Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Figaro]

As well as source from CCTV and Ming Paper.

Actually there is no source from China to claim J-20 has anything but 4 production line (to be precious: 3 and 1 is under construction), only sources to prove the alternative.

Now you can see the difference: I have sources to back my claim up, whilst you and asoka have no source to back you up but just wishful thinkings.

Having an unreliable source is just as bad as having none at all ... so far, no reliable sources have claimed that there is going to be 4 production lines in the near time. They all suggest that J-20 mass production can only be attained after the WS-15 incorporation ...

 

[Ultima Thule]

New J-20 photo

I don't see the image brother

 

[lcloo]

More comparisons, I am no expert, you people be the judge of the accuracies of these illustrations.

 

[Deino]

More comparisons, I am no expert, you people be the judge of the accuracies of these illustrations.

I think it fit's overall quite nicely so that if not by the exact cm we can be quite sure that the J-20 is highly likely about 21m long (most likely slightly less) and has a span of little under 13m.

Deino

 

[j20blackdragon]

The images posted by Icloo above are perfect.

The J-20 has a smaller wingspan than the F-22, despite having the longer and heavier fuselage. Wing area is small relative to the size and weight of the fuselage. Therefore, wing loading will be higher compared to the F-22, meaning each square foot of wing is supporting more weight. Wing sweep angle is swept further back than the F-22. This confirms what I've been saying all along. The J-20 has tiny, little wings.

If you are wondering why wingspan and wing sweep angles are important, figure out why variable-sweep wings exist. Why do they sweep the wings forward? Why do they sweep the wings back? Figure this out and you will have your answer.

Lastly, the side shot proves the J-20 has the longer and heavier fuselage, particularly from nose to nozzles.

Keep in mind that the CAC engineers could have designed an aircraft with larger wings and a smaller fuselage if they wanted to. They deliberately chose not to. The J-20 is a very ambitious design and is not a copy of the F-22 at all.

 

[lcloo]

One simple question. F-104 Star fighter has a short wing, fast speed but less maneuverable and short range. It is correct to say that besides providing short take-off capability, J20's canard solved the maneuverability problem due to smaller wing as in F-104?

 

[jkroo]

This thread turns to be very ridiculous.

A mad mod carried out personal attack to a consistent member. And a loquacious old man...

My guess is rational than yours. My points are more with normal sense... bla bla

What a poor logic.

Faint....

Could you guys just stop it?！

I'm so sick with the situation.

 

[Figaro]

I think it fit's overall quite nicely so that if not by the exact cm we can be quite sure that the J-20 is highly likely about 21m long (most likely slightly less) and has a span of little under 13m.

Deino

20.7 meter is still quite a bit less than 21 meters. If anything, the length should be close to 20.5 to 20.7, not over 21. The span is really close to 13 meters ... the above diagram's wing loading area appears to be wrong.

 

[gambit]

If you are design aircraft or did research stuff like you claimed, then you would have already know citing paper without actually data means shit in today's engineering design.

Rules/laws/principles can only bring you so far, especially considering the fact many of these "rules" are merely EMPIRICAL at best, and usually lack rigorous proof.

Today's engineering are so complicate with conflicting goals binding together such that the output design is almost ALWAYS comparised, such that simulation and prototyping tests are a must to adjust all the parameters.

Thats why citing several simple design principle where even an self-proclaimed internet expert such as you can understand means little.

Do not talk as if you yourself have any experience. And I did provide real world evidence for the principles I brought on to support my arguments.

From Chinese engineers themselves...

Their paper which surely passed peer reviewed then submitted for PUBLIC perusal -- the 1997 Asia Pacific Microwave Conference -- is far more than we have seen from you guys in this forum.

The three rules for designing a radar low observable body are:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The creeping wave behavior falls under rule three. The radome shape of the F-22, F-35, and the J-20 is evidence enough.

Meanwhile, some inconvient fact is some third-party studies carried out by crude numerical simulation by Kopp suggesting that J-20 has better RCS than the latest US F-35 mode, and only slight larger comparing to F-22 (mainly due to F-22's rare end has better RCS design comparing to J-20 batch A).

Crude simulations are open to interpretations. Interpret what Kopp did any way you like. Personally, I know people who are DIRECTLY involved in radar field testing of the F-22 at Nellis AFB rolled their eyes and laughed at Kopp. Kopp is taken seriously at the Internet forums level. Nowhere else. How inconvenient, eh ?

 

[l0ngl0ng]

These are for different discussions. I was using shaping as a test. You get an 'A'. Your fellow Chinese, and their supporters, gets an 'F'.

Since you are old, you lived in your memories of the happy time.
The best of your life was in 1970s up to 1981, when F-117 was first fly.

Your obsoleted theory is memorized and fixed till you served as a cleaning worker in some airforce supplier.
Old man, stealthy technology had been developed alot in past decades and would become better and better.

Oldman like to nag everything all day long they know or don't know.

Look at the evolution of the stealth aircraft, with the help of the super-computer(China is No.1 many years) , they grew better and better.

Obliviously, they are so different and they are from different theory and concept.

F-117, old man's best love. F-117 had been shot down and scrapped.

B-2. Old fat boy. Engineer actually don't know how to balance between tech and cost. This bomber is discontinued.

F-22. Short combat radius, overheat, widow maker. This is a bubble and banned to export from bubble-explosion.
F-22 had been discontinued.

T-50, developed by a nation GDP is even smaller than S.Korean.
Stealthy fighter are not for poor.

F-35ABC. Single engine with 2 V-tail, it was sentenced to death from the very beginning.
F-35 may be fully halted by Mr. Trump, a right thing he is going to do.

Money, Supercomputer, Manufacturing, Manpower.
China may the only nation can achieve a real stealthy fighter on this planet.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... give it a rest!

 

[Deino]

They cannot. This is the same pattern of behavior from the Chinese when they cannot stand on technical issues. If you go back to page 425 of this discussion, you will see that I gave the same explanation one yr ago and the same behavior from the Chinese then. You dealt with it then and you are dealing with it now. What has changed other the names of the Chinese members ?

but then I beg You to at least calm down Your tone. Putting "all Chinese PDF" members into one basket is indeed insulting.

 

[Daniel808]

Using 'PDF Chinese' on almost every post he has in here is a Racist intended words and have purpose to flame bait other chinese members who don't involved in this discussion.
If he has a problem/discussion with that members, then he better mention @ MR.A @MR.B and @MR.C instead using word like "PDF Chinese Batallion/members"

It's just like call @ Mr Deino as Germanic mod instead of @Mr Deino in a Discussion.
I bet, @ Mr Deino will take this kind of post as a personal attack/insult to him instead of a constructive discussion.


Please Review this kind of Posts from this "PROFESSIONAL" member
@Horus @Slav Defence @waz, @Deino and others.

This kind of post only bait more flame from other members who feel insulted, instead of trying to build a constructive discussion in this Chinese Defence Forum section.

Please Review this.
Because this is really "Unprofessional" from a Professional title member in PDF
Thanks


Best Regards,



Daniel808

 

[The Eagle]

Few posts that contains nothing but useless cat fight are removed. Members are advised to continue the discussion based upon subject and content herein rather than generalizing about any nationality or be it a member in person.

It is regret to see such behaviour on part of any member that most of the time, counter arguments are made with veiled or provocative wording whereby, having no choice but a post has to be removed due to unwanted content or mixture of it to say.

A post that contains valuable information but a bit of irrelevant content, is mostly edited for courtesy and interest of the readers so the info along with efforts of poster may not lost but seeing such behaviour adopted as practice, actually leaves no choice but removal of post as such.

Post your arguments, counter arguments or back up your narrative with sources links w.r.t discussion in hand and if needed while having no mutual understanding, agree to disagree and move on.

Avoid making everything as personal until & unless or if it is clearly intended then use report button and move on without derailing the topic further or becoming the part of trolling fest. Difference of opinion is healthy only for productive, quality and knowledgeable discussion but when it is found as name calling, provocation or insults, the one who instigate and the other who feeds or fuel, will be dealt accordingly.

Hopefully, gentlemen wouldn't need any reminder in this regard.

 

[samsara]

It seems to me that some views here on the J-20 are unpublished, and of course it excludes the 4th picture but it is the one I prefer the most. The three J-16s behind on the first capture is for the personal collection of @Strike_Flanker. East Pendulum‏ @HenriKenhmann 2017.11.08

。。。