it takes for the doors to open and fire the missile. This, IMO, is hardly unimportant but the opposite, a huge advantage.



When the J-20B first came out, first thing I thought was I'm glad it still looks great! Usually the 2-seat variants end up looking like ugly ducklings, but that thing is sweet. I am wondering why the radome seems a bit smaller though, and if that is the result of a new radar perhaps. I guess we'll soon find out.

According to China's official figure, the afterburner thrust for the WS-15 is 18500 kg which can be converted as 181 KN.

The F119 got 156 KN of afterburner thrust with the 2D TVC nozzle.

The 2D TVC nozzle has caused the F119 to lose about 15% of its afterburner thrust.

So the real afterburner thrust of the F119 should be around 179 KN without the 2D TVC nozzle.

There are pro and con with the 2D TVC nozzle; it has provided better RCS on its rear compared to the J-20, but it has lost 15% of its afterburner thrust as a penalty.

The F119 is comparable to the WS-15, but the F119 with the 2D TVC nozzle has significantly lower afterburner thrust than the WS-15.
 
Last edited:
.
Yes there is something available ...
1699522547394.png

Wow, so it was the stealth edges. I figured they became sharper with the newer model, but it looks like the other way around, at least for the lower or bottom 2 edges. Assuming the lower pic is the newer model of course. Another noticeable difference is the radome itself appears to be a bit more bulbous or rounded and less pointy than the original. Some other subtle differences here and there like the divertless intakes. The new one appears to be a bit smaller, much more noticeable in this pic bellow that you posted, more so than the one above.

1699524845196.png


According to China's official figure, the afterburner thrust for the WS-15 is 18500 kg which can be converted as 181 KN.

The F119 got 156 KN of afterburner thrust with the 2D TVC nozzle.

The 2D TVC nozzle has caused the F119 to lose about 15% of its afterburner thrust.

So the real afterburner thrust of the F119 should be around 179 KN without the 2D TVC nozzle.

If that's the case, it's safe to say that the difference in kNs between the two is super minor, only 2 kN and given the difference in size of airframes and gross weight, the thrust would be greater in the Raptor than the J-20. But bro, I honestly don't think there is any truth to the TVC nozzles having any effect on the overall thrust of the P & W engine. At least not 15% reduction. First of all, those are not moving all the time, so assuming what you're saying is true, then there's only a reduction in thrust when the TVC is functioning which I would venture to say is 10% of the time. Very minor. And where did you read that info about the 15%? Was it from the Chinese official figure also? Just wondering if you have a source for that.
 
Last edited:
.
Wow, so it was the stealth edges. I figured they became sharper with the newer model, but it looks like the other way around, at least for the lower or bottom 2 edges. Assuming the lower pic is the newer model of course. Another noticeable difference is the radome itself appears to be a bit more bulbous or rounded and less pointy than the original. Some other subtle differences here and there like the divertless intakes. The new one appears to be considerably smaller, much more noticeable in this pic bellow that you posted, more so than the one above.

View attachment 972715



If that's the case, it's safe to say that the difference in kNs between the two is super minor, only 2 kN and given the difference in size of airframes and gross weight, the thrust would be greater in the Raptor than the J-20. But bro, I honestly don't think there is any truth to the TVC nozzles having any effect on the overall thrust of the P & W engine. At least not 15% reduction. First of all, those are not moving all the time, so assuming what you're saying is true, then there's only a reduction in thrust when the TVC is functioning which I would venture to say is 10% of the time. Very minor. And where did you read that info about the 15%? Was it from the Chinese official figure also? Just wondering if you have a source for that.

Based on the procurement documentation of the materials.


It quite certain that the 2D TVC nozzle would cause the F119 to lose some afterburner thrust, and the speculation is about 15%.

Some Chinese aviation magazine has stated that the F119 got 173 KN as its real afterburner.
 
. . . . .
@Gomig-21 asked that question few days ago

That's right I did, in this post here.

At the same time, the F-22 has IFR to compensate for the requirements of additional fuel. As far as I know, there hasn't been any published photos of the J-20 actually performing in-flight refueling that I know of, are there? Do we know if this is in fact the retractable IFR probe for the J-20 or is the bottom pic a photoshop? If it does, does anyone have a better pic showing the IFRP?

1699691532317.png
1699691627046.png

Although it's hard to tell in that pic that @LKJ86 posted above if the hatch cover is fixed to the probe itself and extends & retracts with it like in this pic. It probably doesn't is my guess since this here looks like the end of the fixed panel would get in the way of the inside netting of the drogue basket. I could be wrong, but the leftover tip appears too short IMO. Too bad we don't have a clear, high-res pic of it on the ground with the damn thing extended.

One thing that is interesting to me as a general principle is the majority of aircraft (if not all) have their IFR probes on the starboard side (including the J-20) whether fixed or retractable with the exception of boom connections which as far as I know can be all over the place, from the spine on F-16s to the portside LERX on F-15s to right smack dab on the front nose of A-10s & Tu-160s.

BTW, I'm sure all you fellas have talked about this ad nauseum, but what's the story with this badass? Is this still happening or are they going with a smaller version for carrier-based aircraft like the J-35 or something? Big bird for carrier ops for sure. This would be wild.

1699692136625.png
 
. .
BTW, I'm sure all you fellas have talked about this ad nauseum, but what's the story with this badass? Is this still happening or are they going with a smaller version for carrier-based aircraft like the J-35 or something? Big bird for carrier ops for sure. This would be wild.

View attachment 990513
There won't be a naval J-20. Chinese carriers will operate with J-35 as air superiority fighter and J-15 as strike/EW platform.
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom