• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

Chengdu J-20

Mamma

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Posts
2,802
Total Time
+1
Seems the Aussies are already running scared from this thing. How can they know so much from just a static display? The analyst is saying this J-20 will lay waste to the J-35 and F-18 too.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype
A Preliminary Assessment


Technical Report APA-TR-2011-0101

by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng,
Peter Goon, BE (Mech), FTE (USNTPS)
3rd January, 2011
Text © 2011 Carlo Kopp, Peter Goon



Elevated head on view of Chengdu prototype, December, 2010 (Chinese Internet).


In late December, 2010, imagery of what is claimed to be China's new stealth fighter has emerged on a range of Chinese Internet sites.

There have been no official Chinese disclosures as yet, so many of the claims about the aircraft appearing in the media may only be speculation presented as fact.

The aircraft may be a technology demonstrator or a prototype for a mass production fighter aircraft. The latter is however much more likely, given that the Deputy Chief of Air Staff PLA-AF Gen. He Weirong claimed an IOC between 2017 and 2019, in a November, 2009, public disclosurei.

The following is a preliminary assessment only and subject to revision. APA will produce a more complete assessment at a future date, once more technical material and the detailed analysis of same becomes available.

Technical Observations on the Prototype Design

The J-XX/J-20 is a large fighter, similar in size to an F-111. This first-of-type aircraft presents with a large dihedral canard-delta wing configuration; with a pair of outward/rearward canted all moving combined vertical/horizontal tails; and, similarly large, outward canted ventral fins/strakes which, if all moving like the tails and retained on any production version, will make for some quite advanced capability options in the areas of controllability and manoeuvrability. There is little doubt this configuration is intended to provide good sustained supersonic cruise performance with a suitable engine type, and good manoeuvre performance in transonic and supersonic regimes.
The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The J-XX/J-20 design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor:
The chined J-XX/J-20 nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22, yielding similar signature performance in a mature design.
The J-XX/J-20 trapezoidal edge aligned engine inlets are closest to the F-22, though appear to be larger and employ an F-35 style DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) design, obviously intended to improve on F-22 inlet edge signature.
The J-XX/J-20 wing fuselage join, critical for beam and all aspect stealth, is in shaping and angle very similar to the F-22, and clearly superior to both the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The J-XX/J-20 flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wideband stealth, and emulates the F-22 design closely.
Planform alignment of the J-XX/J-20 is impossible to fully assess until in-flight imagery becomes available.
The J-XX/J-20 nose and main undercarriage doors employ X-band optimised edge serration technology, based on F-117A and F-22 design rules.
The aft fuselage, tailbooms, fins/strakes and axi-symmetric nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop-gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype.
The airframe configuration and aft fuselage shape would be compatible with an F-22A style 2D TVC nozzle design, or a non-TVC rectangular nozzle designed for controlled infrared emission patterns and radio-frequency stealth.
The airframe configuration is compatible with ventral and side opening internal weapon bays, and large enough to match or exceed, by some degree, the internal weapons payload of the F-22A Raptor.
Internal fuel fraction is also likely to be high, given the fuselage configuration and large internal volume of the big delta wing. This indicates an intent to provide a sustained supersonic cruise capability, in the manner of the proposed FB-22.
The PLA have not disclosed the engine type. There are claims that the Russians supplied supercruise capable 117S series engines, though, subject to the overall efficiency of the aircraft’s aerodynamics, these would likely not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe.
The intended sensor suite remains unknown. China has yet to demonstrate an AESA radar, or an advanced indigenous Emitter Locating System (ELS). However, these could become available by the time this airframe enters production. Suitable Russian hardware is currently in late development and/or test.


The J-XX/J-20 is a large fighter, similar in size to an F-111 (Chinese Internet).

(US DoD)


Above, below: Histograms of distances between PLA-AF and PLA-N fixed basing along the eastern seaboard of mainland China and US airfields at Kadena AFB on Okinawa and Andersen AFB on Guam. The J-XX/J-20 is well sized to hold both of these bases at risk (Kopp, 2005).




General Conclusions


The size of the J-XX/J-20 airframe, and the self evident focus on supersonic persistence, suggests, at a minimum, an intention to provide a long range interceptor for anti-access operations in the Second Island Chain geography. It is likely any production design J-XX/J-20 will incorporate an aerial refuelling probe to further extend its large operating radius.

A stealthy, supercruising, long range interceptor would provide the PLA-AF with the capability to penetrate an opposing IADS to destroy assets like E-3 AWACS, RC-135V/W Rivet Joint, other ISR systems, and importantly, Air Force and Navy tankers. This would significantly complicate if not close down air operations from Andersen AFB and fixed basing in the Ryukyu chain, Japanese main islands, and Korean peninsula, during the opening phase of any contingency.

Naval task forces structured around CVBGs and operating within the 1,000 NMI plus radius of the J-XX/J-20 would be at significant risk of rapidly losing their E-2C/D AEW&C and EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack coverage during the opening phase of any contingency.

Any notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let alone penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, would be simply absurd. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are both aerodynamically and kinematically quite inferior to the as presented J-XX/J-20 design, and even the shape based VLO capability in the J-XX/J-20, as presented, will effectively neutralise any sensor advantage either type might possess against earlier Russian and Chinese fighter designs.

Multi-Role Options and Production Numbers


The J-XX/J-20 design could be employed as a penetrating strike aircraft, in the combat radius class of the F-111 or Su-34 Fullback, if equipped with internal guided bombs, such as the Luoyang/CASC LT-3 Laser / Satellite Aided Inertially Guided Bomb, the FT-1, FT-2, FT-3, FT-4, FT-5 and LS-6 series Satellite Aided Inertially Guided Bombs. These are Chinese analogues to the US JDAM, some including glide wing kits modelled on the JDAM-ER. CASC displayed compact 250 lb and 125 lb variants of the LS-6 at Zhuhai in 2010, these derivative weapons being direct analogues to the US GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb, currently being integrated on the F-22A Raptorii.

A mature J-XX/J-20, with a full strike capability, would be a direct one-for-one equivalent to the proposed dual role FB-22A, which was championed by Dr. James G. Roche during his tenure as SecAF, until 2005iii.

The PLA-AF has not disclosed as yet intended production quantities. The stated IOC of the J-XX/J-20 directly aligns with the retirement date of the second tranche of Su-27SK Flanker B and first tranche of Su-30MKK Flanker G currently in operational service. It is a reasonable conclusion that the J-XX/J-20 is intended as an eventual replacement for PLA-AF Flanker B/G and later PLA-N shore based Su-30MK2 Flanker G long range multirole fighters. If the J-XX/J-20 is intended to directly replace PLA Flankers, numbers in the order of 400 – 500 aircraft are credible.

APA NOTAM: What China's New Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet



CASC displayed compact 250 lb and 125 lb variants of the LS-6 at Zhuhai in 2010, these derivative weapons being direct analogues to the US GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (© 2011 Air Power Australia).
 

johnsonrod

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Posts
4,218
Total Time
8000+
When the Chinese finally run out of room as their population expands, they are gonna need some more land - in AUSTRALIA. Unless the Indonesians beat them to it. Maybe now extending the F22 production line can be justified (with Australia as a customer).... Thanks China!
 

Scrapdog

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Posts
1,127
Total Time
2000+
Yep, because those chinese fighter pilots are so tactically sound. :rolleyes:
 

acpilot

I am...PROFESSOR FATE!
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Posts
2,462
Total Time
+/-MMM
It's not that they're good. There are just so many of them.
 

Kharma Police

Don't mess with Texas
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Posts
2,099
Total Time
8000
It's not that they're good. There are just so many of them.

More from the Aussie think tank in Aviation Week concerning a conflict in the Taiwan Strait,

"Wargaming, including an extensive simulation by Rand, has shown that the U.S. would generate a 6-1 kill ratio over Chinese aircraft, but the Americans would lose. Even if every U.S. missile destroyed an opponent, there would still be enough surviving attackers to shred U.S. tankers, command and control and intelligence-gathering aircraft, says Andrew Davies, program director for operations and capabilities, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in an interview with Aviation Week."


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...e=Chinese Air Force Could Overwhelm Opponents
 

Mud Eagle

Aviator
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Posts
516
Total Time
69
Again, anything written by Carlo Kopp is questionable at best, and very likely outright ********************e.
 

Dolce

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Posts
76
Total Time
Enough
Chinese need to thank all those negligent individuals who use off-the-shelf thumbdrives for their leaps and bounds related to this project!
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
What's with all the "US and China fighting over Taiwan" stories these days? Popular Mechanics just had one a couple weeks ago. Does anybody really think China would get into a shooting war with their biggest trading partner, a country they have trillions of dollars of investments in, over Taiwan?

I'm no expert, but it seems that AW article as well as the Rand simulation they refer to would have an awful lot of holes in their assumptions...like the effectiveness of Taiwan's western-procured fighters and air defense systems (to say nothing of their indigenous systems) against Chinese aircraft spamming, as well as Aegis against any aircraft or missile threats to carrier battle groups.
 

learherkjay

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Posts
135
Total Time
10000+
The experts believed that World War I would never break out because the European nations were too intertwined economically...guess that didn't turn out so well.
 

Bako Cap

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2003
Posts
378
Total Time
10500
The J-20 has a bunch of extra aerodynamic surfaces that are generally not needed on aircraft that use multi-directional thrust vectoring and are computer stabilized. They will make a straight thrust aircraft fly real nice, but will get spanked by a quality thrust vectored aircraft. The multitude of surfaces create enemy opportunity for detection and destruction. The Chinese are catching up but are still behind the power curve when it comes to an air-supremacy aircraft. It is very believable that the J-20 is just as advertised, a research prototype. It may take 5-10 years for the J-20 to evolve into a credible threat. Even so, I'd love to see the Aussies pull some built up political power to keep the F-22 production running for importation. The F-22 would keep a check on the region for the better part of 20 years.
 

waka

Emasculating the Right
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
1,972
Total Time
4?
Yep, because those chinese fighter pilots are so tactically sound. :rolleyes:

Please expound us with your in-depth knowledge on the tactical soundness of Chinese fighter pilots, Mr Expert.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Kharma Police

Don't mess with Texas
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Posts
2,099
Total Time
8000
Please expound us with your in-depth knowledge on the tactical soundness of Chinese fighter pilots, Mr Expert.:rolleyes:

I think he is (or was) an F-22 pilot in the Guard, so I think he probably has done his homework.
 

C-150ETOPS

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Posts
499
Total Time
8800+
We all better get behind the latest P3 upgrades so it can maintain it's air superiority advantage over the Chinese fighters.
 

waka

Emasculating the Right
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
1,972
Total Time
4?
Ready! Fire! Aim! Can you still take this back Waka?


There's no reason to take it back. He made a summary comment about Chinese fighter pilots without giving a reason. I asked him to explain further. What's the problem? If Scrapdog is a fighter pilot, I am sure he can handle some mild snarkiness and eye rolling....especially if he can dish it out.

My request, eye rolling and all, stands.
 

OPECJet

1700
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Posts
2,312
Total Time
5K
We all better get behind the latest P3 upgrades so it can maintain it's air superiority advantage over the Chinese fighters.
Excellent!

I say we give all the defense contracts to Caterpillar. We're 2 and 0 in the collision department.
 

Draginass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5000+
There's no reason to take it back. He made a summary comment about Chinese fighter pilots without giving a reason. I asked him to explain further. What's the problem? If Scrapdog is a fighter pilot, I am sure he can handle some mild snarkiness and eye rolling....especially if he can dish it out.

My request, eye rolling and all, stands.


Like Maj Wong-way and his collision with the P-3?
 

Mamma

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Posts
2,802
Total Time
+1
There's no reason to take it back. He made a summary comment about Chinese fighter pilots without giving a reason. I asked him to explain further. What's the problem? If Scrapdog is a fighter pilot, I am sure he can handle some mild snarkiness and eye rolling....especially if he can dish it out.

My request, eye rolling and all, stands.

If he can dish it out? Are you a Chinese fighter pilot?
 
Top