Similarities J-20 MiG1.44

n3sk · by **n3sk** » 02 Apr 2019, 22:05

I was curious if anybody else has noticed the similarities between the J 20 and the Meg 1.44. To me the J 20 looks like somebody took a 1.44 put a raptor front end wit F35 stab. Since is Mig has not released anything in Russia is there any chance that those engineers and designers, all that thought process went to China where their manufacturing can actually produce it

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 03 Apr 2019, 15:40

Has been mentioned here and elsewhere before..

I doubt the designers of Mig I.44 fled to China and helped them build the J-20. More likely any similarity is as the result of Chinese espionage. J-20 also displays a far better shape for stealth properties, and also seems to have more room for internal fuel/weapons. The J-20 design also speaks to not being as maneuverable as the I.44, a consequence of the Chinese probably arriving at the same conclusions about BVR kills as the US - right down to not carrying a gun.

If that sticks, it'll be a major departure from the Russian philosophy of air to air combat, as they refuse to believe the dogfight is dead. Whereas Mig I.44/SU-57's objective is to get to the merge, the J-20 decidedly seeks to avoid this, which is more in line with American thinking.

On their surface, designs like the J-20, TU-160 and Buran seem to be copies of other country's aircraft. Close examination however, tells a different tale. There are important differences, and usually significant at that. I do think the J-20 is going to be the aircraft to beat circa 2025-30 or so, and if produced in numbers it's going to really complicate allied planning. We best hope the F-35 can find and destroy them, at least until PCA gets here

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 03 Apr 2019, 16:43

*Ahem*

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 03 Apr 2019, 17:08

So THOSE were the JSF files they stole, got it!

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 03 Apr 2019, 17:35

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So THOSE were the JSF files they stole, got it!

Actually a McDonnel Douglas concept (apparently).

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 03 Apr 2019, 18:38

mixelflick wrote:On their surface, designs like the J-20, TU-160 and Buran seem to be copies of other country's aircraft. Close examination however, tells a different tale. There are important differences, and usually significant at that.

I don't think anybody has claimed any of these are B-29/Tu-4 copies. They've definitely lifted much from US designs, especially in the case of the Buran.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/ns/t ... KTzcmZYZaQ

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 04 Apr 2019, 16:29

sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:On their surface, designs like the J-20, TU-160 and Buran seem to be copies of other country's aircraft. Close examination however, tells a different tale. There are important differences, and usually significant at that.

I don't think anybody has claimed any of these are B-29/Tu-4 copies. They've definitely lifted much from US designs, especially in the case of the Buran.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/ns/t ... KTzcmZYZaQ

Fair point, but the Buran was sort of an exception. The blueprints and other data were openly displayed for the world to see, a huge oversight by American intelligence IMO. Yet, after the basic planform was laid there were important differences. The biggest and most important being the fact Buran didn't have 3 big engines in its rear. Instead, it just had re-entry rockets and on at least one prototype, jet engines to use in the event of a go around.

Interestingly enough, these turbojets would be the same that power the SU-27..

http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-bu ... acteur.php

Ultimately abandoned, there were nonetheless an innovative concept...

madrat · by **madrat** » 04 Apr 2019, 23:08

One of the shuttle prototypes in the US had jet engines, too. All they were used for was proof of concept, not in production shuttles.

n3sk · by **n3sk** » 05 Apr 2019, 09:05

Hmmm very interesting answers you guys have there...ambiguity maintained.

Was unaware the Soviets shuttle was that close of a copy, visually it looks the part. Very interesting that it turned out benifital when the first Mir/Atlantis uplink occurred. Especially when original intentions were military in nature. I guess Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Icarus should have waited for nightfall the moon would never have let him go

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 05 Apr 2019, 15:30

madrat wrote:One of the shuttle prototypes in the US had jet engines, too. All they were used for was proof of concept, not in production shuttles.

That's a new one on me. Source?

I don't recall Enterprise being powered whatsoever. And prior to Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Endevour and Atlantis... only Enterprise "flew" in separation/glide scope tests. Was there another??

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 06 Apr 2019, 14:25

mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:One of the shuttle prototypes in the US had jet engines, too. All they were used for was proof of concept, not in production shuttles.

That's a new one on me. Source?

I don't recall Enterprise being powered whatsoever. And prior to Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Endevour and Atlantis... only Enterprise "flew" in separation/glide scope tests. Was there another??

Same here. Never heard that one before. Enterprise certainly didn't have any. Now there were Shuttle concepts that had them but they never made it to hardware.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 06 Apr 2019, 15:51

Wind tunnel model of design posted above.

: MDA_JSF_REAR.jpg (128.12 KiB) Viewed 21581 times

: MDA_JSF_TOP.jpg (81.91 KiB) Viewed 21581 times

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 06 Apr 2019, 15:53

Another one, simliar, but with different intakes.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 07 Apr 2019, 13:55

sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:One of the shuttle prototypes in the US had jet engines, too. All they were used for was proof of concept, not in production shuttles.

That's a new one on me. Source?

I don't recall Enterprise being powered whatsoever. And prior to Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Endevour and Atlantis... only Enterprise "flew" in separation/glide scope tests. Was there another??

Same here. Never heard that one before. Enterprise certainly didn't have any. Now there were Shuttle concepts that had them but they never made it to hardware.

Unless he can produce evidence of such, I'm going to file this under FAKE NEWS.

Perhaps he was thinking of another vehicle? But really, the shuttle is very distinct. The US doesn't have many other vehicles like it, 'cept that little space-plane (X-43?) USAF uses for "mysterious" missions. I don't think that has jet engines either though. Anyway, I hope its an honest mistake. Not like we haven't all made them..

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 07 Apr 2019, 14:19

mixelflick wrote:Perhaps he was thinking of another vehicle? But really, the shuttle is very distinct. The US doesn't have many other vehicles like it, 'cept that little space-plane (X-43?) USAF uses for "mysterious" missions. I don't think that has jet engines either though. Anyway, I hope its an honest mistake. Not like we haven't all made them..

X-37, it doesn't have them either.