J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 13:04
by mixelflick
So here it is, the mighty J-20 goes operational and deliveries have started..

https://theaviationist.com/2017/10/25/c ... ccelerate/

Not only this, but the J-31 is hot on its heels and will be available for export. So not 1 but 2 soon to be operational stealth birds. Thank you Robert Gates for cancelling the F-22! This, along with their SU-35 deliveries is quite concerning. This also explains why the F-22 pilot I conversed with at a recent airshow seemed to totally dismiss the SU-57 and was far more focused on the J-20. The intelligence briefs must have advised the J-20 was far more concerning (especially with their new BVR AAM's).

What do you think? Could we see hundreds of J-20's soon threatening US AWAC's, tankers and other high value assets?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 18:48
by geforcerfx
Worried, not really, yet at least. China used to match the US air power in numbers(just numbers not capability) because they had 1000 j-7's in service, now there down to 350, US has no 3rd gen aircraft as mainstay fighters anymore. If they decide to actually build these in mass, which they haven't show much signs of doing then it would become worrying. They aren't slowing down on 4th gen production aka J-10 and J-11B and J-16's are still trickling off the line. But in all this time, 14 years they have made ~300 J-10's, 20 years ~250 J-11 and in the last 5 years added another 75 new flanker variants. They haven't show in a long time that they like to buy expensive aircraft in large numbers. Even if they leave there LRIP speed of around 6 J-20's a year and go to 24 a year the USA will still be buying 90 F-35's a year and moving to 120+ at some point. They have 800+ old aircraft designs that need to be replaces, old interceptors based off the mig-21, newer(ish) interceptor with 70's tech, strike aircraft based off the mig-19. The US is replacing modernized 4th gens with 5 gen aircraft and any 4th gens staying in service into the 2020's is getting further modernized. The Chinese are replacing 3rd gen aircraft with semi-modernized 4th gens and now adding a single 5th gen type to the fleet that they might have 200 of in 7-10 years. The biggest threat china has, as with most things in there military, is numbers the numbers have gone down for them in aircraft the quality has gone up a bit but they are still behind the USA in both numbers and quality of the air fleet, one jet type isn't gonna change, especially with the F-35, PCA, F-X and F/A-XX.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 19:17
by bayernfan
I wonder what their criteria for "in service" or "operational". They are still twinkling airframe 1-2 years back and we haven't seen any weapon test reports. It still takes many steps to match the IOC criteria comparing to F-35.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 19:27
by milosh
bayernfan wrote:I wonder what their criteria for "in service" or "operational". They are still twinkling airframe 1-2 years back and we haven't seen any weapon test reports. It still takes many steps to match the IOC criteria comparing to F-35.


For now they are probable "no pound for ground" so they can achieve IOC realtive fast. Imagine if F-35A only need to fire AIM-120 and DAS only used for Air to Air, it would be IOC much earlier.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 21:10
by hythelday
milosh wrote:
bayernfan wrote:I wonder what their criteria for "in service" or "operational". They are still twinkling airframe 1-2 years back and we haven't seen any weapon test reports. It still takes many steps to match the IOC criteria comparing to F-35.


For now they are probable "no pound for ground" so they can achieve IOC realtive fast. Imagine if F-35A only need to fire AIM-120 and DAS only used for Air to Air, it would be IOC much earlier.


F-35 also needed an operational squadron (as well as training one, of course). Wonder how many J-20 are actually flown by "regular" pilots. Plane might be ready, but are the end-users too?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 21:51
by SpudmanWP
milosh wrote:For now they are probable "no pound for ground" so they can achieve IOC realtive fast. Imagine if A only need to fire AIM-120 and DAS only used for Air to Air, it would be IOC much earlier.


Nope. Most of the time in dev was used for software (ie sensor fusion). Removing the testing for one or two bombs would not have shortened it up much.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 23:55
by tincansailor
We have to see how quickly they can stand up J-20 squadrons. Once they start encountering Western aircraft we'll get a better idea of their RCS, and other capabilities. This fighter is still pretty much a blank slate, at least in public. We have more respect for Chinese electronics, and industrial technology, then we do Russian. With that attitude we're naturally more concerned with the J-20, then the SU-57. We'll just have to see how dangerous the Big Bad Wolf really is.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 23:58
by nutshell
Well, I wonder how many years it will take for the J20 to rake those 100K hrs of flight the F35 fleet managed to get in just a year (2015-2016).

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 00:50
by madrat
I doubt you'll see 100 J-16.
Without an export market the J-10 won't eclipse much less approach domestic F-16 totals.
The J-31 is a drain on resources, and eventually it's J-20 or J-31 that hordes the supplies.
The J-20 may be using stolen proprietary F-35 design details, but it still seems to resemble an oversized Rafale clone.
The J-31 is more like a clone of F-35 superficially, but using MiG-29 parts. When you dress up a vehicle to resemble another, they used to refer to them as decoys.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 01:56
by Dragon029
Have we seen a single J-20 with a non-blanked-out EOTS yet? I think that's fair indicator of where they are at least development-wise with the jet - I'm not saying that such a system has as high a priority as it did on the F-35, but when one of your key sensors isn't installed, it makes me question how far operational the other equipment on the jet is.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 04:17
by XanderCrews
The Chinese will do what they do with everything. Pilots of nice families will fly it barely and gently and the blue collar pilots who know their jobs will be stuck on less advanced aircraft

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 12:00
by sferrin
madrat wrote:The J-20 may be using stolen proprietary F-35 design details, but it still seems to resemble an oversized Rafale clone.


I take it you've never seen either one? The only thing they have in common is two engines, and the pointy end and little wing up front.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 15:58
by milosh
SpudmanWP wrote:
milosh wrote:For now they are probable "no pound for ground" so they can achieve IOC realtive fast. Imagine if A only need to fire AIM-120 and DAS only used for Air to Air, it would be IOC much earlier.


Nope. Most of the time in dev was used for software (ie sensor fusion). Removing the testing for one or two bombs would not have shortened it up much.


If you cut Air to Ground from F-35 software are you sure it won't speed up IOC?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 18:17
by geforcerfx
milosh wrote:
If you cut Air to Ground from F-35 software are you sure it won't speed up IOC?


You can't really "cut" it out of the software, the aircraft and it's software was designed from day 1 to be multi-role. I look at the Su-57 and the J-20 being more like the F-22, designed with a2a in mind and adding in the a2g later. This is why those 3 will have a more basic a2g capability over the F-35 family.


madrat wrote:I doubt you'll see 100 J-16.
The J-20 may be using stolen proprietary F-35 design details, but it still seems to resemble an oversized Rafale clone.
.


Mikoyan can deny it all they want but I think a lot of the design of the J-20 came from this.
Mikoyan_Project_1.44_on_display_at_MAKS_2015.jpg

not a straight copy but they share a lot more design features than the J-20 does with the F-35 or F-22.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 18:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Yeah, like the MiG 1.44 with F-35 inlets instead.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 22:42
by madrat
J-20 looks like they scaled up the J-10 and used the Rafale as a rough outline more so than MiG 1.4X.
Image
Image
There is little doubt it had some kind of joint development with Sukhoi otherwise their tails would not be so similar. Perhaps they shared nothing and spontaneously (and simultaneously) came up independently with greatly improved actuator technology versus what MiG 1.42 demonstrated.
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 01:34
by Prinz_Eugn
madrat wrote:J-20 looks like they scaled up the J-10 and used the Rafale as a rough outline more so than MiG 1.4X.
Image
Image
There is little doubt it had some kind of joint development with Sukhoi otherwise their tails would not be so similar. Perhaps they shared nothing and spontaneously (and simultaneously) came up independently with greatly improved actuator technology versus what MiG 1.42 demonstrated.
Image


I'll let you know when I find the part of this post that makes sense.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 06:51
by geforcerfx
madrat I am really not seeing the similarity between the J-20 and the rafale, closest they are together is twin engine delta-canard.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 10:59
by juretrn
Just look at the J-20 how fat and draggy it is! It's going to be utter sh*t! The Chinese should have kept on building the J-10 and J-11! Can't turn, can't climb, can't run!

/s

Seriously tho, where are the basement dwellers denouncing the J-20 for being "fat"?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 14:10
by madrat
geforcerfx wrote:madrat I am really not seeing the similarity between the J-20 and the rafale, closest they are together is twin engine delta-canard.


Ignoring the different vertical stab solutions at the tail end, how many other twin engine mid-level main wing canard designs look similar?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 15:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
It's the stab configuration at the rear that resembles the MiG.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 18:39
by Dragon029
The J-20's canards are also not close-coupled like the Rafale's, but rather are more forward like on the Typhoon or (more closely) the MiG.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 21:28
by count_to_10
juretrn wrote:Just look at the J-20 how fat and draggy it is! It's going to be utter sh*t! The Chinese should have kept on building the J-10 and J-11! Can't turn, can't climb, can't run!

/s

Seriously tho, where are the basement dwellers denouncing the J-20 for being "fat"?

Actually, I kind of wonder what it’s area ruling looks like, and how it compares to other aircraft. It seems a bit boxy.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 22:15
by disconnectedradical
count_to_10 wrote:
juretrn wrote:Just look at the J-20 how fat and draggy it is! It's going to be utter sh*t! The Chinese should have kept on building the J-10 and J-11! Can't turn, can't climb, can't run!

/s

Seriously tho, where are the basement dwellers denouncing the J-20 for being "fat"?

Actually, I kind of wonder what it’s area ruling looks like, and how it compares to other aircraft. It seems a bit boxy.


The area ruling might be decent because of how long it is. The fuselage is "boxy" but not really much different from the F-22's.

But those tail strakes don't do favors for all aspect RCS.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 23:48
by madrat
Dragon029 wrote:The J-20's canards are also not close-coupled like the Rafale's, but rather are more forward like on the Typhoon or (more closely) the MiG.


The location near the leading edge and relative size are clues it is not similar to Eurofighter.

And MiG 1.4X is not like Eurofighter, because it too used close coupling of canard to the leading edge.

Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2017, 02:51
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:
juretrn wrote:Just look at the J-20 how fat and draggy it is! It's going to be utter sh*t! The Chinese should have kept on building the J-10 and J-11! Can't turn, can't climb, can't run!

/s

Seriously tho, where are the basement dwellers denouncing the J-20 for being "fat"?

Actually, I kind of wonder what it’s area ruling looks like, and how it compares to other aircraft. It seems a bit boxy.


"Boxy" was a famous criticism of the F-22. Of course it is meaningless as area-rule and drag isn't determined by "boxy" or "round".

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2017, 03:20
by dsc
A lot of people say the J-20 has a lot of influence and a lot of similarities with the Mig 1.44.
I disagree.
The only similarities between the Mig 1.44 and the J-20 are the canard-wing design configuration. But hey guess what, the Gripen shares that too, the Typhoon, the Rafale...

The J-20 has much more similarities and resemblance with the F-22/F-35:
-The J-20 front fuselage and cockpit area, it's all F-22. Exact/specific size (length, width, height) and some angles are the only differences;
-The center/main fuselage again it's all F-22. The only diffference is some few angles, and the size: It's longer in length. And it might be bit bigger in width and height too. Also notice the weapons bays placement and design in both airplanes is very similar as well;
-DSI Intakes and chines just like the F-35;
-The vertical stabs are very similar to the F-35 ones. The only and main difference? The J-20 vertical stabs are all moving tails. In the F-35 it's the traditional fixed tail with rudder design.

I honestly think that claiming the J-20 is very similar to the Mig 1.44, it's basically like saying the F-35 is very similar to the F-16 just because both have a wing-tail design. :shock:

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2017, 07:41
by sferrin
dsc wrote:A lot of people say the J-20 has a lot of influence and a lot of similarities with the Mig 1.44.
I disagree.
The only similarities between the Mig 1.44 and the J-20 are the canard-wing design configuration. But hey guess what, the Gripen shares that too, the Typhoon, the Rafale...


Which one of those has twin tails and ventrals? And last I checked, the Gripen was a single-engine aircraft that cribbed its layout from this old Northrop configuration:

Canard Fighter 1.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2017, 08:31
by twistedneck
dsc wrote:A lot of people say the J-20 has a lot of influence and a lot of similarities with the Mig 1.44.
I disagree.
The only similarities between the Mig 1.44 and the J-20 are the canard-wing design configuration. But hey guess what, the Gripen shares that too, the Typhoon, the Rafale...

The J-20 has much more similarities and resemblance with the F-22/F-35:
-The J-20 front fuselage and cockpit area, it's all F-22. Exact/specific size (length, width, height) and some angles are the only differences;
-The center/main fuselage again it's all F-22. The only diffference is some few angles, and the size: It's longer in length. And it might be bit bigger in width and height too. Also notice the weapons bays placement and design in both airplanes is very similar as well;
-DSI Intakes and chines just like the F-35;
-The vertical stabs are very similar to the F-35 ones. The only and main difference? The J-20 vertical stabs are all moving tails. In the F-35 it's the traditional fixed tail with rudder design.

I honestly think that claiming the J-20 is very similar to the Mig 1.44, it's basically like saying the F-35 is very similar to the F-16 just because both have a wing-tail design. :shock:

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me...


dsc i fully disagree. The main shape of the J20 is a direct and easy to see copy of the Mig 1.44. Later on as the west evolved and the Chinese ripped off our designs for F22 the F22 front chine was added along with the flat bottom.. then after they got the lockheed data bonanza on F35 they stole its tails, cockpit, air intakes, etc.

F22 and F35 dont have canards becuase the airframe is designed from scratch including the center of mass to not need them. the 1.44 was designed with them from the start.. and you can't just get rid of em! the J20 is a rip off of so many things, but its primary DNA comes from the 1.44.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 02:50
by dsc
sferrin wrote:
dsc wrote:A lot of people say the J-20 has a lot of influence and a lot of similarities with the Mig 1.44.
I disagree.
The only similarities between the Mig 1.44 and the J-20 are the canard-wing design configuration. But hey guess what, the Gripen shares that too, the Typhoon, the Rafale...


Which one of those has twin tails and ventrals?


Uhh OK. I think I get your point.
The Mig 1.44 and the J-20 are the only two aircraft with a canard-delta wing, twin tails and ventral fins, all in one airframe, IIRC.
Thinking this way you're right.
But still, the wing, although is a delta wing in both, it is still simply different. The vertical tails are quite different. And so on...
And also, if you check how many aircraft have every single one of these design characteristics, separately, you'll see that there are a lot:
Canard and delta wing: J-20, mig 1.44, J-10, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, etc...
Ventral fins: J-20, J-10, F-16, F-14, Flankers...
Twin tails: most modern fighter aircraft...
Canard-delta wing designs with ventral fins: J-20, J-10, mig 1.44...


And last I checked, the Gripen was a single-engine aircraft that cribbed its layout from this old Northrop configuration:

Canard Fighter 1.jpg


And last time I checked, I was not discussing and/or claiming the opposite of that @sferrin. :) I mentioned the Gripen the same way i mentioned the Typhoon and the Rafale when trying to prove my point that the main design characteristic the J-20 shares with the Mig 1.44, which is the canard-wing design, is also present in some other fighter aircraft. I could also have mentioned the J-10 as well. But that one did not came to my mind at the time.

And as I said before... Twin tails? Most modern fighter aircraft have twin vertical tails too.
Ventral fins? The F-16, the J-10, and the Flanker family have them too.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 02:51
by dsc
Okay gentlemen
@sferrin
@twistedneck
Let me explain in a different way...
Imagine the F-22 and the F-15...
Both are twin engine, twin tail fighter aircraft roughly of the same overall size. Both are also wing-tail designs as you know.
BUT,
Do you consider the F-22 very similar in design to the F-15, almost like if it was just a copy?
You don't, right?
And imagine you are at an airshow with someone, and there is an F-22 and F-15 side by side on static display. What do you think they'll say if you ask them if they find the F-22 and the F-15 similar? :wink:

I think you now know where I'm getting at...

The same happens with the J-20 and the Mig 1.44.
Both are canard, delta wing, twin tail, twin engine aircraft...

But, c'mon, if you could go see at an airshow a J-20 and a Mig 1.44 side by side on static, what do you think someone would say if you ask them if they found both airplanes similar?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 12:57
by sprstdlyscottsmn
From the back they both have two closely spaced round engine nozzles with canted dorsal and ventral stabilizers. That is how they are most similar as no other plane has that feature set AFAIK first thing in the morning before coffee.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 13:28
by sferrin
dsc wrote:And also, if you check how many aircraft have every single one of these design characteristics, separately, you'll see that there are a lot:
Canard and delta wing: J-20, mig 1.44, J-10, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, etc...
Ventral fins: J-20, J-10, F-16, F-14, Flankers...
Twin tails: most modern fighter aircraft...
Canard-delta wing designs with ventral fins: J-20, J-10, mig 1.44...


That makes no sense at all. Lots of aircraft have wheels too; that doesn't mean the J-20 looks like an F-4. It's the combination of features: canard delta, twin-engine, twin vertical, twin ventral, boxy forward fuselage, etc. that really only TWO aircraft have (the J-20 and Mig 1.44). If there were another aircraft I'd say it most resembled it would be the Lockheed Martin CALF (Pre-JSF):

calf_lockheed_01.jpg


2010_JAST_PR160502_2_1267828237_3513.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 14:27
by mixelflick
Ah the J-20. Another screw up by that buffoon Robert Gates. He once famously predicted that the Chinese would have no 5th gen design operational before 2020. That they flew it on the day he was there should have in been an indication how out of touch he really was. This man is responsible for the single biggest mistake in modern US airpower history - truncating the F-22 buy at just 187. He later said that if he had to do it all over again, he still would have cancelled it (proving beyond a shadow a doubt his un-fitness to serve). Later, he would defend his position by saying "but we're funding the upgrades". They should terminate his pension for high crimes against US air power..

As for the J-20, I do think it has roots in the Mig 1.42/1.44. I really like the looks of that bird. For a while anyway, it looked like Mig was going to re-claim its position as the top Russian fighter manufacturer.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2017, 17:56
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:Ah the J-20. Another screw up by that buffoon Robert Gates. He once famously predicted that the Chinese would have no 5th gen design operational before 2020. That they flew it on the day he was there should have in been an indication how out of touch he really was. This man is responsible for the single biggest mistake in modern US airpower history - truncating the F-22 buy at just 187. He later said that if he had to do it all over again, he still would have cancelled it (proving beyond a shadow a doubt his un-fitness to serve). Later, he would defend his position by saying "but we're funding the upgrades". They should terminate his pension for high crimes against US air power..

As for the J-20, I do think it has roots in the Mig 1.42/1.44. I really like the looks of that bird. For a while anyway, it looked like Mig was going to re-claim its position as the top Russian fighter manufacturer.

The J-20 won't be operational before 2020, in any commonly understood meaning of the word. Operational means that you have active combat squadrons, trained pilots, trained mechanics, logistical supply chain/sufficient spares on hand, weapons and envelope testing conducted, and tactics developed through multiple and regular training exercises. That's nowhere near being the case, at the moment. It'll be 2025 or later, before the J-20 is "operational."

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 10:07
by disconnectedradical
Image

J-20 and J-16 together. Guess now we can finally take a ruler and measure the size?

Deino at SDF did a pixels measurement and the J-20 seems to be about 20.9 m long or 68.7 ft.

Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 23:42
by disconnectedradical
Here's the bottom of the J-20.
Image

Weapons bays compared to the F-22.
Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2017, 01:55
by rheonomic
God that thing is hideous...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2017, 15:02
by mixelflick
The J-20 and J-16 pics look ominous.

Just a decade ago, it seemed their air force was a relic of the past. I understand they're still outclassed by our stuff, but you have to admit - they're closing the gap, and fast. I do agree ramping up F-35 production was a good idea. As it proliferates in the US inventory and around the world, quantity and quality advantage swings back to us.

Let's just hope it stays that way..

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2017, 16:22
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:The J-20 and J-16 pics look ominous.

Just a decade ago, it seemed their air force was a relic of the past. I understand they're still outclassed by our stuff, but you have to admit - they're closing the gap, and fast. I do agree ramping up F-35 production was a good idea. As it proliferates in the US inventory and around the world, quantity and quality advantage swings back to us.

Let's just hope it stays that way..


I'm not sure I'd categorize it, as closing the gap fast. By 2021 the USA will have ~600+ operational 5th generation fighters. China still won't have any 5th generation fighters, that are IOC much less FOC. Each year after that, the gap widens even further (not to mention B-21s starting to enter the fleet.)

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2017, 18:19
by rheonomic
wrightwing wrote:I'm not sure I'd categorize it, as closing the gap fast. By 2021 the USA will have ~600+ operational 5th generation fighters. China still won't have any 5th generation fighters, that are IOC much less FOC. Each year after that, the gap widens even further (not to mention B-21s starting to enter the fleet.)


I tend to agree with this.

We do need to watch China though; I'd categorize the Chinese as being our greatest potential threat.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2017, 19:17
by wrightwing
rheonomic wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I'm not sure I'd categorize it, as closing the gap fast. By 2021 the USA will have ~600+ operational 5th generation fighters. China still won't have any 5th generation fighters, that are IOC much less FOC. Each year after that, the gap widens even further (not to mention B-21s starting to enter the fleet.)


I tend to agree with this.

We do need to watch China though; I'd categorize the Chinese as being our greatest potential threat.

You never want to underestimate your enemies, but it's also bad to engage in alarmism, that's not based upon empirical evidence. Having decades of experience operating VLO aircraft, no nation has had more practice, training against VLO targets/developing countermeasures. No nation has had more experience in maintaining/employing VLO aircraft. No nation will have comparable numbers of VLO aircraft. It's not time to wring our hands, just yet.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2017, 20:05
by rheonomic
wrightwing wrote:You never want to underestimate your enemies, but it's also bad to engage in alarmism, that's not based upon empirical evidence.


Hey, if it sells more airplanes... :D

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2017, 02:05
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The J-20 and J-16 pics look ominous.

Just a decade ago, it seemed their air force was a relic of the past. I understand they're still outclassed by our stuff, but you have to admit - they're closing the gap, and fast. I do agree ramping up F-35 production was a good idea. As it proliferates in the US inventory and around the world, quantity and quality advantage swings back to us.

Let's just hope it stays that way..


I'm not sure I'd categorize it, as closing the gap fast. By 2021 the USA will have ~600+ operational 5th generation fighters. China still won't have any 5th generation fighters, that are IOC much less FOC. Each year after that, the gap widens even further (not to mention B-21s starting to enter the fleet.)


The J-20 is said to be in production. (LRIP?) So, why couldn't it reach IOC by 2021???

Which, is not to say even if it does it will have anything close to 600! :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2017, 15:46
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:

The J-20 is said to be in production. (LRIP?) So, why couldn't it reach IOC by 2021???

Which, is not to say even if it does it will have anything close to 600! :wink:

For the same reason that the Su-57 won't reach IOC by 2021, even though it's in "production."

A- the aircraft and its systems aren't mature enough
B- in order to be considered IOC, you need sufficient trained pilots, maintainers, logistical supply chain/spare parts, sufficient operationally representative aircraft (with weapons testing complete)
C- the IOC squadron(s), need to have undergone multiple training exercises, to develop TTPs on how to properly employ the new capabilities.
D- what's the status on weapons integration and testing? Have there been any separation tests? Live fires?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2017, 08:14
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

The J-20 is said to be in production. (LRIP?) So, why couldn't it reach IOC by 2021???

Which, is not to say even if it does it will have anything close to 600! :wink:

For the same reason that the Su-57 won't reach IOC by 2021, even though it's in "production."

A- the aircraft and its systems aren't mature enough
B- in order to be considered IOC, you need sufficient trained pilots, maintainers, logistical supply chain/spare parts, sufficient operationally representative aircraft (with weapons testing complete)
C- the IOC squadron(s), need to have undergone multiple training exercises, to develop TTPs on how to properly employ the new capabilities.
D- what's the status on weapons integration and testing? Have there been any separation tests? Live fires?


A Western Aircraft I would totally agree. Yet, China is really pushing and they likely will cut corners the US wouldn't even dream of....Nonetheless, nobody really knows except the Chinese of course. So, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2017, 16:17
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

The J-20 is said to be in production. (LRIP?) So, why couldn't it reach IOC by 2021???

Which, is not to say even if it does it will have anything close to 600! :wink:

For the same reason that the Su-57 won't reach IOC by 2021, even though it's in "production."

A- the aircraft and its systems aren't mature enough
B- in order to be considered IOC, you need sufficient trained pilots, maintainers, logistical supply chain/spare parts, sufficient operationally representative aircraft (with weapons testing complete)
C- the IOC squadron(s), need to have undergone multiple training exercises, to develop TTPs on how to properly employ the new capabilities.
D- what's the status on weapons integration and testing? Have there been any separation tests? Live fires?


A Western Aircraft I would totally agree. Yet, China is really pushing and they likely will cut corners the US wouldn't even dream of....Nonetheless, nobody really knows except the Chinese of course. So, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Cutting corners is how you end up with a shoddy product, that doesn't come close to meeting KPPs. The USAF could've declared F-35 IOC at Block 1A, and accepted a lot of risk, but the aircraft wouldn't be very credible. You've seen all the fixes that have been made to the F-35, due to issues discovered during testing. What are the odds that China got everything right on the J-20? The F-35 has over 100,000 flight hours, there are over 200 aircraft, they've been in numerous exercises, real world deployments, and we're still tweaking them. That's why I'm skeptical of optimistic schedules for J-20/Su-57. They have fewer R&D aircraft flying, than we have in fleet squadrons.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 04:56
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:

Cutting corners is how you end up with a shoddy product, that doesn't come close to meeting KPPs. The USAF could've declared F-35 IOC at Block 1A, and accepted a lot of risk, but the aircraft wouldn't be very credible. You've seen all the fixes that have been made to the F-35, due to issues discovered during testing. What are the odds that China got everything right on the J-20? The F-35 has over 100,000 flight hours, there are over 200 aircraft, they've been in numerous exercises, real world deployments, and we're still tweaking them. That's why I'm skeptical of optimistic schedules for J-20/Su-57. They have fewer R&D aircraft flying, than we have in fleet squadrons.



Well, again I think your comparing a Western Process vs Chinese and/or Russian ones! Good example is the latter two have no problem flying early developmental Su-57's and J-20's at Airshows. The US would "never" risk a new fighter at such an early stage of development. Even if the risk was very small....

In addition the F-35 is entering service and numbers are ramping up quickly. If, Russia and China don't get on the stick quickly. They will be totally overwhelmed...My guess is they (especially China) will be pushing the envelope right to the limit..... :wink:

"IMHO"

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 06:39
by wrightwing
They can declare operational status whenever they want. I'm just saying that it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's nowhere comparable to what we mean by operational.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 06:54
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:They can declare operational status whenever they want. I'm just saying that it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's nowhere comparable to what we mean by operational.



Clearly, the J-20 hasn't reached IOC. What we are seeing is just a modest number of LRIP Aircraft. That will be used for further Testing....on the way to IOC and full scale production. We will just have to agree to disagree when the latter may come about???

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 02:49
by strykerxo
I recall the J-10 going operational, and everybody went Huh, what! :doh: 400 planes later

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 07:08
by Corsair1963
The F-35 is ramping up quickly and will be building well over a hundred every year post 2020. That would put extreme pressure on China to increase production of the J-20 and/or J-31. Otherwise, she will be hopelessly outclassed.....

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 07:11
by Corsair1963
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 is ramping up quickly and will be building well over a hundred every year post 2020. That would put extreme pressure on China to increase production of the J-20 and/or J-31. Otherwise, she will be hopelessly outclassed.....




Which, is why the J-31 is so "critical" to the Chinese Military. As it must be able to mass produce. A capable yet affordable 5th Generation Fighter in quantity!

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 08:00
by weasel1962
Even at its peak the far cheaper J-10s are produced at 30+ per year. I would think J-20 production rates would be something similar.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 11:12
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Even at its peak the far cheaper J-10s are produced at 30+ per year. I would think J-20 production rates would be something similar.



Honestly, 30+ a year would be low for even the J-20 let alone the J-31. Which, in fact will be China's F-35.... :wink:



Of course I am talking once they reach full scale production.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 20:31
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Even at its peak the far cheaper J-10s are produced at 30+ per year. I would think J-20 production rates would be something similar.



Honestly, 30+ a year would be low for even the J-20 let alone the J-31. Which, in fact will be China's F-35.... :wink:



Of course I am talking once they reach full scale production.

I'd be surprised if they ever build more than 30 J-20s per year, even at FRP. I think it's more lilely to see Raptor like numbers, rather than 500+.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 06:39
by disconnectedradical
A better picture.
Image

The J-20 seems to not have a gun.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 17:33
by hythelday
disconnectedradical wrote:The J-20 seems to not have a gun.


BOOM! Close the "vs" thread. F-35A equipped with the gun wins every time! Some guy who saw Vietnam documentary on youtube told me so :roll:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 04:09
by weasel1962
The J-20 is suggested to have a gun. The location of the gunport can be seen from the pic above as the panel on its back between the canard and wing.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 19:13
by mixelflick
Where is Pierre Sprey to decry the size and complexity of the J-20?

Seems like it's the antithesis of "his" LWF must have's... :)

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2017, 21:17
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 is ramping up quickly and will be building well over a hundred every year post 2020. That would put extreme pressure on China to increase production of the J-20 and/or J-31. Otherwise, she will be hopelessly outclassed.....




Which, is why the J-31 is so "critical" to the Chinese Military. As it must be able to mass produce. A capable yet affordable 5th Generation Fighter in quantity!


It look like J-31 will be for export only, probable first for Pakistan then others (maybe Iran). Navy was interested but Type 002 carrier will have EMALS even though it isn't nuclear carrier:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... nch-system

Probable they plan to use PMM, which Zumwalt would have but it was dropped because of longer development time.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 01:27
by madrat
Who are these fantasy J-31 customers? Argentina? Myanmar? Bangladesh? Pakistan? I'm curious. They will struggle to export 100 at the current rate.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 12:37
by milosh
madrat wrote:Who are these fantasy J-31 customers? Argentina? Myanmar? Bangladesh? Pakistan? I'm curious. They will struggle to export 100 at the current rate.


We will see Pakistan and Iran is very likely customers probable Iraq. If F-35 isn't offer to gulf states well I doubt they will not want stealth fighter if Iran have one.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 08:05
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
madrat wrote:Who are these fantasy J-31 customers? Argentina? Myanmar? Bangladesh? Pakistan? I'm curious. They will struggle to export 100 at the current rate.


We will see Pakistan and Iran is very likely customers probable Iraq. If F-35 isn't offer to gulf states well I doubt they will not want stealth fighter if Iran have one.



Honestly, I know some think I am crazy. Yet, I seriously believe Russia could be a customer for the J-31 in the future. As it will need something in the F-35/J-31 Class in the coming decades. Which, clearly is not the Su-57..... :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 08:10
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 is ramping up quickly and will be building well over a hundred every year post 2020. That would put extreme pressure on China to increase production of the J-20 and/or J-31. Otherwise, she will be hopelessly outclassed.....




Which, is why the J-31 is so "critical" to the Chinese Military. As it must be able to mass produce. A capable yet affordable 5th Generation Fighter in quantity!


It look like J-31 will be for export only, probable first for Pakistan then others (maybe Iran). Navy was interested but Type 002 carrier will have EMALS even though it isn't nuclear carrier:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... nch-system

Probable they plan to use PMM, which Zumwalt would have but it was dropped because of longer development time.


Honestly, this talk that the J-31 is solely being designed for export only is pure folly. As China needs large numbers of Strike Fighters just like the US....

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 09:06
by weasel1962
If the J-31 is as good as the F-35, then it makes sense for China to procure it but I am not so sure the assumption holds. The biggest issue is the engine. The F135 engine enables the F-35 to gain a lot of weight in exchange for capability. The Al-31F has a 10k lb thrust gap vs F-135 and if one is going dual engine, it might as well be a J-20. Although 2xRD-93s replicate the total thrust of a F-135, it should be noted that China has not adopted the RD-93 even though they had access to it. The Pakistanis did for the JF-17 but the Chinese pitch continues to be that a single engined J-10 is far superior to the JF-17 so the adoption is questionable. That’s what makes the export pitch believable. Otherwise J-31 just a technology demonstrator or Mig-29 pitched as a low-cost fighter in the hi-lo mix which never worked out.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 11:24
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:If the J-31 is as good as the F-35, then it makes sense for China to procure it but I am not so sure the assumption holds. The biggest issue is the engine. The F135 engine enables the F-35 to gain a lot of weight in exchange for capability. The Al-31F has a 10k lb thrust gap vs F-135 and if one is going dual engine, it might as well be a J-20. Although 2xRD-93s replicate the total thrust of a F-135, it should be noted that China has not adopted the RD-93 even though they had access to it. The Pakistanis did for the JF-17 but the Chinese pitch continues to be that a single engined J-10 is far superior to the JF-17 so the adoption is questionable. That’s what makes the export pitch believable. Otherwise J-31 just a technology demonstrator or Mig-29 pitched as a low-cost fighter in the hi-lo mix which never worked out.



I didn't say the J-31 was as good or better than the F-35. I was just pointing out the fact that China needs a Strike Fighter in that class.

Also, most don't believe the J-20 is as good as the F-22. So, should China also cancel that program too???

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 11:31
by milosh
@Corsair1963

Do you know J-31 is private project? And its mark is FC-31 not J-31 to be precise because J-XX is for military financed projects.

Leading engineer hoped FC-31 will be adopted by navy and also for export he didn't mentioned PLAAF at all. PLAAF doesn't want it because of J-20 and becuase engine compatibility, J-10/11/20 all have similar class engine.

But it look like FC-31 will not be accepted by navy because type-002 carrier will have emals so naval J-20 isn't problem.

PLAAF strike fighter will not be stealthy, it would be version J-10 with some VLO tech that was mentioned couple of times.

Russian strike fighter is and will be Su-34, in fact they even consider to make CAS variant with armored engines and fuel tanks. It is lot easier then to make some new Su-25.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 11:50
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:I didn't say the J-31 was as good or better than the F-35. I was just pointing out the fact that China needs a Strike Fighter in that class.

Also, most don't believe the J-20 is as good as the F-22. So, should China also cancel that program too???

Agree. Eventually there needs to be a J-10 replacement. However, I don't think J-31 is the answer which is the point I am making.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 12:06
by hythelday
milosh wrote:Russian strike fighter is and will be Su-34, in fact they even consider to make CAS variant with armored engines and fuel tanks. It is lot easier then to make some new Su-25.


Any news if they are going to make it happen? I heard it maybe a couple of years ago and it seemed more like a rumor.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 13:46
by milosh
hythelday wrote:
milosh wrote:Russian strike fighter is and will be Su-34, in fact they even consider to make CAS variant with armored engines and fuel tanks. It is lot easier then to make some new Su-25.


Any news if they are going to make it happen? I heard it maybe a couple of years ago and it seemed more like a rumor.


If they are going for that I expect when time to replace Su-25SM3 came, so probable after 2025 or end of next decade, also in that time new engine will be available so Su-34 will not lose lot of agility even with additional armor.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 03:52
by disconnectedradical
So, a newer J-20 that came out recently got an actual EO device under the nose now.

Image
Image
Image

Have to admit, the J-20 is worrying me a bit now. From these pictures the build quality doesn't seem bad at all. :shock:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 05:17
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:@Corsair1963

Do you know J-31 is private project? And its mark is FC-31 not J-31 to be precise because J-XX is for military financed projects.

Leading engineer hoped FC-31 will be adopted by navy and also for export he didn't mentioned PLAAF at all. PLAAF doesn't want it because of J-20 and becuase engine compatibility, J-10/11/20 all have similar class engine.

But it look like FC-31 will not be accepted by navy because type-002 carrier will have emals so naval J-20 isn't problem.

PLAAF strike fighter will not be stealthy, it would be version J-10 with some VLO tech that was mentioned couple of times.

Russian strike fighter is and will be Su-34, in fact they even consider to make CAS variant with armored engines and fuel tanks. It is lot easier then to make some new Su-25.



Laughable........First, I have a bridge to sell you. If, you think the Chinese Government is not providing funding for the J-31. Second, I have a large bridge to sell you. If, you think the J-20 is going to be the sole 5th Generation Stealth Fighter for both the PLAAF and PLAN. Third, if you think China and Russia are going to rely on obsolete 4/4.5 Generation Fighters as they primary Strike Fighters. While, the US and her many Allies produce "thousands" of F-35's. Then I suggest you cut back on the Medication. As it will be your undoing...... :shock:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 05:22
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I didn't say the J-31 was as good or better than the F-35. I was just pointing out the fact that China needs a Strike Fighter in that class.

Also, most don't believe the J-20 is as good as the F-22. So, should China also cancel that program too???

Agree. Eventually there needs to be a J-10 replacement. However, I don't think J-31 is the answer which is the point I am making.


The point is the J-31 is the only answer. As it would take another 15-20 years to develop a totally new replacement. You think China will be willing to wait that long???

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 05:27
by Corsair1963
Honestly, it's clear China is serious about making the J-31 work. By the major redesign of the aircraft over the past 12-24 months.....



J-31B.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 05:33
by Corsair1963
Personally, I expect to see the J-31 as the primary Strike Fighter of both the PLAAF and PLAN. Just like the F-35 will be for the USAF/USN/USMC. 8)



Like the pictures of the J-20 above. The J-31 is maturing nicely and I have to say I am impressed overall with the fit and finish of the latest prototypes......


J-31A.jpg



J-31D.jpg



J-31C.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 03:34
by rheonomic
Ugh, those verticals are terrible. People need to stop making ugly airplanes.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 16:13
by mixelflick
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

The J-20 is said to be in production. (LRIP?) So, why couldn't it reach IOC by 2021???

Which, is not to say even if it does it will have anything close to 600! :wink:

For the same reason that the Su-57 won't reach IOC by 2021, even though it's in "production."

A- the aircraft and its systems aren't mature enough
B- in order to be considered IOC, you need sufficient trained pilots, maintainers, logistical supply chain/spare parts, sufficient operationally representative aircraft (with weapons testing complete)
C- the IOC squadron(s), need to have undergone multiple training exercises, to develop TTPs on how to properly employ the new capabilities.
D- what's the status on weapons integration and testing? Have there been any separation tests? Live fires?


So they surprised us once (J-20 flying so soon). Who's to say they can't have a rudimentary IOC in 2021? In fact, I think it's rather likely. A lot of them? No. Tons of trained pilots and an operational footprint far away from her shores? No. But 4 years is a long time. It's likely they're a lot further along than the Russians, who plan to have 12 birds between now and then.

All I'm saying is this: Our intelligence always seems to be a little to rosy when it comes to China's weapons systems. If memory serves, we didn't think they'd fly a 5th gen bird prior to 2020. They did it when, 5- 10 years earlier and not 1, but 2???

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 17:53
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:


So they surprised us once (J-20 flying so soon). Who's to say they can't have a rudimentary IOC in 2021? In fact, I think it's rather likely. A lot of them? No. Tons of trained pilots and an operational footprint far away from her shores? No. But 4 years is a long time. It's likely they're a lot further along than the Russians, who plan to have 12 birds between now and then.

All I'm saying is this: Our intelligence always seems to be a little to rosy when it comes to China's weapons systems. If memory serves, we didn't think they'd fly a 5th gen bird prior to 2020. They did it when, 5- 10 years earlier and not 1, but 2???


The Chinese didn't catch our intelligence agencies by surprise. The assessments are still correct (i.e. IOC between 2025 and 2030.)
What won't be IOC by 2021 are operational squadrons, that have actual combat capabilities, unless they plan on using even more concurrent development, than the F-35 (i.e. declare IOC without final production engines, avionics, sensors, weapon integration, logistical support, etc....) All of those things aren't happening in the next 4 years.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 18:22
by zhangmdev
rheonomic wrote:Ugh, those verticals are terrible. People need to stop making ugly airplanes.


Agree. Those wings and tails look messed up. Enlarged elevators and fattened boxy body makes the wings look smaller. Engine pipes stick out like some after-thought. And those distinct dark lines along slat and flap give the illusion as if they are stuck to the wing with duct tapes. Definitely not a looker.

So this is the 2nd prototype in 5 years, with significant redesign? I don't think J-31 project is given high priority.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 03:40
by weasel1962
Rather than seeing this from a western prism, it might actually help understand how the Chinese actually do it. This is not the first time a new aircraft is inducted. For example, the J-10 was first flown in year 1998. First production units was sent to 13th regiment in 2003 which was a test unit and then declared operational that same year. When “operational”, the planes are then transferred to a combat unit (in the J-10’s case, I think that was a regiment the 44th Division). How this is identified are thru serials (2 digit serials followed by 5 digit serials in test/combat units). The explanations of “insiders” in various forums further explain that once in the combat units, combat tactics are further developed and then become effectively combat ready which is roughly the western concept of IOC. I understand the combat readiness preparation process for the J-10 took about 2 years for the 1st unit and I note posters who mention that is repeated for the next unit etc (at much shorter times). It can also be noted that operational units start with initial versions with later units being equipped with later versions e.g. JH-7 then JH-7A (as well as the J-10 to J-10C units).

For the J-20. The first flight was noted in 2011. This was followed by 2 digit then 4 digit serials representing initial test units. The first production units (LRIP) were noted at end of 2016 with 5 digit serials (78xxx) = 176 brigade (since PLAAF has converted from regiments to brigades known as the “brigadization” process), That is where we are today and estimations are from 10-20 units have been produced. It is still unclear whether brigades are the same size as the previous regiments but regiments used to have 28 aircraft (doesn’t seem that the PLAAF operate using BAI/PAI concepts). The timeline does roughly correlate to what happened with the J-10. It is noted that the “operational” announcement was made in March this year. If it follows the J-10 timeline, it does suggest that the first combat unit could be noted in 2017-2018 and unit IOC by 2020.

As to the J-31’s likelihood of PLAAF adoption, I would cite the JF-17 as the classic example but I would readily accept that this is purely an assumption based on history and not based on any factual basis.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 05:54
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Rather than seeing this from a western prism, it might actually help understand how the Chinese actually do it. This is not the first time a new aircraft is inducted. For example, the J-10 was first flown in year 1998. First production units was sent to 13th regiment in 2003 which was a test unit and then declared operational that same year. When “operational”, the planes are then transferred to a combat unit (in the J-10’s case, I think that was a regiment the 44th Division). How this is identified are thru serials (2 digit serials followed by 5 digit serials in test/combat units). The explanations of “insiders” in various forums further explain that once in the combat units, combat tactics are further developed and then become effectively combat ready which is roughly the western concept of IOC. I understand the combat readiness preparation process for the J-10 took about 2 years for the 1st unit and I note posters who mention that is repeated for the next unit etc (at much shorter times). It can also be noted that operational units start with initial versions with later units being equipped with later versions e.g. JH-7 then JH-7A (as well as the J-10 to J-10C units).

For the J-20. The first flight was noted in 2011. This was followed by 2 digit then 4 digit serials representing initial test units. The first production units (LRIP) were noted at end of 2016 with 5 digit serials (78xxx) = 176 brigade (since PLAAF has converted from regiments to brigades known as the “brigadization” process), That is where we are today and estimations are from 10-20 units have been produced. It is still unclear whether brigades are the same size as the previous regiments but regiments used to have 28 aircraft (doesn’t seem that the PLAAF operate using BAI/PAI concepts). The timeline does roughly correlate to what happened with the J-10. It is noted that the “operational” announcement was made in March this year. If it follows the J-10 timeline, it does suggest that the first combat unit could be noted in 2017-2018 and unit IOC by 2020.

As to the J-31’s likelihood of PLAAF adoption, I would cite the JF-17 as the classic example but I would readily accept that this is purely an assumption based on history and not based on any factual basis.


So, your comparing the JF-17 to the J-31??? Would you care to elaborate??? :|

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 07:07
by weasel1962
When the JF-17 project was launched, roughly about the same time as the J-10, China was facing quite a fair bit of constraint due to embargoes arising from the Tienanmen incident, particularly on western technologies). Not many people will remember now that the project was actually started by China via AVIC who is now also developing the J-31 as well as the J-20. Pakistan was actually brought in a few years thereafter as a joint project owner which eventually pushed production to Pakistan.

A lot of people also thought then that the PLAAF would adopt the plane, notwithstanding that the J-10 was being developed in tandem also by AVIC. After all, it was Chinese designed, quite a lot of China resources went into the plane, and quite a few sources cited official pronouncements that the PLAAF would adopt the aircraft. In my humble opinion, it cannot be discounted that the JF-17 fighter project may have been a failsafe option in case the J-10 project had failed. It is rather interesting that the Chinese specifically chose the Mig’s RD engine instead of the more powerful AL-31 engine to drive the JF-17 which makes sense if one is taking an “insurance” approach to development.

The arguments then for JF-17 were the large numbers of J-6 and J-7s that needed replacement. History does show the JF-17 was never adopted by China. Again, it does not mean the J-31 will follow the way of the JF-17 but history does have a precedent to suggest so.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 08:03
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:When the JF-17 project was launched, roughly about the same time as the J-10, China was facing quite a fair bit of constraint due to embargoes arising from the Tienanmen incident, particularly on western technologies). Not many people will remember now that the project was actually started by China via AVIC who is now also developing the J-31 as well as the J-20. Pakistan was actually brought in a few years thereafter as a joint project owner which eventually pushed production to Pakistan.

A lot of people also thought then that the PLAAF would adopt the plane, notwithstanding that the J-10 was being developed in tandem also by AVIC. After all, it was Chinese designed, quite a lot of China resources went into the plane, and quite a few sources cited official pronouncements that the PLAAF would adopt the aircraft. In my humble opinion, it cannot be discounted that the JF-17 fighter project may have been a failsafe option in case the J-10 project had failed. It is rather interesting that the Chinese specifically chose the Mig’s RD engine instead of the more powerful AL-31 engine to drive the JF-17 which makes sense if one is taking an “insurance” approach to development.

The arguments then for JF-17 were the large numbers of J-6 and J-7s that needed replacement. History does show the JF-17 was never adopted by China. Again, it does not mean the J-31 will follow the way of the JF-17 but history does have a precedent to suggest so.


It was my understanding that the JF-17 was a cheap export fighter tailored specifically with Pakistan in mind. While, the J-10 was planned as a F-16 equivalent for the PLAAF and to a lesser extent the PLAN. Yet, in either case today there is no JF-17 equivalent to the J-31 today.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 08:09
by Corsair1963
Honestly, what is odd to me is all of these people that discount the J-31 in favor of the J-20. While, China pours more and more resources into the J-31 Program........


Case in point......first flight of the J-31 V2


23559528_1792420627477115_5128577773684293715_n.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 08:53
by weasel1962
Cheap export fighter? Sounds very familiar

From Janes...
http://www.janes.com/article/45625/airs ... er-concept

AVIC officials at Airshow China 2014 would not comment on the J-31 and FC-31's development, nor detail the aircrafts' respective performance specifications, except to reiterate that the FC-31 is intended for the international export market, with "a number of countries expressing an interest in the aircraft"....

SAC's FC-31 multirole fighter concept is China's most ambitious export fighter programme yet, under which it is seeking to develop a relatively low cost multirole platform with an emphasis on strike capabilities and incorporating some degree of stealth - although the latter's actual radar evading effectiveness is unknown.

The design evidently stands a reasonable chance of entering production (provided that a customer is found) given that a prototype, the J-31, has already been successfully flown for a number of years and has now been demonstrated to the international public.


From China daily....

China targets export sales with its latest advanced fighter jet
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/view/201 ... 424350.htm

Li Yuhai, deputy general manager of AVIC, has previously said AVIC plans to use the FC-31 to "put an end to some nations' monopolies on the fifth-generation fighter jet" and this plane "is able to compete with any other aircraft of its kind".

The only fifth-generation fighter jet currently available in the market is the US' F-35 Lightning II, but the US sells it only to allies.


Weasel's comments: There's quite a fair bit of news supporting what Milosh had already mentioned previously...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 09:39
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Cheap export fighter? Sounds very familiar

From Janes...
http://www.janes.com/article/45625/airs ... er-concept

AVIC officials at Airshow China 2014 would not comment on the J-31 and FC-31's development, nor detail the aircrafts' respective performance specifications, except to reiterate that the FC-31 is intended for the international export market, with "a number of countries expressing an interest in the aircraft"....

SAC's FC-31 multirole fighter concept is China's most ambitious export fighter programme yet, under which it is seeking to develop a relatively low cost multirole platform with an emphasis on strike capabilities and incorporating some degree of stealth - although the latter's actual radar evading effectiveness is unknown.

The design evidently stands a reasonable chance of entering production (provided that a customer is found) given that a prototype, the J-31, has already been successfully flown for a number of years and has now been demonstrated to the international public.


From China daily....

China targets export sales with its latest advanced fighter jet
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/view/201 ... 424350.htm

Li Yuhai, deputy general manager of AVIC, has previously said AVIC plans to use the FC-31 to "put an end to some nations' monopolies on the fifth-generation fighter jet" and this plane "is able to compete with any other aircraft of its kind".

The only fifth-generation fighter jet currently available in the market is the US' F-35 Lightning II, but the US sells it only to allies.


Weasel's comments: There's quite a fair bit of news supporting what Milosh had already mentioned previously...


You could just as easily say the F-35 is intended for the international export market, with "a number of countries expressing an interest in the aircraft".... :?

Nonetheless, you like others are glossing over the whole point. That is China has "no" other option..... :doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 10:16
by zhangmdev
J-10 was covered in secrecy for years after its first flight. FC-1/JF-17 maiden flight was highly publicized by the official media. That is how China treats a high-priority project and some side show differently.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 10:49
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:You could just as easily say the F-35 is intended for the international export market, with "a number of countries expressing an interest in the aircraft".... :?

Nonetheless, you like others are glossing over the whole point. That is China has "no" other option..... :doh:


Good point and no one is discounting that the J-31 might actually enter PLAAF service (although many speculate the PLAN as the more likely candidate). Would highlight that some people still think the PLAAF will eventually adopt the JF-17 as well. Can’t disprove that either :bang: .

There are major differences between the F-35 program and the J-31 program though. The F-35 program was undertaken by the US DoD with full funding and LM as the main contractor so the decision to acquire in large numbers locally was already in place from day 1. The J-31 program, on the other hand, raised a few eyebrows when the AVIC chairman himself claimed in year 2014 the entire development was undertaken via the company with no funding from the Government i.e. purely private venture. Whilst that is, in my opinion, a bit difficult to believe, there aren’t really much facts that have been put forward to suggest otherwise. Yes, a lot of rumors and logic but facts?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 11:17
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:You could just as easily say the F-35 is intended for the international export market, with "a number of countries expressing an interest in the aircraft".... :?

Nonetheless, you like others are glossing over the whole point. That is China has "no" other option..... :doh:


Good point and no one is discounting that the J-31 might actually enter PLAAF service (although many speculate the PLAN as the more likely candidate). Would highlight that some people still think the PLAAF will eventually adopt the JF-17 as well. Can’t disprove that either :bang: .

There are major differences between the F-35 program and the J-31 program though. The F-35 program was undertaken by the US DoD with full funding and LM as the main contractor so the decision to acquire in large numbers locally was already in place from day 1. The J-31 program, on the other hand, raised a few eyebrows when the AVIC chairman himself claimed in year 2014 the entire development was undertaken via the company with no funding from the Government i.e. purely private venture. Whilst that is, in my opinion, a bit difficult to believe, there aren’t really much facts that have been put forward to suggest otherwise. Yes, a lot of rumors and logic but facts?



Well, sounds like we agree more than we disagree??? Like you I doubt that China would ever adopt the JF-17. Nor, that AVIC is footing the entire bill for the development of the J-31 without Government Assistance! (absurd in my opinion)

Yet, my basic point is the J-31 is critical for both the PLAAF and PLAN. As China can't project power without a Modern 5th Generation Tactical Fighter Fleet. Which, surely isn't going to be J-20. As such a fleet would have to be produced in very large numbers. So, considering to start from scratch and start all over. Would take another 20-30 years. Means we are right back to the J-31 as the only real viable option...


Which, clearly China agrees with as she is accelerating its development..... :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 17:18
by milosh
I really don't see any significant acceleration of J-31, look J-20, dozen prototypes were build, and they delivered dozen J-20 to unit, while J-31 had only two prototypes very different to be clear. So they need to speed it up a lot to match J-20 development phase.

And there is engine problem.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 00:36
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:I really don't see any significant acceleration of J-31, look J-20, dozen prototypes were build, and they delivered dozen J-20 to unit, while J-31 had only two prototypes very different to be clear. So they need to speed it up a lot to match J-20 development phase.

And there is engine problem.



The have produced several developmental (prototypes) J-31's. Including two of the recently redesign models pictured in the above postings. In addition what engines problems???

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 04:06
by disconnectedradical
Isn't J-31/FC-31 made by Shenyang and not AVIC (Chengdu)?

Who said China has same requirements and goals as US?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 06:43
by weasel1962
There are only 2 J-31s sighted, both of which flew. The first sighted in 2012 was numbered “31001” which is not a unit but was suggested as a cheeky reference to 31 Oct. The second was sighted in late 2016 in LRIP yellow. No other units have been sighted (table top units for airshow displays excluded). As Milosh has pointed out, by this time of the J-20 development, there were a lot more J-20s already sighted.

There aren’t actually any engine issues associated with the RD-93. China bought quite a number for the JF-17 production and certainly no issues encountered since JF-17s are already into Block 3. Milosh is probably referring to the WS-13 Taishan engine development. It has taken quite a while and was slated for JF-17 use but Pakistan has not adopted this just yet. I think the 2nd J-31 is using the WS-13 engine which may explain the long timing difference between the 1st and 2nd J-31. The LRIP J-20s are using the AL-31F engines, not the indigenous engine so it might be a case of the Government prioritizing the J-20 program.

@DR - Shenyang aircraft corporation is a subsidiary of AVIC. So is Chengdu.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 07:08
by Corsair1963
disconnectedradical wrote:Isn't J-31/FC-31 made by Shenyang and not AVIC (Chengdu)?

Who said China has same requirements and goals as US?



YES


NOBODY

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 07:34
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:There are only 2 J-31s sighted, both of which flew. The first sighted in 2012 was numbered “31001” which is not a unit but was suggested as a cheeky reference to 31 Oct. The second was sighted in late 2016 in LRIP yellow. No other units have been sighted (table top units for airshow displays excluded). As Milosh has pointed out, by this time of the J-20 development, there were a lot more J-20s already sighted.

There aren’t actually any engine issues associated with the RD-93. China bought quite a number for the JF-17 production and certainly no issues encountered since JF-17s are already into Block 3. Milosh is probably referring to the WS-13 Taishan engine development. It has taken quite a while and was slated for JF-17 use but Pakistan has not adopted this just yet. I think the 2nd J-31 is using the WS-13 engine which may explain the long timing difference between the 1st and 2nd J-31. The LRIP J-20s are using the AL-31F engines, not the indigenous engine so it might be a case of the Government prioritizing the J-20 program.

@DR - Shenyang aircraft corporation is a subsidiary of AVIC. So is Chengdu.



China has built two prototypes of the First Generation and Second Generation.


1st Generation (31001)

J-31E.jpg





2nd Generation (V2)*

j31L.jpg


*Note: Some sources have reported that another second generation J-31 has flown. Yet, I haven't see any credible sources to support that??? Nonetheless, V2 was powered by the WS-13E and a number of eyewitnesses state that it was totally smokeless...... :D

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 07:41
by Corsair1963
BTW I never stated that the J-31 as far along in development or as mature as the J-20. I just simply stated that the J-31 is critical to the future of the PLAAF and PLAN....."IMHO"

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 11:49
by hornetfinn
weasel1962 wrote:There aren’t actually any engine issues associated with the RD-93. China bought quite a number for the JF-17 production and certainly no issues encountered since JF-17s are already into Block 3. Milosh is probably referring to the WS-13 Taishan engine development. It has taken quite a while and was slated for JF-17 use but Pakistan has not adopted this just yet. I think the 2nd J-31 is using the WS-13 engine which may explain the long timing difference between the 1st and 2nd J-31. The LRIP J-20s are using the AL-31F engines, not the indigenous engine so it might be a case of the Government prioritizing the J-20 program.


I think there are several engine issues with the RD-93 specifically with J-31. Not that the engine itself is bad, but it's just a 1970s basic design with some modernization. It's not a 5th gen engine for 5th gen fighter. It has no stealth features and also gives J-31 rather poor T/W ratio, especially on dry thrust. While empty weight of J-31 is not known, it seems rather unlikely that it's lighter than F-35 for example.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 12:09
by weasel1962
hornetfinn wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There aren’t actually any engine issues associated with the RD-93. China bought quite a number for the JF-17 production and certainly no issues encountered since JF-17s are already into Block 3. Milosh is probably referring to the WS-13 Taishan engine development. It has taken quite a while and was slated for JF-17 use but Pakistan has not adopted this just yet. I think the 2nd J-31 is using the WS-13 engine which may explain the long timing difference between the 1st and 2nd J-31. The LRIP J-20s are using the AL-31F engines, not the indigenous engine so it might be a case of the Government prioritizing the J-20 program.


I think there are several engine issues with the RD-93 specifically with J-31. Not that the engine itself is bad, but it's just a 1970s basic design with some modernization. It's not a 5th gen engine for 5th gen fighter. It has no stealth features and also gives J-31 rather poor T/W ratio, especially on dry thrust. While empty weight of J-31 is not known, it seems rather unlikely that it's lighter than F-35 for example.


Same goes for the AL-31F on the J-20. Its not easy to design a fifth gen engine.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 17:12
by milosh
weasel1962 wrote:Same goes for the AL-31F on the J-20. Its not easy to design a fifth gen engine.


But you can replace AL-31 with 117 or future Izd.30 engine that luxury you don't have with fighter which use RD-33 based engine.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 10:17
by zoomie289
Interesting tidbit on engine tech from China
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-talks-s ... 44775.html?

"China is in talks to sell Germany state-of-the-art machinery and technology critical in the manufacture of high-performance jet engines,"

I'm shocked to see them sell to Germany and not the other way around

Article also mentions a WS-15 engine thats planned for the J20

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 14:26
by sferrin
zoomie289 wrote:Interesting tidbit on engine tech from China
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-talks-s ... 44775.html?

"China is in talks to sell Germany state-of-the-art machinery and technology critical in the manufacture of high-performance jet engines,"

I'm shocked to see them sell to Germany and not the other way around

Article also mentions a WS-15 engine thats planned for the J20


What's the last fighter turbine engine Germany produced? Exactly.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 14:45
by hornetfinn
LOL at the idea that Germany would need jet engine technology from China. They have company like MTU Aero Engines AG, which is producing major parts for pretty modern engines like EJ200 and F414. Chinese companies have not produced anything better than copies of 1970s AL-31 and RD-33 really. It doesn't sound very plausible that they could offer anything for the Germans in this field. Maybe Chinese should try to sell their technology to P&W, GE and RR also? :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 19:46
by tsl256
China declares that the J-20 is now actively deployed, and combat capable.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... ombat-duty

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 04:52
by weasel1962
hornetfinn wrote:LOL at the idea that Germany would need jet engine technology from China. They have company like MTU Aero Engines AG, which is producing major parts for pretty modern engines like EJ200 and F414. Chinese companies have not produced anything better than copies of 1970s AL-31 and RD-33 really. It doesn't sound very plausible that they could offer anything for the Germans in this field. Maybe Chinese should try to sell their technology to P&W, GE and RR also? :wink:


Not really an issue. China has been manufacturing engine parts for quite some time. Chinese parts end up even in US aircraft over the years...

https://www.rt.com/news/us-air-force-co ... onics-879/
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/03/us-put- ... ogram.html

In this German case, its blades.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/ ... gy-germany

Its a bit eye popping because one part that China was not known to have was good metallurgy (including Russian) leading to a shorter engine life. However, its easy to underestimate Chinese R&D but when the stats are analysed, its not really that surprising.

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-resea ... pment-rnd/
http://bruegel.org/2017/08/china-is-the ... owerhouse/

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 16:45
by mixelflick
tsl256 wrote:China declares that the J-20 is now actively deployed, and combat capable.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... ombat-duty


Ummm... is that really possible? It seems like they moved real fast from testing to "combat capable". Either they're rushing things or it sailed through testing with few bugs. Then again, perhaps my perspective is tainted due to seeing the F-22 and -35 suffer from protracted and painful development periods..

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 19:18
by rheonomic
mixelflick wrote:Ummm... is that really possible? It seems like they moved real fast from testing to "combat capable". Either they're rushing things or it sailed through testing with few bugs. Then again, perhaps my perspective is tainted due to seeing the F-22 and -35 suffer from protracted and painful development periods..


They don't have the same testing standards we do. I'm pretty sure the JSF program included the most extensive test program for a fighter aircraft to date.

The Chinese are also willing to accept more risk than we are.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 19:57
by count_to_10
rheonomic wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Ummm... is that really possible? It seems like they moved real fast from testing to "combat capable". Either they're rushing things or it sailed through testing with few bugs. Then again, perhaps my perspective is tainted due to seeing the F-22 and -35 suffer from protracted and painful development periods..


They don't have the same testing standards we do. I'm pretty sure the JSF program included the most extensive test program for a fighter aircraft to date.

The Chinese are also willing to accept more risk than we are.

I’m still impressed that the F-35 hasn’t killed any pilots yet.
Would we even know if the Chinese test program produced casualties?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 21:29
by rheonomic
count_to_10 wrote:I’m still impressed that the F-35 hasn’t killed any pilots yet.


Hopefully with the eventual Auto GCAS and Auto ACAS integration we can keep it that way as long as possible.

count_to_10 wrote:Would we even know if the Chinese test program produced casualties?


Almost certainly not.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 20:32
by popcorn
An unflattering assessment of the J-20 focusing on troublesome WS-15 gestation. Opinion that it may take another 8 year's to debug the engine and mass produce.
Also speculation on Japan's interest in F-35B for Izumo-class to counter J-15s which are deemed 10X less capable than the JSF.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy- ... ed-service

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 01:08
by nn8734
popcorn wrote:An unflattering assessment of the J-20 focusing on troublesome WS-15 gestation. Opinion that it may take another 8 year's to debug the engine and mass produce.
Also speculation on Japan's interest in F-35B for Izumo-class to counter J-15s which are deemed 10X less capable than the JSF.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy- ... ed-service


So by time the Chicoms get their sh*t together with the WS15, the J20 will have to deal with not just F35s by the gross but F22s and Penetrating Counter Air and the Navy’s sixth gen. That said, hopefully Pratt and GE have taken the necessary steps to prevent Chinese thievery of classified engine tech info/data.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 07:30
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:An unflattering assessment of the J-20 focusing on troublesome WS-15 gestation. Opinion that it may take another 8 year's to debug the engine and mass produce.
Also speculation on Japan's interest in F-35B for Izumo-class to counter J-15s which are deemed 10X less capable than the JSF.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy- ... ed-service



Honestly, I don't see it as a big issue at least not short-term. As the J-20 can use the WS-10B or WS-10 IPE or AL-31F or possibly even the AL-41F-1S (i.e. 117S) Which, should be adequate to the task.......

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 12:14
by hornetfinn
weasel1962 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:LOL at the idea that Germany would need jet engine technology from China. They have company like MTU Aero Engines AG, which is producing major parts for pretty modern engines like EJ200 and F414. Chinese companies have not produced anything better than copies of 1970s AL-31 and RD-33 really. It doesn't sound very plausible that they could offer anything for the Germans in this field. Maybe Chinese should try to sell their technology to P&W, GE and RR also? :wink:


Not really an issue. China has been manufacturing engine parts for quite some time. Chinese parts end up even in US aircraft over the years...

https://www.rt.com/news/us-air-force-co ... onics-879/
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/03/us-put- ... ogram.html


Some magnets and counterfeit electronics components are not really high tech. There are probably Chinese made parts (genuine and counterfeit) in very many military (and civilian) products, mainly because they tend to be cheap and good enough in many cases.

weasel1962 wrote:In this German case, its blades.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/ ... gy-germany


But that's exactly the kind of technology that German manufacturers are very good at and Chinese companies have struggled for decades. Even the Chinese Comac C919 airliner uses engines from CFM and not Chinese engines (I know that they might start using those at some point as they are in development). Chinese operational (military or civilian) engines are not very impressive compared to engines that German manufacturers work with. Also German companies could easily buy proven technology from USA, France and UK for example.

weasel1962 wrote:Its a bit eye popping because one part that China was not known to have was good metallurgy (including Russian) leading to a shorter engine life. However, its easy to underestimate Chinese R&D but when the stats are analysed, its not really that surprising.

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-resea ... pment-rnd/
http://bruegel.org/2017/08/china-is-the ... owerhouse/


Sure, I don't dismiss China at all and they are getting better and better. However they still have a long way to go before they are really competitive with Western technology.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 12:45
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:
popcorn wrote:An unflattering assessment of the J-20 focusing on troublesome WS-15 gestation. Opinion that it may take another 8 year's to debug the engine and mass produce.
Also speculation on Japan's interest in F-35B for Izumo-class to counter J-15s which are deemed 10X less capable than the JSF.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy- ... ed-service



Honestly, I don't see it as a big issue at least not short-term. As the J-20 can use the WS-10B or WS-10 IPE or AL-31F or possibly even the AL-41F-1S (i.e. 117S) Which, should be adequate to the task.......


Would you feel the same if the Raptor had to make do with F100/F101 engine tech?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 19:45
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:
popcorn wrote:An unflattering assessment of the J-20 focusing on troublesome WS-15 gestation. Opinion that it may take another 8 year's to debug the engine and mass produce.
Also speculation on Japan's interest in F-35B for Izumo-class to counter J-15s which are deemed 10X less capable than the JSF.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy- ... ed-service



Honestly, I don't see it as a big issue at least not short-term. As the J-20 can use the WS-10B or WS-10 IPE or AL-31F or possibly even the AL-41F-1S (i.e. 117S) Which, should be adequate to the task.......


I wouldn't be surprise we see some Salyut engine developed for Chinese based on Al-41F3.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 04:08
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
popcorn wrote:An unflattering assessment of the J-20 focusing on troublesome WS-15 gestation. Opinion that it may take another 8 year's to debug the engine and mass produce.
Also speculation on Japan's interest in F-35B for Izumo-class to counter J-15s which are deemed 10X less capable than the JSF.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy- ... ed-service



Honestly, I don't see it as a big issue at least not short-term. As the J-20 can use the WS-10B or WS-10 IPE or AL-31F or possibly even the AL-41F-1S (i.e. 117S) Which, should be adequate to the task.......


I wouldn't be surprise we see some Salyut engine developed for Chinese based on Al-41F3.


China already has the Su-35 is service. So, that would make a lot on sense. Assuming they can't overcome the issues with the WS-15??? That said, Russia needs money so badly. That I am sure they would be happy to sell China the izdeliye 30. When it's finally ready in about a decade. :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 12:38
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:China already has the Su-35 is service. So, that would make a lot on sense. Assuming they can't overcome the issues with the WS-15??? That said, Russia needs money so badly. That I am sure they would be happy to sell China the izdeliye 30. When it's finally ready in about a decade. :wink:


Russians would be fools not to offer type 30 for export, it can be used in any Flanker and of course in J-20.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 06:11
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:China already has the Su-35 is service. So, that would make a lot on sense. Assuming they can't overcome the issues with the WS-15??? That said, Russia needs money so badly. That I am sure they would be happy to sell China the izdeliye 30. When it's finally ready in about a decade. :wink:


Russians would be fools not to offer type 30 for export, it can be used in any Flanker and of course in J-20.




I am sure China would love that..... :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 06:59
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:China already has the Su-35 is service. So, that would make a lot on sense. Assuming they can't overcome the issues with the WS-15??? That said, Russia needs money so badly. That I am sure they would be happy to sell China the izdeliye 30. When it's finally ready in about a decade. :wink:


Russians would be fools not to offer type 30 for export, it can be used in any Flanker and of course in J-20.


I am sure China would love that..... :wink:



We are the CHICOM - You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your engine and its technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 07:47
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:We are the CHICOM - You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your engine and its technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.



:lmao:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 10:23
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:China already has the Su-35 is service. So, that would make a lot on sense. Assuming they can't overcome the issues with the WS-15??? That said, Russia needs money so badly. That I am sure they would be happy to sell China the izdeliye 30. When it's finally ready in about a decade. :wink:


Russians would be fools not to offer type 30 for export, it can be used in any Flanker and of course in J-20.




I am sure China would love that..... :wink:


It isn't easy to copycat engine only if you bought it. You need to know how most tricky parts are build. Russians sold them know how about Al-31 in past (so Chinese can maintain them) and that is how China got needed tech to copycat Al-31. But if you look their domestic WS-15 they have problems. They want mono crystal blades, old Al-31 didn't had them so Chinese need to find out how to mass produce them, and as we see they have troubles. So if Russia just sell them Type-30 I doubt they will be able to copycat it reasonable time frame. It is more logical to fix WS-15 and to use Type-30 as backup until WS-15 ready then to waste time and effort to copy something which is more advanced then WS-15.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 10:45
by geforcerfx
milosh wrote:
It isn't easy to copycat engine only if you bought it. You need to know how most tricky parts are build. Russians sold them know how about Al-31 in past (so Chinese can maintain them) and that is how China got needed tech to copycat Al-31. But if you look their domestic WS-15 they have problems. They want mono crystal blades, old Al-31 didn't had them so Chinese need to find out how to mass produce them, and as we see they have troubles. So if Russia just sell them Type-30 I doubt they will be able to copycat it reasonable time frame. It is more logical to fix WS-15 and to use Type-30 as backup until WS-15 ready then to waste time and effort to copy something which is more advanced then WS-15.


I don't know if I would use your example. Russia gave the engine info to the Chinese so they could maintain jets makes sense for 1990's China. Twenty teens china is becoming a engineering super power, the level of engineering experience and capabilities are 4-8 times what they were when China first got the flanker. If I was Russia I would see this as the cut off point for selling military tech to the Chinese. Russia might think the USA is some major threat, but we don't share a border, we don't out number Russia 10 to 1 and we have our own oil, China on the other hand.....

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 13:59
by madrat
China is a burgeoning post-oil driver. Imagine what happens if China no longer needed their energy.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 14:27
by milosh
geforcerfx wrote:
milosh wrote:
It isn't easy to copycat engine only if you bought it. You need to know how most tricky parts are build. Russians sold them know how about Al-31 in past (so Chinese can maintain them) and that is how China got needed tech to copycat Al-31. But if you look their domestic WS-15 they have problems. They want mono crystal blades, old Al-31 didn't had them so Chinese need to find out how to mass produce them, and as we see they have troubles. So if Russia just sell them Type-30 I doubt they will be able to copycat it reasonable time frame. It is more logical to fix WS-15 and to use Type-30 as backup until WS-15 ready then to waste time and effort to copy something which is more advanced then WS-15.


I don't know if I would use your example. Russia gave the engine info to the Chinese so they could maintain jets makes sense for 1990's China. Twenty teens china is becoming a engineering super power, the level of engineering experience and capabilities are 4-8 times what they were when China first got the flanker. If I was Russia I would see this as the cut off point for selling military tech to the Chinese. Russia might think the USA is some major threat, but we don't share a border, we don't out number Russia 10 to 1 and we have our own oil, China on the other hand.....


East Siberia and Far East have small oil reserves in comparison with West Siberia and Urals. In south china sea you have same proven reserves as in E.Siberia (and much larger possible reserves).

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 20:35
by mixelflick
If the Russians are ahead of the Chinese in engine tech, and they just started flying their 5th gen engine... gonna be a long road for the J-20 to truly be 5th gen.

What blows my mind is that 27 years ago we were flying the F-119/F-120 5th gen engines in the ATF prototypes. You never hear much about F-119 upgrades, but I have to believe its been happening? Why would we cede a 27 year lead in engine tech by standing still?

The J-20 looks more of threat than the SU-57, although I think it's going to be a good decade before they have the engines. By then, they'll be what, 1,000 plus F-35's? And PCA won't be far behind. Speaking of the F-35, you DO hear about an improved thrust/fuel efficient version coming down the pike.

But not the F-119? What am I missing here??

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 21:32
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:Why would we cede a 27 year lead in engine tech by standing still?

Standing still? Jeez, you are on a roll again aren't you? :wink:

Let me spell a few acronyms for you (in alphabetical order) so you can get yourself educated:
* AATE
* ADVENT
* AETD
* ATEC
* EDE
* IHPTET
* ITEP
* LEAP
* VAATE

I also assume you have never heard of the F-135 engine? :devil:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 15:39
by mixelflick
Yes, yes. I'm aware of the F-135 and some of the enhancement programs you mentioned.

I was referring specifically to the F-119. Are these same upgrade/enhancement programs you're mentioning applicable to that engine?

If so, 'twasn't apparent to me...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 02:24
by megui
Hello you mean little guys across pacific ocean :)

Yep, J-20s are now in IOC
Yep, they're delivered to combat force
Nope, we're still way behind but chasing up

May the peace be with all of us :D
Cheerio

--from a mean little guy on chinese new year's day

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 03:41
by white_lightning35
Hello you mean little guys across pacific ocean :)


How do you know where I am. :shock:

Yep, J-20s are now in IOC


Usain Bolt is faster than average. I am faster than average. Therefore I am as fast as Usain Bolt.

Yep, they're delivered to combat force


See above

Nope, we're still way behind but chasing up


Absolutely correct.

May the peace be with all of us :D
Cheerio


My local Chinese restaurant says I'm a rabbit, so I'm always peaceful. 8)

--from a mean little guy on chinese new year's day


Don't be so hard on yourself, and happy chinese new year.

P.S I think the only way your country will surpass my country is by us resting on our laurels. I have seen posters on here talk about how far behind you are, and how we don't need that much concern. I'll just say that thinking like that never ends well.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 17:31
by mixelflick
"Yep, J-20s are now in IOC

Usain Bolt is faster than average. I am faster than average. Therefore I am as fast as Usain Bolt..."

Brilliant!

:mrgreen:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 19:56
by megui
white_lightning35 wrote:P.S I think the only way your country will surpass my country is by us resting on our laurels. I have seen posters on here talk about how far behind you are, and how we don't need that much concern. I'll just say that thinking like that never ends well.


There's always one way or another like surpassing in domestic economy in foreseeable future. :mrgreen: Let's get a bit more serious, comparing R&D of aviation industry between superpowers is nothing like putting Usain Bolt and an average person in a sprint race. In the past Cold War Eagle was to Flanker as Usain is to the second place on podium. Now in the 5th gen club AVIC seems to be overtaking KnAAPO, it's not a big club after all. Considering they're making crappy 'MiG' J-7 and MiG-like J-8 in the late 90s, counterintuitive as it may seem, the Republic has gain enough defensive power(not offensive)-5th gen, CV(s), recently LRASM, GMD and so on- to prevent such humiliation as in Taiwan Strait two decades ago and others in the beginning of this century. :doh: Though optimistic I myself sometimes feel pessimistic when reading NASA's past researches on extreme AOA and vortex-ology, which have been done and implemented like thirty forty years ago. Not just Chengdu but Dassault, Saab, Sukhoi or MiG can replicate nothing but admire or even envy the complexity of FCS and aerodynamics on those US fighters. While minor details can be always absorbed quickly for example DSI yields same result with less effort with computer simulation, EODAS shares the same methodology as well. Lot of jabberish as I'm saying, hell yes it will still take years to decades for the rest of all to catch up, but promising still, at least for now.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 03:00
by element1loop
megui wrote:... hell yes it will still take years to decades for the rest of all to catch up, but promising still, at least for now.


Rushed into service with AL-31 proxy ... says it all.

Internet claimed figs:

Empty: 42,750 lb
Fuel Load: 25,000 lb
Empty + Full Fuel: 67,750 lb
Claimed Gross: 70,750 lb (i.e. 4,000 lb kit added)
MTOW: 80,000 lb
Implied Payload: 9,250 lb
Initial Engine Max Thrust: 64,000 lb (best case)

T:W @ MTOW = 0.80

Now, same starting condition @ 50% fuel burned:

T:W @ MTOW (- 50% Fuel load) = 0.944

Same start condition @ -50% fuel @ -50% payload:

T:W @ 50% payload (-50% Fuel load) = 1.02

That would be its approximately best T:W with an A2A loadout, at point of engagement.

(doubt there will be an F-35 tail-chase crisis)

They can re-engine, but I bet they need new-builds.

This is the prototype testing fleet.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 12:09
by vilters
I hope for THEM that the above figures are incorrect.
IF they are true? They have a 3G airplane. (If the nose is pointing down. LOL.)

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 20:22
by juretrn
megui wrote:In the past Cold War Eagle was to Flanker as Usain is to the second place on podium.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2018, 04:35
by weasel1962
weasel1962 wrote:Rather than seeing this from a western prism, it might actually help understand how the Chinese actually do it. This is not the first time a new aircraft is inducted. For example, the J-10 was first flown in year 1998. First production units was sent to 13th regiment in 2003 which was a test unit and then declared operational that same year. When “operational”, the planes are then transferred to a combat unit (in the J-10’s case, I think that was a regiment the 44th Division). How this is identified are thru serials (2 digit serials followed by 5 digit serials in test/combat units). The explanations of “insiders” in various forums further explain that once in the combat units, combat tactics are further developed and then become effectively combat ready which is roughly the western concept of IOC. I understand the combat readiness preparation process for the J-10 took about 2 years for the 1st unit and I note posters who mention that is repeated for the next unit etc (at much shorter times). It can also be noted that operational units start with initial versions with later units being equipped with later versions e.g. JH-7 then JH-7A (as well as the J-10 to J-10C units).

For the J-20. The first flight was noted in 2011. This was followed by 2 digit then 4 digit serials representing initial test units. The first production units (LRIP) were noted at end of 2016 with 5 digit serials (78xxx) = 176 brigade (since PLAAF has converted from regiments to brigades known as the “brigadization” process), That is where we are today and estimations are from 10-20 units have been produced. It is still unclear whether brigades are the same size as the previous regiments but regiments used to have 28 aircraft (doesn’t seem that the PLAAF operate using BAI/PAI concepts). The timeline does roughly correlate to what happened with the J-10. It is noted that the “operational” announcement was made in March this year. If it follows the J-10 timeline, it does suggest that the first combat unit could be noted in 2017-2018 and unit IOC by 2020.


Consistent with the above timeline, I just wanted to highlight that the J-20 is now noted this month by scramble in 9th brigade which is a combat unit.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 12:48
by knowan
Airshow footage: https://streamable.com/qdw3b

Thoughts?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 12:58
by marsavian
Pretty good instantaneous/AoA ability, competent sustained and adequate transient ability. The canards save such a big aircraft and give it respectable 4th gen performance, it's like a bigger less agile Rafale/Typhoon.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 18:09
by mixelflick
knowan wrote:Airshow footage: https://streamable.com/qdw3b

Thoughts?


Rolls much better than I expected. Probably the most sprightly display I've seen yet. I find it telling they don't use thrust vectoring. Probably decided its not worth the cost/weight penalties. Should be something with up rated engines, but being they're behind more than the Russians in that area...

The big question is, how's the stealth? If it's up to par, then coupled with Chinese avionics and weapons... it's going to be quite a threat. Both to US tankers/AWACS as well as our carriers. It will entirely outclass the Super Hornet, and only the F-35C will be able to meet it on an equal footing. Given that platforms lower thrust to weight ratio, I'd have some concerns there too. I do think the F-35's stealth, sensors and SA will be better. How much so and for how long is the real question.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 20:39
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:
knowan wrote:Airshow footage: https://streamable.com/qdw3b

Thoughts?


Rolls much better than I expected. Probably the most sprightly display I've seen yet.


Yeah, I also think that it definitely rolls better than what I was also anticipating.
However for the rest of the maneuvers - and while there were some neat ones - I felt that the aircraft (J-20) was somehow "slow" when performing even the tightest turning and acceleration maneuvers specially when compared to those of the F-35 (F-35C included) and even other aircraft like the Eurocannards (Typhoon and Rafale).

IMO, I would say that the F-35C (even the -C variant) has a quite better agility than the J-20 but this is very hard to judge (if possible at all) just by looking at "airshows".


mixelflick wrote:I do think the F-35's stealth, sensors and SA will be better. How much so and for how long is the real question.


I also think that the F-35 has (much) better Stealth and also (much) better sensors and SA.
While in theory it could be possible for China to someday match the F-35 sensors, I would say that for something like this to happen it would require that the US and its allies stopped the development of new sensors/technology for the F-35 so that China could catch up but I don't think that's going to happen.

Regarding Stealth, if the F-35 is already stealthier than the J-20 (and I have no doubts about it) than the good news (for the F-35) is that it will always be stealthier than the J-20 since Stealth is not something that you can simply "retrofit" (or vastly improve) on an existing aircraft.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 12:15
by weasel1962
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11 ... i-airshow/

Indeed, at the air show, Yang Wei, the chief engineer of the J-20 program, cryptically responded with a cheeky “how do you know we haven’t already done so?” when asked by a local reporter if the J-20 will be similarly fitted with WS-10 engines incorporating thrust vectoring control.


Weasel's note: The F-35 may be stealthier than a J-20A today but J-20B or J-20C?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 15:19
by vilters
A first block F-16A flies a more aggressive display without using afterburner, so we are talking early 1980 performance in 2018.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 15:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
vilters wrote:A first block F-16A flies a more aggressive display without using afterburner, so we are talking early 1980 performance in 2018.

From an aircraft with a layout and mission performance more like a MiG-31 or F-111. Context. The J-20 design speaks to extended high speed mission parameters. The F-16A was a purpose built knife fighter.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 16:12
by tphuang
In terms of J-20 maneuverability, I think they are still being conservative with what they are showcasing on these airshow. It takes a while for PLAAF to reach and then publicly display the full flight envelope of a newly developed aircraft. Aside from being a new aircraft, it is also still quite an underpowered one. J-10 used to have the most boring of air show flight displays when we knew from released videos and insider comments that it was capable of far more. I think that was kind of vindicated with the recent J-10B display, which seems to be a testbed for the canard + TVC combo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keub-5jh_M4

PLAAF seems to really like this canard + Lerx + TVC combo that they were willing to sacrifice stealth somewhat. Give it 3 to 5 more years once it has achieved FOC and is equipped with WS-15 + TVC, I think you will see quicker turns and better maneuvers. I personally think that they designed it to be more maneuverable than the eurocanards. J-20 is never going to match F-35 in stealth, that's too big a hill to climb for a first real attempt. They are going to have such a huge learning process with respect to improving software that controls the aircraft, the pilots that now have to learn how to make use of the greater situation awareness and how to maintain stealth quality on J-20 and improving their availability. All of that cannot get fast tracked.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 16:43
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:Weasel's note: The F-35 may be stealthier than a J-20A today but J-20B or J-20C?


It doesn't matter if you're talking about a J-20A, J-20B, J-20C or a J-20D-thru-Z, unless those other post-J-20A aircraft are completely new and differently designed aircraft than they will never be stealthier than the F-35!
Remember, Stealth isn't something that you can simply add to an existing aircraft - you have to design it from the start.

And even if you could "add stealth" (or more precisely reduce RCS) on further J-20 variants like for example a J-20C then how would you compare it against improved F-35s? You are aware that the F-35 will also receive lots of improvements during its lifetime (probably even more than the J-20), no?
If you want to compare the "stealth level" of a tentative J-20C than you should probably "try" to compare it with an also tentative F-35D (or something along those lines)...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 16:48
by ricnunes
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
vilters wrote:A first block F-16A flies a more aggressive display without using afterburner, so we are talking early 1980 performance in 2018.

From an aircraft with a layout and mission performance more like a MiG-31 or F-111. Context. The J-20 design speaks to extended high speed mission parameters. The F-16A was a purpose built knife fighter.


I fully agree sprstdlyscottsmn.
Yes, when I always look at the J-20 it always crosses me as it being some sort of a stealthy MiG-31 crossed with a F-111 (in terms of roles and capabilities). So if I'm correct with this assessment (which seems to concur with the assessment of some aviation experts) than I would say that the J-20 has a very good agility indeed (for an aircraft of its class, that is).

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 17:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Back in 2009, I was impressed by the T-50. Once more information came out I was only impressed by it's aero layout. Right now, I am tentatively impressed by the J-20. It seems like a good first attempt. Those ventral fins need to go though, those are going to be hell on RCS.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 18:28
by mixelflick
In its current rendition, the J-20 is notably inferior to the F-35 in the following areas...

1.) And the biggest one, stealth
2.) Engines (close to stealth)
3.) Sensors/SA (another big one)
4.) Numbers

If the reports out of India are true, their SU-30MKI's detected the J-20 some months back. That doesn't bode well, especially considering the J-20 is more or less flying in its final design. Those engines are going to be BIG as to if it'll be able to supercruise, and whether or not it has the legs for the South Pacific theater. Sure it carries a lot of gas, but if the engines burn through it quickly it'll be staying close to home.

Readiness? Nobody knows if it's a hangar queen, and it'll probably be awhile before we do. Too few in service. The one area the Chinese are going to be sprinting out of the gate will be weapons. The BVRAAM's they have in development are in a word, scary. The AIM-120D is a fine weapon, but it won't be long before the next Chinese BVAAM out sticks it...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 21:53
by citanon
Here's a better capture of all the Zhuhai performances filmed by CCTV:


Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 22:05
by swiss
mixelflick wrote:
If the reports out of India are true, their SU-30MKI's detected the J-20 some months back. That doesn't bode well, especially considering the J-20 is more or less flying in its final design.


Indeed. The bars N011M has a detection range, in a area of review of 300 square degree, up to 140 km against a " Mig-29 size target" ( i assume 5-10m2 ?).
https://web.archive.org/web/20170706201 ... rlsu-bars/

This are not impressive figures for a modern MSA/PESA Radar with this size. Let alone for a AESA.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 22:29
by marsavian
The J-20 may have been carrying reflectors.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 22:36
by marsavian
ricnunes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Weasel's note: The F-35 may be stealthier than a J-20A today but J-20B or J-20C?


It doesn't matter if you're talking about a J-20A, J-20B, J-20C or a J-20D-thru-Z, unless those other post-J-20A aircraft are completely new and differently designed aircraft than they will never be stealthier than the F-35!
Remember, Stealth isn't something that you can simply add to an existing aircraft - you have to design it from the start.

And even if you could "add stealth" (or more precisely reduce RCS) on further J-20 variants like for example a J-20C then how would you compare it against improved F-35s? You are aware that the F-35 will also receive lots of improvements during its lifetime (probably even more than the J-20), no?
If you want to compare the "stealth level" of a tentative J-20C than you should probably "try" to compare it with an also tentative F-35D (or something along those lines)...


You can change the stealth attributes of an aircraft if you are prepared to bear the weight penalty of extra RAM. The Block 3 Super Hornet has apparently improved clean stealth by 10% with more/better applied RAM. You can go much higher than that if you are prepared to take ton hits on weight, the J-20 will eventually have more powerful engines and its prime role is as a long range stalking interceptor so they maybe prepared to take future hits in weight for that stealth purpose.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 00:00
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:You can change the stealth attributes of an aircraft if you are prepared to bear the weight penalty of extra RAM.


Yes, you can improve a little bit but not by much or again and to be more precise, only a little bit.
This is due to the fact that most of the Stealth comes from the shape itself while a smaller part comes from RAM. Depending on the sources (or perhaps even the aircraft) it is said that the Stealth comes from a ratio of around 70%-to-30% or around 60%-to-40% all in favor of the Shape (over RAM).

marsavian wrote:The Block 3 Super Hornet has apparently improved clean stealth by 10% with more/better applied RAM.


Here you go. This proves all my my previous points :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 00:30
by marsavian
No, you can improve a lot, e.g. halving average RCS and much more in the X-band, if you are prepared to take a significant weight penalty, Boeing is either not on the F-18 or they have already picked the low hanging fruit.

Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 05:11
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
knowan wrote:Airshow footage: https://streamable.com/qdw3b

Thoughts?


Rolls much better than I expected. Probably the most sprightly display I've seen yet. I find it telling they don't use thrust vectoring. Probably decided its not worth the cost/weight penalties. Should be something with up rated engines, but being they're behind more than the Russians in that area...

The big question is, how's the stealth? If it's up to par, then coupled with Chinese avionics and weapons... it's going to be quite a threat. Both to US tankers/AWACS as well as our carriers. It will entirely outclass the Super Hornet, and only the F-35C will be able to meet it on an equal footing. Given that platforms lower thrust to weight ratio, I'd have some concerns there too. I do think the F-35's stealth, sensors and SA will be better. How much so and for how long is the real question.

What's the J-20 T/W ratio?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 05:22
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11/07/china-showcases-progress-on-stealth-fighter-jet-at-zhuhai-airshow/

Indeed, at the air show, Yang Wei, the chief engineer of the J-20 program, cryptically responded with a cheeky “how do you know we haven’t already done so?” when asked by a local reporter if the J-20 will be similarly fitted with WS-10 engines incorporating thrust vectoring control.


Weasel's note: The F-35 may be stealthier than a J-20A today but J-20B or J-20C?

Because that would require an all new airframe. You're got going to get several magnitudes of RCS reduction, making a few changes here and there. The F-35 isn't remaining stagnant, either.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 21:02
by usnvo
marsavian wrote:No, you can improve a lot, e.g. halving average RCS and much more in the X-band, if you are prepared to take a significant weight penalty, Boeing is either not on the F-18 or they have already picked the low hanging fruit.

Image


You realize that halving the RCS is just a 3dB reduction right?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 21:09
by marsavian
You realize that halving the RCS is just a 3dB reduction right?


Sure but in the X-band (~13 GHz) the effect is more pronounced, about 10dB reduction which actually brings the RCS from around 10 to under 1 sq m from the side according to this modelling.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 23:07
by citanon
J-20 Zhuhai performance in 4K


Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 23:59
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:No, you can improve a lot, e.g. halving average RCS and much more in the X-band, if you are prepared to take a significant weight penalty, Boeing is either not on the F-18 or they have already picked the low hanging fruit.


marsavian wrote:
You realize that halving the RCS is just a 3dB reduction right?


Sure but in the X-band (~13 GHz) the effect is more pronounced, about 10dB reduction which actually brings the RCS from around 10 to under 1 sq m from the side according to this modelling.


Are you aware that one thing is to reduce the RCS of an non-stealth aircraft which has a considerably big RCS and another different thing is to reduce it on an already stealthy aircraft?

Using your examples: a 10% reduction due to RAM from an aircraft with 10 square meters brings it to 1 square meter indeed. But regarding Boeing and its Super Hornet and if we assume that its RCS is 0.5 square meters than a 10% reduction will only bring it to a mere 0.45 square meters (almost nothing).

So, No you cannot improve by much the RCS of an already stealthy aircraft by solely relying on RAM materials coating.
For this you need redesign the aircraft's shape and so I stand for that I previously mentioned - The Stealth of an aircraft (a really stealth one) comes more from its Shape than from its RAM coating (note that I'm not saying that RAM isn't important).

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 03:50
by charlielima223
I like to use that brick analogy here.

If I take a metallic brick and wrap it up with RAM, it will have a lower radar return than a metallic brick not wrapped in RAM. Yet no matter how much RAM I put on it, it's still a brick.

ricnunes wrote:
So, No you cannot improve by much the RCS of an already stealthy aircraft by solely relying on RAM materials coating.
For this you need redesign the aircraft's shape and so I stand for that I previously mentioned - The Stealth of an aircraft (a really stealth one) comes more from its Shape than from its RAM coating (note that I'm not saying that RAM isn't important).


I wholeheartedly agree with you that shaping and design its more important than material's used. However there has always been speculation and talk as well as research into meta-materials



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFxQEUDIAuk&t=618s

Currently I remain skeptical to most claims but science has done some amazing things.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 04:23
by citanon
Well, if the J20 ever puts on a flying saucer costume, or start wearing 12 inch thick foam padding, we'll know it's not just for Halloween. :D

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 05:15
by weasel1962
Image

Pic posted on CDF. Based on dimensions, main weapons bay holds 4 x 3.8m AAMs and side holds the 2 x 2.9m AAMs.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 12:04
by marsavian
ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:No, you can improve a lot, e.g. halving average RCS and much more in the X-band, if you are prepared to take a significant weight penalty, Boeing is either not on the F-18 or they have already picked the low hanging fruit.


marsavian wrote:
You realize that halving the RCS is just a 3dB reduction right?


Sure but in the X-band (~13 GHz) the effect is more pronounced, about 10dB reduction which actually brings the RCS from around 10 to under 1 sq m from the side according to this modelling.


Are you aware that one thing is to reduce the RCS of an non-stealth aircraft which has a considerably big RCS and another different thing is to reduce it on an already stealthy aircraft?

Using your examples: a 10% reduction due to RAM from an aircraft with 10 square meters brings it to 1 square meter indeed. But regarding Boeing and its Super Hornet and if we assume that its RCS is 0.5 square meters than a 10% reduction will only bring it to a mere 0.45 square meters (almost nothing).

So, No you cannot improve by much the RCS of an already stealthy aircraft by solely relying on RAM materials coating.
For this you need redesign the aircraft's shape and so I stand for that I previously mentioned - The Stealth of an aircraft (a really stealth one) comes more from its Shape than from its RAM coating (note that I'm not saying that RAM isn't important).


Going from 10 to 1 sq m is a 90% reduction, not 10%, and the modelling was around 50% for all wavebands. It's a question of degree not absolutes. If RAM at its best only gets you 10-50 factor RCS improvement on your starting point that only turns a non stealthy aircraft into a LO aircraft with an RCS around 0.2-1.0 sq m but 4th gen aircraft like F-16C, F-18E and Euro-Canards use this technique to do that. Shaping can improve your RCS starting point by 100-1000 factors so you already start at 0.1-0.01 sq m before RAM is applied. What RAM primarily does on a VLO shaped aircraft is make it VLO from all aspects and really make the frontal reduction even more pronounced. But both methods work to varying degrees but RAM works less effectively and comes with a significant weight penalty which is why shaping is normally the first order of business when it comes to designing a stealth aircraft as extra weight is not good news when it comes to overall kinematic performance.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 14:48
by mixelflick
.[/quote]
What's the J-20 T/W ratio?[/quote]

According to this article https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/c ... -2019.html, the new engine produces 19 tons of thrust. So that's 38,000lbs per engine, x2 would be 76,000lbs of combined thrust.

According to wiki, it's empty weight is 42,750. Also per wiki, it carries 25,000lbs of fuel, so that brings it up to 68,750. Add in 5,000lbs of internal weapons and we're at 73,750lbs.

So a 1.03 thrust to weight ratio, or thereabouts.

That's considerably better than the F-35 at full internal fuel and weapons (.75), but considerably worse than the Raptor at 1.14. Thrust to weight ratio isn't everything, but I'd expect the J-20 to be a fearsome threat to all but the F-35 and F-22. The F-35 won't dogfight with the J-20, instead it'll rely on its superior stealth and sensors to kill it BVR, or near BVR if it has to get in close. The Raptor outclasses it considerably, but they're building 500 J-20's to our 180 or so F-22's. We best hope we don't lose any to accidents or combat, because every one is a national treasure.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 14:53
by Scorpion1alpha
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Right now, I am tentatively impressed by the J-20. It seems like a good first attempt. Those ventral fins need to go though, those are going to be hell on RCS.


It tend to agree. Along with those canards.

From the videos, it seems to turn pretty well for a large and long fighter. That's just the instantaneous one, don't know about the sustained rates. If the motors isn't the definitive ones it'll eventually get, it may be even better.

But I guess that's not stopping it from trying to be Raptor-esque.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 01:52
by Corsair1963
The real "sleeper" is the J-31....."IMHO"


J31XXX.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 03:53
by sferrin
If China wanted it could easily replace the Flanker as the Go-To fighter for those who can't buy the F-35.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 05:01
by nefory
Another J20 clip of high resolution.
Take a look at how those vortexes are generated and coupled among the canard, strake and the wing.
It's quite something to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNss2y__xGE

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 05:19
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:.

What's the J-20 T/W ratio?[/quote]
According to this article https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/c ... -2019.html, the new engine produces 19 tons of thrust. So that's 38,000lbs per engine, x2 would be 76,000lbs of combined thrust.

According to wiki, it's empty weight is 42,750. Also per wiki, it carries 25,000lbs of fuel, so that brings it up to 68,750. Add in 5,000lbs of internal weapons and we're at 73,750lbs.

So a 1.03 thrust to weight ratio, or thereabouts.

That's considerably better than the F-35 at full internal fuel and weapons (.75), but considerably worse than the Raptor at 1.14. Thrust to weight ratio isn't everything, but I'd expect the J-20 to be a fearsome threat to all but the F-35 and F-22. The F-35 won't dogfight with the J-20, instead it'll rely on its superior stealth and sensors to kill it BVR, or near BVR if it has to get in close. The Raptor outclasses it considerably, but they're building 500 J-20's to our 180 or so F-22's. We best hope we don't lose any to accidents or combat, because every one is a national treasure.

I seriously doubt the J-20 will have a T/W ratio of >1:1 with 25k lbs of fuel and 5k lbs of ordnance, or 500 aircraft. Secondly, the F-35 doesn't have a .75 T/W ratio.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 05:57
by edpop
J-20 Missile load............
J-20 Missile load.jpg

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 07:09
by weasel1962
Based on current
J-20 - 2x AL31FM2 = 65,200 lb. MTOW (37k kg) = 81,400 lbs = 0.8
F-35A - 1 x F135 = 43,000 lb. MTOW (31.8k kg) = 70,000 lbs = 0.6

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 08:14
by nefory
weasel1962 wrote:Based on current
J-20 - 2x AL31FM2 = 65,200 lb. MTOW (37k kg) = 81,400 lbs = 0.8
F-35A - 1 x F135 = 43,000 lb. MTOW (31.8k kg) = 70,000 lbs = 0.6


How about the t/w in a hypothetical combat situation, say both with half fuel and with standard air-to-air arrangement?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 08:25
by weasel1962
We had a thread filled with disagreements over what the J-20 actual empty weight really is. No public info but only estimates. Below are western estimates (china numbers generally @ lower weights)

F-35A empty 29k + max fuel (18k) + 2k weapons (6 AAM) = 49,000 = 0.88. TWR 1.08 at 50% fuel.
J-20 empty 43k? + max fuel (25k?) + 2k weapons (6 AAM) = 70,000 = 0.93. TWR 1.13 at 50% fuel.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 08:35
by nefory
weasel1962 wrote:We had a thread filled with disagreements over what the J-20 actual empty weight really is. No public info but only estimates. Below are western estimates (china numbers generally @ lower weights)

F-35A empty 29k + max fuel (18k) + 2k weapons (6 AAM) = 49,000 = 0.88. TWR 1.08 at 50% fuel.
J-20 empty 43k? + max fuel (25k?) + 2k weapons (6 AAM) = 70,000 = 0.93. TWR 1.13 at 50% fuel.


Is this 29k of F35 and 43k of J20 dry empty weight or operational empty weight?
From what I've read from Chinese sources, the dry empty weight of J-20 is somewhat close to 43k, and operational empty weight of J20 is around close to but not yet 49k.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 09:12
by weasel1962
nefory wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:We had a thread filled with disagreements over what the J-20 actual empty weight really is. No public info but only estimates. Below are western estimates (china numbers generally @ lower weights)

F-35A empty 29k + max fuel (18k) + 2k weapons (6 AAM) = 49,000 = 0.88. TWR 1.08 at 50% fuel.
J-20 empty 43k? + max fuel (25k?) + 2k weapons (6 AAM) = 70,000 = 0.93. TWR 1.13 at 50% fuel.


Is this 29k of F35 and 43k of J20 dry empty weight or operational empty weight?
From what I've read from Chinese sources, the dry empty weight of J-20 is somewhat close to 43k, and operational empty weight of J20 is around close to but not yet 49k.


We had a thread filled with disagreements over what the J-20 actual empty weight really is. No public info but only estimates.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 11:04
by marsavian
The J-20 like the Su-57 has entered service with an existing engine and the new engines are years away. Shouldn't T/W ratios be calculated with this engine rather than the future upgrade because you could play the same game with F-35 and start calculating with Advent/PW potential upgrades which would have as much relevance. Let's deal in current reality first.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 13:44
by weasel1962
J-20s are currently equipped with twin AL-31FM2s. All numbers are based on AL-31FM2.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 13:48
by Scorpion1alpha
edpop wrote:J-20 Missile load............
J-20 Missile load.jpg


Not bad. I must admit, she's like a mystery girl I keep glancing at...
Image

Who's a little bit athletic...
Image

Image

Image

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 14:14
by marsavian
weasel1962 wrote:J-20s are currently equipped with twin AL-31FM2s. All numbers are based on AL-31FM2.


The thrust of the AL-31FM2* is 14,200 kgf / 31,300 lbf which gives a TW ratio of 0.89 at your fully loaded air superiority 70,000lbs weight which is the same rounded to 2dp as the F-35A. It has no thrust/weight advantage and the aerial display does not suggest otherwise either.

* http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/al-31/index.php?en

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 14:40
by knowan
edpop wrote:J-20 Missile load............
J-20 Missile load.jpg


Those are some pretty deep bays. It could easily carry 6x AMRAAM equivalents in the main bays if each bay door holds a missile.

I wonder what air to surface munitions it can fit; it looks like most Chinese anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles are too long for those bays.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:05
by weasel1962
14200kgf is a bit dated (pre 2010). 14500kgf (31900 lbf) was achieved in 2012 which was also what was stated in the Czech link.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/some-tests ... ne-upgrade

32600 lbs is the mathematical translation of 145kn which is what is normally cited for the FM2 at least in news sites that no longer exists. But its a meaningless difference. Even at 31900 lbs, that's a TWR of 0.91 when Imho, 0.88 is not a significant difference even against 0.93. Bearing in mind, that's with western estimates of weights and fuel load. Really waste of time to argue over estimates.

p.s. On A2G, LD-10 comes to mind which is fielded but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a ARM version of the PL-15. imho, current J-20s are still primarily interceptors. Absolutely no A2G role yet. The current brigades are assigned aggressor roles replicating "orange" or "blue force". Not sure what orange means but we all know what blue stands for.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:30
by marsavian
For those curious here is the aerodynamic thinking, c2001, that maybe behind the J-20 by one of its designers Dr. Song Wencong which shows that they were purposely thinking about developing a stealthy canard fighter then.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/translat ... ng.165231/
https://ethw.org/Song_Wencong

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 17:10
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:If the reports out of India are true, their SU-30MKI's detected the J-20 some months back.


I don't trust those Indian claims at all. The Indian Air Force have made some pretty boastful claims in the past.

Apparently J-20 is currently flying with AL-31FM2 and WS-15 is still being tested.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 18:21
by tphuang
mixelflick wrote:
If the reports out of India are true, their SU-30MKI's detected the J-20 some months back.


Without knowing the context, it's hard to say what they detected. J-20 has been flying about everywhere with Luneberg lenses. Doesn't make too much sense for them to give IAF an accurate reading of J-20's frontal RCS. And even if it's not flying with that next to the Indian borders, it's not exactly stealthy from all angles. From PLAAF's version of red flag exercises, the stories coming out are that other fighter jets and land based radars are having real trouble picking J-20 up. If I was IAF, I would not be basing my hope on Su-30s finding J-20.

Those are some pretty deep bays. It could easily carry 6x AMRAAM equivalents in the main bays if each bay door holds a missile.

I wonder what air to surface munitions it can fit; it looks like most Chinese anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles are too long for those bays.

it's pretty standard A2A load for PLAAF. That's what you normally see flankers with. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could go for a more heavy load. But there is no need to carry more than needed with underpowered engines. They will probably creating some new AShM to be internally carried, but that will be a little bit further down the road.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 21:22
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:Going from 10 to 1 sq m is a 90% reduction, not 10%, and the modelling was around 50% for all wavebands.


Yes, you're right. It was my bad there.

A 10% decrease on 10 sq. meters is 1 sq. meter which bring it to 9 sq. meters which by its turn is still a much bigger gain compared to if applied to lower RCS values like for example 0.5 sq meter. So in the first case you have a gain (decrease) of 1 sq. meter while in the former (0.5 sq meter) you have a gain of only 0.05 sq meters (or basically a gain of 20 times less compared with the 10 sq. meter example) which bring it to the 0.45 sq. meter values that I mentioned earlier.


marsavian wrote:It's a question of degree not absolutes.


No, in fact it is not. However the lower we get in terms of RCS, the harder will be to reduce it further - at least to reduce it to really noticeable values.


marsavian wrote:But both methods work to varying degrees but RAM works less effectively and comes with a significant weight penalty which is why shaping is normally the first order of business when it comes to designing a stealth aircraft as extra weight is not good news when it comes to overall kinematic performance.


Yes, weight is probably the most important or among the most important factors on aviation of when designing aircraft. So even if you are right here you cannot simply put loads of RAM material coating on aircraft (this unless someone invents Anti-Gravity engines :mrgreen: ). But even then there's so much you can do with RAM materials in order to reduce the RCS of a not so optimized shaped (for lower RCS).

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 02:59
by Corsair1963
Corsair1963 wrote:The real "sleeper" is the J-31....."IMHO"



J31XXX.jpg



This is what I've been saying for sometime now......

Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All

Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology


Not long after the J-31 fighter prototype from Avic’s Shenyang Aircraft Corp. appeared in 2012, analysts realized that it was not, after all, a new combat aircraft for the Chinese military. It was just a technology demonstrator from a well-resourced but frustrated state company that had lost two air force fighter competitions in a row. Now the J-31 has indeed become a government-funded project, apparently rescued by the shortcomings of the J-15, a naval Flanker derivative also built ...http://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-s- ... -after-all

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 07:21
by linkomart
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Back in 2009, I was impressed by the T-50. Once more information came out I was only impressed by it's aero layout. Right now, I am tentatively impressed by the J-20. It seems like a good first attempt. Those ventral fins need to go though, those are going to be hell on RCS.


On the contrary, IMHO. The ventral fins is the one thing that saves the RCS in the side sector. Otherwise the exhausts with all their gaps and angles would light up a radar receiver like a christmas tree if it is looking from the side (+-10 degrees elevation.) Now the ventral fin shields the exhausts, and they don't need a F-22 style exhaust.

My 5 cent.

Best regards.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 13:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That may be true.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 15:48
by tphuang
linkomart wrote:
On the contrary, IMHO. The ventral fins is the one thing that saves the RCS in the side sector. Otherwise the exhausts with all their gaps and angles would light up a radar receiver like a christmas tree if it is looking from the side (+-10 degrees elevation.) Now the ventral fin shields the exhausts, and they don't need a F-22 style exhaust.

My 5 cent.

Best regards.

I think you are right here. one reason to have ventral fin is to block off exhausts.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:01
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Looking at the "weapon bay" shot on the previous page, I can see better the area around the ventrals. My initial concern was that they were a corner reflector, but that doesn't seem to be much of the case with looking at them and the surrounding area.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:56
by mixelflick
.[/quote]
I seriously doubt the J-20 will have a T/W ratio of >1:1 with 25k lbs of fuel and 5k lbs of ordnance, or 500 aircraft. Secondly, the F-35 doesn't have a .75 T/W ratio.[/quote]

Geez you're right. It's actually worse at .6. And that's for the F-35A, the lightest of the 3 variants. Yes, I realize that's fully loaded and it gets above 1:1 when 50% fuel is used but still. Does anyone know what the Paris demo internal fuel load was? I've read where the Raptor performs at full internal fuel when flying displays, but the F-35's sprightly performance at Paris leads me to believe it sure didn't have a .6 TTW ratio.

50% internal maybe?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 17:38
by nefory
weasel1962 wrote:14200kgf is a bit dated (pre 2010). 14500kgf (31900 lbf) was achieved in 2012 which was also what was stated in the Czech link.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/some-tests ... ne-upgrade

32600 lbs is the mathematical translation of 145kn which is what is normally cited for the FM2 at least in news sites that no longer exists. But its a meaningless difference. Even at 31900 lbs, that's a TWR of 0.91 when Imho, 0.88 is not a significant difference even against 0.93. Bearing in mind, that's with western estimates of weights and fuel load. Really waste of time to argue over estimates.

p.s. On A2G, LD-10 comes to mind which is fielded but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a ARM version of the PL-15. imho, current J-20s are still primarily interceptors. Absolutely no A2G role yet. The current brigades are assigned aggressor roles replicating "orange" or "blue force". Not sure what orange means but we all know what blue stands for.


“Orange” stands for “intervention force”.
The scenario would probably be that of an ongoing exercise among 4th gens playing red vs blue, where at one point a third party intervenes with 5th gens as reinforcement to one side.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 19:58
by sprstdlyscottsmn
.6 would be at full internal and external load. Max gross.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 01:34
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:.

I seriously doubt the J-20 will have a T/W ratio of >1:1 with 25k lbs of fuel and 5k lbs of ordnance, or 500 aircraft. Secondly, the F-35 doesn't have a .75 T/W ratio.[/quote]

Geez you're right. It's actually worse at .6. And that's for the F-35A, the lightest of the 3 variants. Yes, I realize that's fully loaded and it gets above 1:1 when 50% fuel is used but still. Does anyone know what the Paris demo internal fuel load was? I've read where the Raptor performs at full internal fuel when flying displays, but the F-35's sprightly performance at Paris leads me to believe it sure didn't have a .6 TTW ratio.

50% internal maybe?[/quote]

Apples and Oranges.....we really debating the T/W again???

https://youtu.be/96Kx6b7oKA8

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 02:26
by weasel1962
The B is the lightest in the air at mtow.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 07:57
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:.6 would be at full internal and external load. Max gross.

Exactly. Nobody compares T/W ratios at MTOW.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 09:45
by weasel1962
F-35B should still have the best TWR of the 3 variants at max fuel + 4AAMs.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 11:13
by linkomart
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Looking at the "weapon bay" shot on the previous page, I can see better the area around the ventrals. My initial concern was that they were a corner reflector, but that doesn't seem to be much of the case with looking at them and the surrounding area.


Agree, looking at the details of the design, there is no hesitation from my side that it is a real, engineered design and not a copy-ripoff. They have designed the surfaces with low RCS in mind, all details are aligned in a good way, they have done Aero-research of the configuration, the weapon bays are designed for supersonic weapon release, fins are designed to counter drawbacks of delta-twin fin configuration etc.

Of course the question is how well did the succeed with their intentions, how good is the engines, what are their sensors performance, have they managed all the small details to get low RCS etc. That I don't know, but from what I can tell, I can not see any obvious mistakes.

my 5 cent.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 14:37
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:F-35B should still have the best TWR of the 3 variants at max fuel + 4AAMs.


Why is that? 4000lbs less internal fuel?

I would have thought the B was heavier (than the A) due to the lift fan, but apparently not?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 14:42
by weasel1962
On weight, just look at any LM fast fact pdf, add empty weight to max fuel. The B is heavier than the A by 3.5k lbs but it carries 4.5k lbs less fuel. That difference would be offset if the B carries a gun pod.

P.s. What it'd be a mistake to do is assume that the J-20A is the final product. As happened with the J-10 e.g. the air inlets design, its going to improve. What its also a mistake imho is highlighting some of the design issues in too much detail in a public forum.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:18
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:On weight, just look at any LM fast fact pdf, add empty weight to max fuel. The B is heavier than the A by 3.5k lbs but it carries 4.5k lbs less fuel. That difference would be offset if the B carries a gun pod.

P.s. What it'd be a mistake to do is assume that the J-20A is the final product. As happened with the J-10 e.g. the air inlets design, its going to improve. What its also a mistake imho is highlighting some of the design issues in too much detail in a public forum.


I've had that thought before, yes. The Chinese certainly aren't bashful about stealing information now, are they?

But you have to hand it to them with this design, or at least bringing it to fruition. They're well ahead of the Russians, and if I'm not mistaken they began flying prototypes around the same time. I'd guess they have more money, more resources and more of a true military need. Whereas the Russians seemed to be developing the SU-57 as an article of national pride. Where is the military need there?

They're not going to stand toe to toe with the US, NATO etc.. What they have (Flankers galore) are adequate to deploy to theaters close by (like Syria). The Chinese are clearly looking out over the South China Sea, perhaps toward Japan and of course Taiwan. They correctly deduced the J-20 probably wasn't going to be a Raptor killer. But if push comes to shove the J-20 will have to deal with the Raptor, and perhaps F-35 as well.

I shudder to think about how much of a leg up it has on our Super Hornets, assuming trouble kicks off its far more likely our carriers see action first. The 7th fleet is no slouch, but we're literally looking at a stealth vs. no stealth situation there... unless Marine F-35B's are part of a CVN deployment. Might not be a bad idea, because being on the wrong end of stealth vs. no stealth isn't going to end well IMO...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
An F-35A with full fuel and no weapons has a nominal T/W around 0.9. As I understand it, the airshow is done with ~60% fuel. That would give a 1.06 nominal T/W.

Why 60% when a Viper or a Raptor uses 100%? AB duration.

6,000lb of usable, non reserve, fuel on the F-16 with a nominal 29,000lb of thrust and AB TSFC of 2 gives 6.2 minutes of useable AB time. Obviously a whole demo is not done in AB but the demo also lasts longer than 6 minutes.

16,000lb of non reserve fuel in a Raptor with a nominal 70,000lb of thrust and the same TSFC gives 6.9 minutes of AB duration.

16,500lb of non reserve fuel in an F-35 with a nominal 43,000lb of thrust and the same TSFC gives 11.5 minutes of AB time.
9,060lb (60% full with same reserve fuel as above) in an F-35 gives 6.3 minutes of AB time.

Because the F-35 carries more fuel than an F-22 but has just a bit over half the thrust it can use a lot less fuel for the same length of a demo.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:40
by weasel1962
Agreed, that's the same argument why the F-35A could have an advantage over the F-35B is precisely the additional energy the extra fuel can accord in an extended A2A engagement. However, there is a planned sortie duration, and it boils down to fuel management. Even with a B, it can be enough fuel to fulfil the mission. Same with raptor.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 01:17
by Corsair1963
The extra fuel carried by the F-35 is an advantage. As you can trade it for energy on scale most fighters could only dream of. Funny, that the critics of the F-35's T/W leave that out....

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 08:23
by linkomart
weasel1962 wrote:
P.s. What it'd be a mistake to do is assume that the J-20A is the final product. As happened with the J-10 e.g. the air inlets design, its going to improve. What its also a mistake imho is highlighting some of the design issues in too much detail in a public forum.


There is no such thing as the "final" product in the fighter business until the last plane rolls off the assembly line IMHO....
J10A was not either, but it is operational in ...large... numbers in China, J10B will replace some A but there might be a C and a D and....
J20A will probably be evolved but before that they will crank out a few divisions to get operational experience from the beast, even if it wont have the "right" engine or radar or....

MHO

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 11:06
by nefory
linkomart wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
P.s. What it'd be a mistake to do is assume that the J-20A is the final product. As happened with the J-10 e.g. the air inlets design, its going to improve. What its also a mistake imho is highlighting some of the design issues in too much detail in a public forum.


There is no such thing as the "final" product in the fighter business until the last plane rolls off the assembly line IMHO....
J10A was not either, but it is operational in ...large... numbers in China, J10B will replace some A but there might be a C and a D and....
J20A will probably be evolved but before that they will crank out a few divisions to get operational experience from the beast, even if it wont have the "right" engine or radar or....

MHO


The production of J10B has already stopped. Only 24 of them were delivered to PLAAF. They are currently producing J10C.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 12:10
by linkomart
Ok, didn't know that, but Still C can be replaced with a D and so on...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2018, 14:31
by weasel1962
The other piece of news which CCTV released recently is that they finally managed to integrate a retractable aerial refuel probe into the j-20, rightside of cockpit.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2018, 16:54
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:The real "sleeper" is the J-31....."IMHO"


J31XXX.jpg



Agreed. But they are going to have to hustle. More and more F-35's roll off the assembly lines every day and are beginning to proliferate. There will always be nations that can't get it however, and its here the J-31 will excel. Of course, that all assumes the Chinese can 1.) Get it to work and, 2.) Offer it at a reasonable price.

Considering the difficulties we had developing the F-35, it could be another decade (or 2) getting the J-31 into the same ballpark. And then they'll have to determine how to not compromise its stealth secrets. Interesting quandry, given the Chinese are usually the ones doing the stealing!

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2018, 17:28
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The real "sleeper" is the J-31....."IMHO"


J31XXX.jpg



Agreed. But they are going to have to hustle. More and more F-35's roll off the assembly lines every day and are beginning to proliferate. There will always be nations that can't get it however, and its here the J-31 will excel. Of course, that all assumes the Chinese can 1.) Get it to work and, 2.) Offer it at a reasonable price.

Considering the difficulties we had developing the F-35, it could be another decade (or 2) getting the J-31 into the same ballpark. And then they'll have to determine how to not compromise its stealth secrets. Interesting quandry, given the Chinese are usually the ones doing the stealing!



J-31 doesn't have to worry about a STOVL version.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2018, 12:34
by madrat
They could build 3,000 J-31 and it wouldn't be as destabilizing as 1,000 J-20.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2018, 15:43
by sferrin
madrat wrote:They could build 3,000 J-31 and it wouldn't be as destabilizing as 1,000 J-20.


Has anybody said it would be? China won't be selling the J-20 to anybody though. They might be willing to sell the J-31 to others. See F-22/F-35.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 01:59
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:They could build 3,000 J-31 and it wouldn't be as destabilizing as 1,000 J-20.



We've seen nothing to suggest the J-20 is superior to the J-31 or at very least not markedly so. Also, considering that the J-31 is being developed much later than the former. Odds are good that they learned a number of valuable lessons from the development of the former. Which, they likely would incorporate into production J-31's.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 02:28
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:

Agreed. But they are going to have to hustle. More and more F-35's roll off the assembly lines every day and are beginning to proliferate. There will always be nations that can't get it however, and its here the J-31 will excel. Of course, that all assumes the Chinese can 1.) Get it to work and, 2.) Offer it at a reasonable price.

Considering the difficulties we had developing the F-35, it could be another decade (or 2) getting the J-31 into the same ballpark. And then they'll have to determine how to not compromise its stealth secrets. Interesting quandry, given the Chinese are usually the ones doing the stealing!



Honestly, it's perplexing to hear of all of this talk about the J-20. As the core Stealth Fighter for the PLAAF and PLAN will be the J-31. Which, will have to be produced in large numbers. If, the Chinese have any hope of competing with the US and her vast network of Allies.

:doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 06:47
by wrightwing
There's nothing to suggest that the J-31 is superior to the J-20, either. The J-20 is the high, of the high/low mix. How many of each will be built, is anybody's guess. It won't be anywhere near F-35 numbers, though.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 08:12
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:There's nothing to suggest that the J-31 is superior to the J-20, either. The J-20 is the high, of the high/low mix. How many of each will be built, is anybody's guess. It won't be anywhere near F-35 numbers, though.


Never said the J-20 and/or J-31 would equal the numbers of F-35 built. Yet, how many Stealth Fighters do you think China will need for the PLAAF and PLAN in the next 10-20 years???

:wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 08:21
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:There's nothing to suggest that the J-31 is superior to the J-20, either. The J-20 is the high, of the high/low mix. How many of each will be built, is anybody's guess. It won't be anywhere near F-35 numbers, though.


Never said the J-20 and/or J-31 would equal the numbers of F-35 built. Yet, how many Stealth Fighters do you think China will need for the PLAAF and PLAN in the next 10-20 years???

:wink:

Not nearly as many as you think. Their requirements are far more limited, as they aren't trying to develop a global expeditionary force. Homeland defense, and regional force projection are their prime concerns. J-10Cs, J-15s, and J-16s will provide the lion's share of TACAIR, with J-20/31 providing the high mix.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 08:35
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:Not nearly as many as you think. Their requirements are far more limited, as they aren't trying to develop a global expeditionary force. Homeland defense, and regional force projection are their prime concerns. J-10Cs, J-15s, and J-16s will provide the lion's share of TACAIR, with J-20/31 providing the high mix.



I think China isn't stupid and realizes that it will have to face vast numbers of F-35's. From the US and her Allies. (Australia, Japan, South Korea, US, and likely Singapore and possibly UK. Who knows maybe India at some point?) So, while 4th Generation Types like the J-10, J-11, J-15, etc. would be adequate short-term. Their usefulness will drop like a rock post 2030.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 09:39
by wrightwing
I guess that's why they're buying them in sizeable quantities, to retire them in 10 to 12 years....

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 10:05
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:I guess that's why they're buying them in sizeable quantities, to retire them in 10 to 12 years....



You have a source that supports the PLAAF and/or PLAN are buying J-10's, J-15's, and J-16's in sizeable numbers???

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 15:29
by tphuang
J-10 and flanker variants will be in service for a long time. My guess at least another 25 years. They still have J-7/8s right now. They will be around long after F-15/16 retires from USAF/USN. Until they can get the 5th gen technology including engine mature, J-10C and J-16 will be the backbone of PLAAF.

Remember, IAF and southeast Asians countries will still be without 5th generation aircraft for at least the next 10 years. And even after that, they will be mostly 3rd or 4th gen aircraft. RuAF will be second or third rate going forward. J-10C and J-16 are more than adequate to face them. And no, I don't think PLAAF is too concerned about a few Su-57s and a bunch of su-35s across the border.

As for J-20 vs J-31, I think PLAAF considers J-20 to be the more capable platform. As for how many they will build, that's hard to say. Building a large number also takes a very modern industrial base, which they are still working toward. They may want to build over 100 5th gen aircraft a year, but they simply don't have the ability to do so right now. They may want to add 100 J-20s into service a year right now, but the air force probably isn't ready to take in more than 20 or 30 this year as they are still figuring out how to use it and maintain it.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 00:50
by weasel1962
Considering that F-16s will fly to 2048 and F-15s probably longer, I doubt J-7/8s will last that long even if there is still several air brigades sighted at present (~17xJ-7 Air Brigades and 7xJ-8 Air Brigades). At an annual replacement rate of 2-3 brigades currently, it is unlikely J-7/J-8s will see service past mid-2030s. That is even though the last few batches of J-7s still have plenty of service life left in them.

There are "only" 15 x J-10 air brigades, 4 x air brigades with J-16s and the single J-15 CAW sighted so far. I will leave the subjective definition of "sizeable" to others to define.

The above do not count training units.

At present, there are only 2 x J-31 prototypes with a first flight in Oct 2012. There are 2 x J-20 air brigades today. The J-20's first flight was in Jan 2011. There were at least 10 pre-production J-20s. J-10 prototypes also saw similar numbers. When J-31 prototypes reach those numbers, serial production can be expected to follow. Until then, talk of J-31 in service numbers above 0 is pure speculation.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 01:27
by Corsair1963
Sure you could see F-16's, J-10's, J-15's, etc. etc. out to the 2040's. Yet, only in very modest numbers for sure....


As for China I doubt very much they are going to limit production of the J-20/J-31 to modest numbers. While, the US and her allies produce F-35's in the "thousands".
:doh:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 01:55
by weasel1962
tphuang wrote:J-10 and flanker variants will be in service for a long time.


Service life is a question mark. Russian built Su-27s in PLAAF service have been retired around the 20+ year mark. Chinese-built ones may have a longer service life but not sure whether Russian supplied engines especially for the earlier batches will last. Same goes for the J-10.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 09:26
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:Sure you could see F-16's, J-10's, J-15's, etc. etc. out to the 2040's. Yet, only in very modest numbers for sure....


As for China I doubt very much they are going to limit production of the J-20/J-31 to modest numbers. While, the US and her allies produce F-35's in the "thousands".
:doh:

That's circular reasoning. Surely they wouldn't want to be outnumbered in heavy bombers, carriers, attack/ballistic missile subs, main battle tanks, etc.... so they must be planning to approach parity, right?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 10:43
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:That's circular reasoning. Surely they wouldn't want to be outnumbered in heavy bombers, carriers, attack/ballistic missile subs, main battle tanks, etc.... so they must be planning to approach parity, right?



Clearly, China doesn't need parity one for one with the US. Yet, even half that number could approach nearly a thousand.....(i.e. point)

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 17:51
by wrightwing
It's circular reasoning, regardless of the final number. It's the same kind of argument that PAK FA/Su-57 fans made for years (it must be superior to the F-22, because why would Russia not build something superior? It wouldn't make sense to build an inferior product, right?) There are no other major weapon systems in the Chinese arsenal, where they're trying to be competitive in quantity. They have far different needs and goals, than the US/allies, and in pretty much every case, they use asymmetric capabilities to try and counter us. Bottom line is this, unless they massively increase defense spending, building a huge 5th generation force, isn't economically viable. They're busy trying to modernize in many areas, and increase the force structure. That's going to limit the aviation procurement/sustainment budget.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2018, 15:05
by mixelflick
Some here are ascribing mass production capabilities to the J-20/31, which I feel is a mistake. Even if they're able to iron out all the performance, RCS spec issues, mass production is a whole 'nother ball of wax. The Russians have apparently run into both issues, but I suspect their ability to mass produce is the bigger problem.

We only built 30 some odd SR-71's. We only ever made 59 F-117's. We built 187 Raptor's (although at this point, they could have continued building them). Now (and only now), are we able to build thousands of F-35's.

There's a lesson there. It's about more than $...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2018, 22:20
by fidgetspinner
Just felt like throwing this in here.

Image

https://twitter.com/Satcom_Guru/status/ ... 12/photo/1

Did Christmas come early for them? Is this how quantum radars are suppose to look? doubts? :roll:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2018, 04:11
by nefory
fidgetspinner wrote:Just felt like throwing this in here.

Image

https://twitter.com/Satcom_Guru/status/ ... 12/photo/1

Did Christmas come early for them? Is this how quantum radars are suppose to look? doubts? :roll:


Just a randomly made plastic model.
They wanted to put up something for the show and tell people "yeah, and we are working on that as well".

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2018, 04:19
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
That's circular reasoning. Surely they wouldn't want to be outnumbered in heavy bombers, carriers, attack/ballistic missile subs, main battle tanks, etc.... so they must be planning to approach parity, right?



Defeat, Not Merely Compete: China's View of Its Military Aerospace Goals and Requirements in Relation to the United States

(Source: Rand Corp.; issued Nov 22, 2018)

Over the past two decades, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has made rapid advances in building up new capabilities and operational concepts. Aerospace power has been a core feature of the PLA's rapid modernization. In particular, since 2004, the PLA Air Force has pursued a service strategy aimed at developing the capacity to "simultaneously prosecute offensive and defensive integrated air and space operations."

This report explores the extent to which the desire to "compete" with the U.S. Air Force (or other advanced air forces) shapes PLA thinking about the development of military aerospace power. It examines how China selects between the options of "copying" foreign powers and "innovating" its own solutions to various operational military problems, as well as which areas China chooses to not compete in at all.

KEY FINDINGS

PLA's goal is to defeat, not merely compete

-- The main driver for Chinese military aerospace power development is the PLA's view that it needs to be prepared to deter and, if necessary, defeat the United States in a high-end clash.

-- The PLA appears to copy foreign militaries when it can find low-cost hardware, organizational, or operational concepts that it can adapt from abroad to solve the operational challenges it confronts. In contrast, when foreign capabilities or organizational practices are irrelevant to Chinese military aerospace problem sets, the PLA either innovates its own solution or declines to replicate the foreign capability (although it does continue to track and study these).

-- The PLA appears not to compete in certain areas because it does not need certain capabilities to accomplish its directed mission, or it has other means to address the military problem at hand.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... force.html

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2018, 08:50
by wrightwing
That's even less realistic, than reaching parity.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2018, 09:26
by Corsair1963
Yes, but it does speak to the numbers of Stealth Fighters China is likely to produce.... :wink:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2018, 19:30
by wrightwing
If we're considering scientific wild a$$ guesses, to be credible.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2018, 20:01
by botsing
Corsair1963 wrote:Defeat, Not Merely Compete

That sounds like the average joe hopeless job interview answer to "what do you think you can mean for this company?"

:mrgreen:

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2018, 08:13
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:If we're considering scientific wild a$$ guesses, to be credible.



If, China is going to put up a "credible" defense. It will have to produce the J-20 and J-31 is good numbers. (500-1000) That is easily supportable. So, honestly don't know what your problem is??? :?

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2018, 17:23
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:If we're considering scientific wild a$$ guesses, to be credible.



If, China is going to put up a "credible" defense. It will have to produce the J-20 and J-31 is good numbers. (500-1000) That is easily supportable. So, honestly don't know what your problem is??? :?

My problem, is that you can't see your circular reasoning, and that there's a world of difference between "if" and "will." At what point in the last 50+ years has China's weapons procurement been based on similar rationale? They didn't build 1000 Flankers to deal with our F-15/16/18s, which were far superior to what they'd had. Our force structure is based upon global expeditionary campaign, in multiple theaters. China's structure is far less ambitious. Homeland defense, and control of surrounding waters/territorial claims, are its primary military interests.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 04:42
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
My problem, is that you can't see your circular reasoning, and that there's a world of difference between "if" and "will." At what point in the last 50+ years has China's weapons procurement been based on similar rationale? They didn't build 1000 Flankers to deal with our F-15/16/18s, which were far superior to what they'd had. Our force structure is based upon global expeditionary campaign, in multiple theaters. China's structure is far less ambitious. Homeland defense, and control of surrounding waters/territorial claims, are its primary military interests.



Your problem is you're thinking in the past tense. As Chinese resources and ambition are far greater today. Then when she acquired her first Flankers. China is going all out to challenge the US and most of the Regional Powers in Asia directly! (India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, etc. etc.) Especially, in regards to the South China Sea......

As a matter of fact her Military Ambitions are nothing short of "ravenous". Including building not one but two Stealth Fighters and a Stealth Bomber. Plus, her Navy (PLAN) is building a massive fleet of Aircraft Carriers, Submarines (SSK's, SSN's, and SSBN's), Aegis Type Destroyers, Frigates, etc. etc. The Army (PLA) isn't being overlooked either.


Honestly, all of the above would be wasted. If, China can't provide large numbers of Stealth Fighters to support the PLA (Army) and PLAN (Navy). The US alone will build a couple thousands F-35's for it's military. Which, doesn't count the ones acquired by her "numerous" allies. (many in Asia)

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 05:57
by wrightwing
They're still far less ambitious in terms of scope and reach. Their interests are primarily regional. They aren't building 10+ CVNs, 20+ LHA/LHD, hundreds of tankers, 100 AWAC/AEW, and their sub fleet is a lot more modest, too.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 10:26
by Corsair1963
The 'globalisation' of China's military power

Jonathan Marcus
Diplomatic correspondent

China's modernisation of its armed forces is proceeding faster than many analysts expected.

Now, according to experts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies - the IISS - in London, it is China and no longer Russia, that increasingly provides the benchmark against which Washington judges the capability requirements for its own armed forces..............


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43036302

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 10:51
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:They're still far less ambitious in terms of scope and reach. Their interests are primarily regional. They aren't building 10+ CVNs, 20+ LHA/LHD, hundreds of tankers, 100 AWAC/AEW, and their sub fleet is a lot more modest, too.


Well, not yet anyway.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 11:16
by weasel1962
This bears more analysis. Pre-2002, military budget was under US$20b. China claimed a significant chunk was manpower costs.

Now its $150b. Even taking into account inflation, I don't think manpower costs will grow as fast. So the remaining either goes towards infrastructure, operations or capital equipment (plus some leakage for grease).

FP just did a piece on the "untested" military
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ch ... or-a-flop/

Its not just the focus on capital equipment. Its that China is probably spending a significant chunk of the budget to make sure the PLA knows how to use their weapons because of the lack of actual wartime experience. That value cannot be easily measured. On a simple example, hypothetically the Liaoning CV may already have conducted more sorties than the Kutz in the entire Kutz career. That could mean as much in war than more equipment where the soldiers do not know how to use.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 15:09
by tphuang
On this topic of what China can and will produce. I think there is a difference between navy and air force. And that comes down to their shipbuilding industry being far more advanced and competitive than their aerospace industry. They seem to be aiming for 6 carriers and a lot of escorts. Their recent shipbuilding program is comparable to what USN has and the quality of ships are also getting pretty good. And due to lower shipbuilding cost, China can build similar number of higher end ships with a much smaller budget and they don't have to support all of USN's deployment missions. PLAN is flush with too much hardware to know what to do with.

Their air force is quite starved in comparison. They couldn't build a large transport and engine for it until Y-20 came out recently. Now they got a huge requirement for that (maybe 200) and who knows how long it will take them to build that. They don't have an aerospace powerhouse like Boeing that can just ramp up and build 40 or 50 a year. So they've been stuck building An-12 derivatives. They are attempting a huge jump to build a stealth bomber, but until then, they are relying on Tu-16 derivatives. Who knows when that will happen. After being in service for 15 years, they can probably max out at producing 6 J-10s a month and that's assuming they can building engines for it (which they can't). It took them probably 30 years to finally develop something to replace S-70, because the local helicopter industry is so far behind and turboshaft industry is even further behind. They are still building variants of SA-321 super frelon, because that's all they have that's larger than Z-10 and can land on a ship. Working with Eurocopter to develop EC-175, they got a really advanced helicopter in Z-15 but they are having trouble getting a domestic turboshaft developed for it. And without a domestic option, they can't create versions of it for the army.

Having said that, they do have requirement for probably up to 1000 J-20/31s, but that might take 20 years to build. They have requirement for 200 Y-20s of different variety (transport, tanker, special missions platform and such), but that might take them 10 years to build.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 15:13
by mixelflick
So.. very little to no combat experience for PLA. But... does anyone know if they have a Red Flag equivalent in China? This could mean only 1 of two things..

1.) In any real shooting war, the Chinese will be at a major disadvantage or..
2.) It might be like DS1, where the US had little to no combat experience, yet trounced a combat hardened Iraqi military.

You can argue scenario #2 was made possible by all the high tech the US invested in, but I'm not so sure that's the case. That technology had to work AND it had to be operated by skilled men/women. Indeed, they made it look easy in some cases. So it'll be interesting to see how the PLA deals with this dilemma. I don't see them engaging in regional conflicts to try and see if any of their new toys work...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 16:26
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:So.. very little to no combat experience for PLA. But... does anyone know if they have a Red Flag equivalent in China? This could mean only 1 of two things..

1.) In any real shooting war, the Chinese will be at a major disadvantage or..
2.) It might be like DS1, where the US had little to no combat experience, yet trounced a combat hardened Iraqi military.

You can argue scenario #2 was made possible by all the high tech the US invested in, but I'm not so sure that's the case. That technology had to work AND it had to be operated by skilled men/women. Indeed, they made it look easy in some cases. So it'll be interesting to see how the PLA deals with this dilemma. I don't see them engaging in regional conflicts to try and see if any of their new toys work...


#2 was because the US had half a century of air-warfare expertise under it's belt and had been practicing for decades to face the USSR using the most intense training they could dream up. The comparison to China couldn't be further from the truth.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 01:15
by weasel1962
The focus on navy can also be interpreted to support local shipyards. If one looks at the past decade, global new build commercial orders have dropped significantly. Shipyards provide significant number of jobs in China. State owned shipyards in particular have a national duty to support jobs. China has too many shipyards and has seen significant consolidation/reductions in this sector. I won't be surprised even the CV build was more to support industry rather than military need. By contrast, aircraft production may be a growth area but is significantly smaller in employee scale and revenue generation, in addition to the technology issues.

The above may explain why the PLAN got more than the PLAAF. This trend will likely continue at least in the near future.

As to potential PLAAF fighter numbers, it is probably more realistic if one covers air brigade numbers, read with operational scopes, historical conops, historical production, current aircraft lifespans and industry capacities before suggesting future aircraft numbers.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 01:45
by weasel1962
mixelflick wrote:But... does anyone know if they have a Red Flag equivalent in China?


Something similar. Golden helmet. Red arrow exercise.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... RR1416.pdf
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/view/201 ... 040188.htm

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 02:09
by nefory
mixelflick wrote:So.. very little to no combat experience for PLA. But... does anyone know if they have a Red Flag equivalent in China?


Yes they do.
It's called, and you might chuckle, the "Red Sword". They do annually since 2003 at division/brigade level.
There's even a Green Flag equivalent, it's called the "Blue Shield".
And then there is the "Golden Helmet", a "free air-combat drill" (not sure what that means), supposedly DACT equivalent I guess.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 03:24
by weasel1962
For avoidance of doubt, red arrow and red sword refers to the same exercise. Sword and Arrow is actually pronounced the same in mandarin so red arrow is probably a translation error. The difference with red flag is that its domestic not multi-national. International exercises are separately held e.g. Shaheen with Pakistan or vostok with Russia.

There is also a 4th major air combat training exercise which is "golden dart".

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/CASI/D ... ng-brands/

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 04:20
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:This bears more analysis. Pre-2002, military budget was under US$20b. China claimed a significant chunk was manpower costs.

Now its $150b. Even taking into account inflation, I don't think manpower costs will grow as fast. So the remaining either goes towards infrastructure, operations or capital equipment (plus some leakage for grease).

FP just did a piece on the "untested" military
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ch ... or-a-flop/

Its not just the focus on capital equipment. Its that China is probably spending a significant chunk of the budget to make sure the PLA knows how to use their weapons because of the lack of actual wartime experience. That value cannot be easily measured. On a simple example, hypothetically the Liaoning CV may already have conducted more sorties than the Kutz in the entire Kutz career. That could mean as much in war than more equipment where the soldiers do not know how to use.


Compare how much an engineer/tech/machinist/etc. gets paid in China compared to the US and roll that into the calculations.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 06:20
by weasel1962
Many Americans earn more than Chinese major generals. US$3.3k a month.

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-cha ... 314553.htm
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... n-military

Doesn't change the analysis. The PLA expenditure is not as much on pay but on the 3 items mentioned.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 07:40
by zhangmdev
weasel1962 wrote:Many Americans earn more than Chinese major generals. US$3.3k a month...


No wonder some of them went crazy. Some horded so much cash, gold and precious gems in his basement, it took a week to count it all and 12 trucks to haul it away. And some general even commit suicide to escape porverty.

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 16:15
by mixelflick
tphuang wrote:On this topic of what China can and will produce. I think there is a difference between navy and air force. And that comes down to their shipbuilding industry being far more advanced and competitive than their aerospace industry. They seem to be aiming for 6 carriers and a lot of escorts. Their recent shipbuilding program is comparable to what USN has and the quality of ships are also getting pretty good. And due to lower shipbuilding cost, China can build similar number of higher end ships with a much smaller budget and they don't have to support all of USN's deployment missions. PLAN is flush with too much hardware to know what to do with.

Their air force is quite starved in comparison. They couldn't build a large transport and engine for it until Y-20 came out recently. Now they got a huge requirement for that (maybe 200) and who knows how long it will take them to build that. They don't have an aerospace powerhouse like Boeing that can just ramp up and build 40 or 50 a year. So they've been stuck building An-12 derivatives. They are attempting a huge jump to build a stealth bomber, but until then, they are relying on Tu-16 derivatives. Who knows when that will happen. After being in service for 15 years, they can probably max out at producing 6 J-10s a month and that's assuming they can building engines for it (which they can't). It took them probably 30 years to finally develop something to replace S-70, because the local helicopter industry is so far behind and turboshaft industry is even further behind. They are still building variants of SA-321 super frelon, because that's all they have that's larger than Z-10 and can land on a ship. Working with Eurocopter to develop EC-175, they got a really advanced helicopter in Z-15 but they are having trouble getting a domestic turboshaft developed for it. And without a domestic option, they can't create versions of it for the army.

Having said that, they do have requirement for probably up to 1000 J-20/31s, but that might take 20 years to build. They have requirement for 200 Y-20s of different variety (transport, tanker, special missions platform and such), but that might take them 10 years to build.


You've cited some excellent examples here, but I think it'd be a mistake to under-estimate them. The J-20 flew WAY ahead of projections, and it seems as if US intelligence constantly under-estimates Russian/Chinese advancements since at least the 1980's. Prior to that we over-estimated (at least the Russians) i.e. the Mig-25 was a "super fighter" capable of doing it all. Something happened after that to swing the pendulum in the other direction, though I'm not sure what.

I'd say since the Soviet Union's collapse, US intelligence has done a good job projecting their weapons systems, capabilities and introduction dates etc. China I'm not so sure. The J-20 flew much earlier than we had projected, and it's introduction into service (albeit a rudimentary capability) seems to have gone faster than expected to. Unlike the SU-57, which has suffered setback after setback and even now, almost 9 years after its first flight only a dozen will be built. Those 12 aren't going to operational units though, just more test and evaluation. Sure, you'll find talk about more being built later... but no real evidence of that.

I just hate under-estimating your enemy. One of the biggest mistakes in the book...

Re: J-20 goes operational

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2018, 17:11
by Scorpion1alpha
Sad that this topic, which is suppose to be about the J-20 and was pretty interesting since it showed up at the Zhuhai Air Show, has gone all over the place with page after page of :offtopic: since then.

If you want to talk about the PLAAF, it's Generals, the Chinese military industry, the J-31 etc., then start an appropriate topic in the appropriate forum.

Somebody can start another J-20 topic if they want because I sure as hell am not wasting a lot of my time cleaning this one up. Let's see if you all can stick with it if you do...