J-20 goes operational again

Well this should be interesting..

Who gets "stage 2" engines operational on their fighter(s) first? The Russians with the SU-57, or the Chinese with the J-20?

I'm betting on the Chinese..

Su-57 first, probably, since they already have izd.30 prototype flying on a test aircraft. WS-15 is not there yet.

This was taken from a Chinese forum that formed the source of the Rupprecht article.

J-20 WS-10C.png

Also summarized the article below on the WS-10 variants.
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/09/ws-1 ... -variants/

WS-10 [2005] – J-11 (prototype only)
WS-10A [2005] – J-10/J-11B (few installed)
WS-10B [2008] – J-10C
WS-10B2 – J-16 (more than 200 engines installed)
WS-10B TVC – J-10B (air show exhibit only)
WS-10H – J-15 (test only)
WS-10C – J-20

Eh, what the heck. The photos are a year old, but in keeping with the primer look...

It's really shaping up to be a nice fighter.

It's big, but not as big as it looks. Going to have to be, will need lots of internal fuel if those engines are thirsty.The weapons loadout shown so far is interesting.. Most observers have the J-20 pegged as a "strike" aircraft, not a pure air to air fighter. Yet thus far only AAM's have appeared in its internal bays.

I'm guessing they have judged American AWACS/Tankers to be priority target #1 in an air battle, and probably rightfully so. Fighter escorts for those assets are nice, but the more I read about miniature defensive missile/laser systems, the more I think they're going to be a necessity, not a luxury.

It would also free up those fighters for their intended mission...

Keeping an eye on (one of) the competition.






Assuming the name is Wen Xiaotong, the person who created the following CGI works:


Stealthy external combat config. Although stealthy external weapon pods are not a new concept, Nobody has or uses them operationally. Interesting this person is already thinking about it on the J-20 and if this is part of the J-20's future, would be formidable.

It's really shaping up to be a nice fighter.

It's big, but not as big as it looks. Going to have to be, will need lots of internal fuel if those engines are thirsty.The weapons loadout shown so far is interesting.

It's big alright. At 70 feet long it's right up there with some of the biggest fighters in history, especially relics like J-8II. Nobody is going to mistake it for an F-16.

It's really shaping up to be a nice fighter.

It's big, but not as big as it looks. Going to have to be, will need lots of internal fuel if those engines are thirsty.The weapons loadout shown so far is interesting.

It's big alright. At 70 feet long it's right up there with some of the biggest fighters in history, especially relics like J-8II. Nobody is going to mistake it for an F-16.

Must be a trend then. The SU-57 is even longer, at 72 feet...

The J-20 is reckoned to be about two feet longer than Su-57. But it also seems to be size guess-timated on the notion it used Al-31 engines. I have a feeling the original prototypes did not, because the tails never seemed to match up with Al-31s.

In the age of GE, no need to guess the J-20 size. Note the sat pic taken at Dingxin Airbase on 17 Mar 2020. Smaller than a sukhoi next to it and shorter than 20m based on a simple GE measure.

As a control, I took the measurement of the sukhoi which came up to 21.08m, so the J-20 is ~2m shorter.

That line is off center and at an angle. Whomever used the tool screwed up. It would probably help if the picture was rotated, but then you get inaccuracies from anti-aliasing.

Even using this crap picture I got 69.5 feet. The probability of error is well within a foot.

Using this picture below I got the same 69.5 feet.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... L&usqp=CAU

Raising my hand here on who did the calc. If you have done a more accurate calc, do show. Happy to be corrected.

Even at 71 ft, are you saying that the SU-57 is 69 ft?

At the same time, what was your calculation of the sukhoi length next to it? Sukhoi fighters length are pretty well known. So that acts as a control.

Used the same GE line tool to draw a 21.3m (70 ft line) as a comparison which is the yellow line. I think the J-20 is clearly shorter than that.

Decided to check out an alternate pic (this time at Chengdu). The line tool shows 19.62m. 2nd pic shows a 21.3m line. And the 3rd pic shows the J-10 length at 15.93m.

I was using 71.2 feet for Flanker. Some sources say it is 72, which would make my calculations off by 8-9 inches. I figure a foot is well within the probability of error.

You're not taking time to get measurements accurately. All of your lines are diagonal to your object, leading to inaccuracy. I realize it is easy to do, but it helps if you straighten out the image using rotation to get the object parallel to the outside edge of the canvas. And in most image creation tools you can get a straight line parallel to the outside edge of the canvas simply by holding down control or shift when you draw the line.

You're also measuring to the tailpipe and not the tail. That throws off your measurement yet more.

Anybody can claim they got xx ft or whatever. If you have a better calc, show it.

Excuse me, but I just refuse to believe that the J-20 is smaller than the Flanker.
You can blame it on the Chinese Propagandists who
Fanned out on the internet during the J-20 reveal and tried to get us to believe that the fighter is small and agile. This culminated in a video online showing the J-20 in a turn. They sped the footage up odviously for propaganda purposes. The Chinese odviously want the U.S. to believe the J-20 is more capable than it is.

Anybody can claim they got xx ft or whatever. If you have a better calc, show it.

I used your image the first time and provided the link to the second image. You want me to demonstrate a straight line? I explained exactly how to do it more accurately. I even gave you the length of the Flanker at 71.2 feet, which is not in agreement with all sources. You said how easy it was then demonstrated it incorrectly. The lines you posted are off the mark and you came up with erroneous measurements. I mean, come on man. My point was that you need to correct your method. You don't have to agree with my measurement, but don't pass off those you did earlier as anything relevant to reality.

This is a recurring argument across the internet. I'm a bit bored with showing the method over and over.