Chengdu J-20 (first shown to the public in 2010, first official flight in 2011 ...11 years after the MFI):
Posted on 01/14/2011 3:23:33 AM PST by spetznaz
The photographs appear to show the aircraft, variously known as the J20 and JXX, taxiing along a runway.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, recently said China would be able to produce a combat jet by 2020.
The photographs come amid growing fears over China's rapidly-expanding military capabilities. Naval experts have expressed concern over the Dong Feng-21D ballistic missile, which is designed to target aircraft carriers in mid-sea – thus denying the United States its traditional military dominance of the Pacific.
Fifth generation fighter jets are so designated because of their ability to evade radar even when carrying armaments, and computer systems which can network with other elements in a battle theatre. The US-manufactured F-22 is the only combat-ready fifth generation fighter.
Experts, however, are warning against drawing conclusions on the basis of the photographs.
Douglas Barrie, an aerospace expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, noted that the J20's airframe resembled that of an abandoned Russian prototype, the MiG 1.42.
"I'm not sure that its even much of an impressive airframe," said Richard Aboulafia, another analyst. "It looks like something that might have been designed in 1985."
For the most part, China's combat aircraft programme has lagged behind its competitors in the west and Russia.
China's fourth-generation combat jet, the J-10, appeared in 2006 – but experts say it compares with western aircraft that went into production two decades ago. Beijing has also struggled to develop the Shenyang J-15 carrier-borne jet, reverse-engineered from the Russian-made Sukhoi 33.
For example, Chinese avionics – the software-controlled electronic systems which gave modern combat jets their cutting-edge mission capabilities – are believed to be a generation behind their US, European, Israeli and Russian counterparts.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Chengdu J-20 (first shown to the public in 2010, first official flight in 2011 ...11 years after the MFI):
Ping. The article never made it on FR.
I call it the “Slick Willie”. Named in honor of the man who made it possible.
They probably use the latest Apple computers for the avionics.
or the Clinton Special...in any case,you’d be right
The nickname would irritate the Left.
so be it
It looks pretty advanced......probably has a push button phone instead of dial up.
They may be on to something about a reverse engineered MiG design, but I still would not underestimate the Chinese.
Now why would they do that when most of our own current high-end PC equipment is made in China?
We are in a lot more trouble than most realize.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post is on the council of this organization. That should tell us about all we need to know.
Maybe based, but the wing shape,cockpit section and the intakes are significantly different. The intakes and cockpit in particular do reflect an emphasis on stealth, and even vaguely resemble those of the F-22. As well, MiGs aren’t exactly total junk. Mikoyan seems annoyingly able to come up with designs that give western fighters fits from time to time.
At Pratt&Whitney, we were working on the engines in the F-22 during the late 80’s early 90’s - Fly off between the YF-22 and YF-23 was almost 20 years ago. Congress kept delaying production. I remember seeing the automated assembly cell sitting idle in Marietta Ga in 1994. ( it was later moved ) That’s 15 years ago.
The spin will be: “ignore it, its outdated”. Meanwhile, we cancelled he F-22 and I bet we cancel the F-35 too. We are in luv with UAVs, but one day our a$$ is going to get waxed in a dogfight and we’ll find the UAVs were pretty useless.
yup:
China is schooling us
Leveling the Battlefield and redistributing our military power is priority one for these people.
That is what this study is. Spin. IISS is full of Liberals.
But for the Chinese to be able one day to build a stealth aircraft that actually is a threat, these are the kinds of first steps they need to towards that goal. Journey of a thousand miles and all that.
Between this J-20 and the Russian/Indian PAK-FA, The US needs to take seriously the threat of being on the receiving end of stealth technology one day, and step up efforts at anti-stealth detection technologies.
Look for an increased effort to upgrade existing F-15s and F-16s with AESA radars.
From JAST To J-20Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/14/2011 5:42 AM CST
Sometimes the analysis of a new design is one of those areas where you get a whack-on-the-side-of-the-head moment.
This one was induced by the discussion here of the origins of the F-35 design, wherein I suddenly realized what the J-20 reminded me of - Lockheed's immediate pre-JAST/JSF design, tested in the form of a large powered mock-up.
The similarity is quite close in terms of wing/canard relationship, sweep angles, and body shaping, although the Chengdu engineers decided to align the trailing edges of the canards (and rudders) with the trailing edges of the opposite wings, giving them more sweep at the quarter-chord line.
I remember talking this over with Paul Bevilaqua at the 1993 Powered Lift Conference in Palo Alto. If I remember correctly, one reason for the canard delta was that it was good for the cross-sectional area distribution (area ruling) and hence transonic drag.
The challenge was that the shaft-driven lift fan design inevitably had a big cross-section peak well forward, where the inlets wrapped around the fan bay (it needed a large-diameter fan and lots of airflow to work). A canard delta compensated for that by moving the thickest part of the wing as far back as possible.
Somehow I don't think we're going to see a J-20 with a lift fan. However, don't be surprised if the weapons bays turn out to be more capacious (and versatile) than on other designs. It looks like the idea of the canard configuration is to get a large-volume mid-body section through the transonic zone and into supersonic flight with minimal fuss, bother and expenditure of fuel.
Bevilaqua's paper on the origins of the F-35 design cites risk as the reason for the reversion to a quad-tail design for the JSF competition in 1996 - and at the time both Eurofighter and Saab were dealing with unexpected issues in this area.
However, another Lockheed Martin engineer explained that the final JSF planform design was more flexible in terms of being enlarged to meet Navy requirements (given that LO constraints and commonality mandated the same sweep angle for all versions).
That may have been the biggest non-STOVL driver to affect the design, although canards were definitely not popular in the US in the mid-1990s - and I suspect that fitting the canard design on to an LHA elevator might have been a challenge.
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.
