J-20 goes operational again

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 10:05

hornetfinn wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.


Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...


Those side radars will definitely give wider angular coverage at shorter ranges but that range is about 1/3 of the main radar range capability. So if the main radar can track some target 100 km away, the side radar can do the same 30 km away or so. So they can be useful against targets that Su-57 can get close enough. Not sure if that is enough to make them worthwhile.


It is quite useful against non stealth especially against big targets. For example Su57 can fire aaam against E-3 and do U turn while it guide missile.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 11:03

Why not have a swivelling radar dish like the Su-35 instead ?
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 11:22

marsavian wrote:Why not have a swivelling radar dish like the Su-35 instead ?


Probable because they want instant 360deg scanning capability, you have side array in tail sting also.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 17:20

milosh wrote:
marsavian wrote:Why not have a swivelling radar dish like the Su-35 instead ?


Probable because they want instant 360deg scanning capability, you have side array in tail sting also.

We have seen the radiation danger warning in the tail cone but it is not clear whether this is an ECM emitter only or also a radar. It would make a lot of sense in any case IMHO

The fixed forward-looking radar derives from the need to make it as stealthy as possible from what I know.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 18:11

southerncross wrote:We have seen the radiation danger warning in the tail cone but it is not clear whether this is an ECM emitter only or also a radar.

in an integrated system of systems there is no difference.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 19:56

charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also Su-57 have side arrays which take space, power and cooling but they are quite useful.



Exactly how useful could they be? The side looking radar arrays, or at least the space that they intend to take isn' that big...
Image

Exactly. At close ranges, they could be useful, but they've got nowhere near the search volume of the main array.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 23:16

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:in an integrated system of systems there is no difference.

What do you mean exactly? I know a radar can operate as ECM emitter within its band and that a properly designed ESM can provide targetting of certain active sources, but AFAIK only a radar can actively and accurately detect air targets isn't it?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 00:05

My point being that IF the systems in the Su-57 were fused to the level of the systems in the F-35 then a tail mounted AESA antenna would be both used for ESM and Radar.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 01:07

element1loop wrote:
China’s navy ‘set to pick J-20 stealth jets for its next generation carriers’

Minnie Chan

Published: 11:00pm, 27 Aug, 2019
Updated: 11:49pm, 27 Aug, 2019

China’s military is likely to pick the country’s first active stealth fighter, the J-20, for its next generation aircraft carriers, according to military sources and a recent report on state media. The J-20, made by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), appears to have a won a head-to-head contest with the FC-31, a fighter made by another company which is still undergoing testing. A military insider told the South China Morning Post that the Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, now favoured adapting the J-20 for its new carriers.



Beyond China's J-20 Stealth Fighter

Is the carrier borne FC-31 in the works? And what about Chinese 6th Generation prospects?

By Rick Joe
September 20, 2019


QUOTE:

A Carrierborne FC-31?

Rumors of a carrierborne 5th generation fighter began to emerge not long after the first J-20 prototype made its first flight in early 2011. When the export oriented FC-31 airframe then emerged in October 2012, its smaller size and more conventional configuration and externally more sturdy appearing landing gear oriented speculation toward whether the FC-31 would be developed into a carrier borne fighter.

For a number of years, rumors suggested a carrierborne variants of both the J-20 from Chengdu and the FC-31 from Shenyang were engaged in a contest to be the PLAN's carrierborne 5th generation fighter. The two baseline aircraft occupied different weight categories, with the J-20 being heavier and larger of the two, and debates on open forums often considered the benefits and costs of one design over the other. In December 2016m an improved second prototype of the FC-31 flew with some major modifications to its canopy, wings and tails, however this second airframe did not feature any modifications suggestive of intended carrier compatibility.

In the last two years however, some rumors have suggested that the PLAN has finally settled on the FC-31 airframe as the basis for its 5th generation carrierborne fighter. The exact designation of this aircraft is not known, but it has been designated as "J-35" on Chinese language PLA boards, though the seriousness of the name is unknown. Some recent articles have suggested the PLA seeks a J-20 variant for a carrierborne fighter variant, but to the best of the author's knowledge this is contrary to the consensus of the Chinese language military watching boards................


https://thediplomat.com/2019/09/beyond- ... oMegZeyrbs
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 13:07

The way they're going, it wouldn't surprise me if they did both.

That said, if the decision really has been made that the J-20 is it - I think it's a big mistake. It would follow their line of thinking though, given the majority of their land based fighters are primarily Flankers. A carrier capable J-20 would be monsterously heavy, and given their engine tech is going to be a real slug. Think about the carrier modifications alone: Beefed up landing gear, the added weight of arresting gear, catapult capable etc.. It's already big and heavy for a land based fighter, and its not like they have experience operating big airframes (RA-5C, EB-66 etc) from the boat.

Hell, look at the J-15 "flopping fish". A carrier capable J-20 won't be pretty, but stranger things have happened..
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 16:27

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:My point being that IF the systems in the Su-57 were fused to the level of the systems in the F-35 then a tail mounted AESA antenna would be both used for ESM and Radar.

Both radars and ECM are part of the Sh121 MIRES radioelectric system and it all points out to the fact that they are heavily integrated. I have seen statements regarding the use of the radar antennae of the N036 subsystem as ECM emitter within their frequency range, despite the system having their own antennae. In a modern, SW based and centrally processed system like the Su-57 I find it almost self evident that the radars are used as ESM receivers but I have not seen an explicit mention to this.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Sep 2019, 04:30

mixelflick wrote:The way they're going, it wouldn't surprise me if they did both.

That said, if the decision really has been made that the J-20 is it - I think it's a big mistake. It would follow their line of thinking though, given the majority of their land based fighters are primarily Flankers. A carrier capable J-20 would be monsterously heavy, and given their engine tech is going to be a real slug. Think about the carrier modifications alone: Beefed up landing gear, the added weight of arresting gear, catapult capable etc.. It's already big and heavy for a land based fighter, and its not like they have experience operating big airframes (RA-5C, EB-66 etc) from the boat.

Hell, look at the J-15 "flopping fish". A carrier capable J-20 won't be pretty, but stranger things have happened..




Personally, I still see the J-31 as the most likely option. While never considering the J-20 seriously as a Naval Fighter.



:2c:
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post25 Sep 2019, 08:47

To navalise a J-20?
You have to build a 500 meter boat. Not gonna happen.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 Sep 2019, 13:39

vilters wrote:To navalise a J-20?
You have to build a 500 meter boat. Not gonna happen.


It would be the F-111B all over again.

Let's hope they blunder and go for it. Will set back their carrier aviation at least a decade, all while F-35C's fill out our flight decks...
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Sep 2019, 19:54

J-20 look bigger then it really is, J-20 length is 20.4m, Su-57 is 19.8m so J-20 isn't lot longer. Biggest drawback of J-20 and J-31 is weapon bay. It isn't good for bigger weapons (antiship missiles).

So they would need third design for decent deck fighter or to heavly modded J-20, copying Northrop Grumman would be good start:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/ ... small2.jpg

J-31 mod (bigger weapon bay) is not possible at all, it already is cramped design with lack of engine power.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests