Posted on 10/19/2016 5:51:29 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
China’s J-20 has been an internet star for half a decade. It first appeared in late 2010 in grainy photos taken from the fenceline at Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group’s plant. It first flew just as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who long shorted China’s ability to put into operation such an aircraft, was meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing. Since then the jet has made clear progress, with apparent design changes occurring as the aircraft progressed from prototype to pre-production stages. Now the J-20 will follow in the footsteps of its simpler and smaller cousin, the stealthy J-31, and be officially unveiled to the world at the biennial Zhuhai Air Show in Guangdong province.
The J-20’s splinter style scheme is similar to those that have become popular with leading-edge Russian fighter aircraft, but the style has existed for decades in one form or another. American adversary support units have also adopted similar schemes to reflect Russia’s use of it.
Although the J-20 is a remarkable accomplishment for China’s aerospace industry and military, looks can be deceiving. The aircraft clearly integrates a menagerie of design features stolen from the F-22 and F-35, likely a result of incessant hacking of US defense contractors and key human espionage operations. At the same time, it includes some fairly novel design elements of its own, such as the ability to deploy infrared homing missiles outside of its side weapons bays while still minimizing the aircraft’s overall radar signature. Still, its basic design is thought to have been obtained at least partially from the now defunct MiG1.42/1.44 program. Either way, these days a fighter aircraft is more about what lies beneath the surface, or what makes up their surfaces themselves, than just the jet’s shape and outward appearance.
China still lags behind the US in the areas of avionics, radar absorbent material science, and, especially, engine technology. China’s aerial weapons, most notably its air-to-air missiles, are regarded as inferior to its western counterparts in certain ways as well. This is not to say they have not made giant leaps to improve these deficiencies in recent years. Yet the reality is that the J-20 does not have to be as capable as, say, the F-22 in some or any respects to represent a serious threat. This is especially true if China builds these aircraft in significant numbers.
In any foreseeable conflict involving the US, China would be fighting as the home team, on or near their home turf, while American forces would be fighting in an expeditionary manner. One is much harder than the other, especially when fighting an enemy that occupies a large geographical area and has concentrated so heavily on building up its anti-access/area denial capabilities.
This means that even in a war over, say, the Taiwan Strait, China will be able to field massive amounts of air power in a persistent manner, while the US will struggle to keep a handful of combat fighters over the battlefield. Not just that, but these fighters can only carry a limited amount of air-to-air missiles, and are dependent on being within a few hundred miles of very unstealthy and vulnerable tanker aircraft.
America’s highly networked aerial forces also operate best when various support assets are present, including lumbering airborne early warning and control aircraft, flying battlefield connectivity nodes, and a whole menu of other information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft. All of these are vulnerable to attack without a thick fighter counter-air screen in place. But even such a screen can fend off only so many incoming targets over a limited area, and China has the ability to overwhelm that force with a mix of very low-end aerial assets (drones converted from surplus fighter planes, cruise missiles, etc) and very high-end assets (Su-35, J-11, J-20 etc)—and everything in between.
Excerpt. Read more at The War Zone
Well, ya can’t say it’s not a good looking plane.
I will bet anything that the cost to build it is a fraction of the F-22 and F-35.
No thrust vectoring I see.
Especially if you have slave labor available...
They saved a ton of money by starting off with the blueprints for both those planes.
That is a fine looking plane. Darn. They have been so well known for putting out aircraft that looked like dogs to me, I thought I would be able to hang my hat on that, at least.
No dice on this one!
Engines appear to be home-grown. Cost is still pretty high, but they have the money to spend, apparently.
I won’t underestimate newer Chinese hardware, but I don’t have much respect for their operations end of things, from what I have been able to tell.
When they can build 10-20 of those at the same cost as one of our F-22’s or F-35’s they overcome some technological disadvantages with sheer numbers.
I had heard the cost was comparable...these are very low production rate planes, apparently.
Loks like a Saab Gripen and an F22 got together and started a family.
CC
“Heard the cost was comparable”??? Don’t know where that came from. The Chinese never disclose that kind of information. When you consider they probably stole most of the design and have very low Production costs, the idea that their cost would be comparable is wishful thinking is not ludicrous. That’s like saying the cost of maintaining and equipping one Chinese Soldier is comparable to maintaining and equipping one of ours. They also build Submarines and other ships for a fraction of the cost of ours. Our Bid, R&D and Production costs are so ridiculously high that any comparison with the Chinese would be fantasy. Take it from me, I used to be in that “Racket”.
1. I doubt the chicoms have labor unions, which drive up the costs enormously with much, much higher wages;
2. They don't have greedy corporations (Lockheed-Martin) that put corporate profits and huge executive bonuses ahead of national interests;
3. The cost of "Wining and Dining" crooked politicians there is probably not a much as here (just a guess).
They also can use the interest we pay them on our debt which they hold. Also, I am NOT going to advocate “Slave Labor”, but history shows us that a lot of armies are built on slave labor or forced conscription. It helps to provide strength in numbers.
Yeah, I hear you. But if the production run is very small (or not disclosed) I would imagine the cost per unit will be far higher, so it didn’t strike me the same way it did you..I would defer to you on this, though.
Very impressive looking, but like a Chinese tool, how long will it hold up? Ever try to put in or remove a Chinese Philips screw with an American made screw driver?
Big weapons bay.
I wonder what sort of anti-ship missiles will fit in there?
>3. The cost of “Wining and Dining” crooked politicians there is probably not a much as here (just a guess).
Actually the PRC is quite corrupt. Nothing gets done there without juice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China
Talk about saving money, I'll bet they built them in China, too!
I guess the argument of Quality versus Quantity should be referred to Veterans of the 1st Cavalry Division who were in the Chosen Reservoir during the Korean War when the Chinese Army came across the Yalu River.
They finally used the correct plywood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.