Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Khand-e

Bash the J-20 thread.

Recommended Posts

Role and weapon fit wise, not specifics of operation and basing, I think it is likely to be a long range platform for a disturbingly large missile load.

I actually think the PLAAF has a better grasp of what is going to be needed in a Gen5 v Gen5 air-to-air engagement than the US does.  It's going to get down to PK/missile launched and the folks who have the most AAMs are going to win. Why does the AIM-120D not have a IR/Radar dual mode seeker head? With IRST and Stealth advantages, Radar guided only isn't always the best option IMNSHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think the PLAAF has a better grasp of what is going to be needed in a Gen5 v Gen5 air-to-air engagement than the US does.  It's going to get down to PK/missile launched and the folks who have the most AAMs are going to win. Why does the AIM-120D not have a IR/Radar dual mode seeker head? With IRST and Stealth advantages, Radar guided only isn't always the best option IMNSHO.

 

Well the US clearly has no idea because right up near the top of the list is actually having combat coded planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Everything I've heard is the US stuff is a bit ahead on performance, but it's maintainability and length between overhauls where they really shine.

 

 

This is the biggest difference for the majority of currently-fielded engines.

 

The vast majority of NATO airpower is flying on engines that are a generation or a half generation older than the latest and greatest; e.g. F100 and F110 in the American-built stuff, and EJ200/SNECMA M88 in Euro-built stuff.  Those are basically comparable to the latest AL-31/RD-33 variants.  Compare a recent vintage AL-31 and a recent vintage F100, and the F100 is a tad smaller relative to the thrust it puts off, the AL-31 is a tad more efficient and a tad more powerful, but they're pretty much comparable except for the fact that the F100 is hitting its first maintenance interval by the time the AL-31 is scrap, per the engines' respective manufacturer's recommendations.

But that isn't the cutting edge of Western turbine technology.  The very rare F119 is, and the F135 is completely better than everything else by a silly margin.  It's the same diameter and about the same weight as an F100, puts out 20% more thrust than even the most ginned-up F100 variants (which, incidentally, borrow technology from the F119), all while having a lower bypass ratio and while blowing through a less efficient square nozzle.

 

Which is all very impressive until you consider that there will only ever be less than two hundred raptors.

 

The Russians and the Chinese can't match the very scary US technology, not yet anyhow.  But they don't need to.  The vast majority of export birds, and hell, of stuff in US service, will be considerably watered down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article on the J-20 weapon bays.

 

Apparently the J-20 side weapons bays shove the missile out on a pylon arm, then close the doors while the missile sits on the arm.  I'm skeptical that this has any major stealth advantages over parking the missile in the airstream with the doors open, since the missile and the pylon will have significant radar returns themselves, and the missile sticking out of the side of the plane will screw up the stealth shaping of the thing.  Perhaps there are other advantages.

 

What I really want to know is why the missile has to be parked in the airstream before firing at all.  A lot of IRAAM manufacturers are advertising lock-on-after-launch capability, so why can't IR-guided missiles be punted out of the weapons bays the way AMRAAMs are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might give more control over getting the missile out, allowing for the doors to open and close a bit tighter to getting the missile out.

 

I'd be willing to bet it's the sort of detail that isn't giving much away that they can use to get hype and is mostly just because they were having difficulty getting reliable separation and didn't want to pull a Grumman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The yellow paint job on PLAAF and PLANAF aircraft when used is almost always an indicator of a pre-production aircraft so they're damn near 100% correct on the plane.

 

I wish they got a shot of the back though, I want to see if it's using WS-15s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be for use as an airbrake, I think the F-22 does something similar.

 

2d01isk.jpg

 

Though the amount of deflection does seem a bit ... excessive... (especially since it appears to be the whole tail moving). Could just be some kind of testing mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to SH.

 

Hiya.

 

 

Though the amount of deflection does seem a bit ... excessive... (especially since it appears to be the whole tail moving). Could just be some kind of testing mode.

 

Yeah sure, it's preflight,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't tell if this is a photo manipulation but, yeah, that image earlier showcasing 2101, 2012, and 2103 on the sides makes a bit more sense now if so.

 

2101 (Previous preproduction aircraft pictured) and 2102? (The one showed today, though not an official photo.)

 

476b6c930d28720693673d1ad2ed71f4_640_360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower right hand is the M-ATF design concept.

 

Yeah, it came from a post comparing the J-20s design features to other 4.5-5th generation fighters, like the YF-23 and F-22A, and then some oddballs that were never built like the F-2020 and X-35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paralay has made one hell of a claim:

 

0awvndx.jpg

 

See how the CoG is in front of the CoL?  Yep; that's right, Paralay thinks the J-20 is stable.

 

There is a way we can test this.  If there is footage of the J-20 taking off or maneuvering, clear enough that we can see what the canards are doing during the initiation of the maneuver and afterwards, then we'll know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None that I know of that give a very clear view of the take off and landing.

 

This is the closest you'll find on the western web, and the guy risked his ass jumping a fence to get the footage so it's not very good. (the original, not the channel who reuploaded it.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0dYJJuV6RM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×