J20 Stealth Fighter

[no smoking]

As you say if WS-10B is as good as Al-31, then they will power J-20 with it, but as you claim, and I agree 100%, they say they will continue using Al-31 which means it is inferior to the Russian engine, this implies all the J-11s powered by WS-10B are inferior to Su-27 variants made in Russia and India, specially to Su-35 thus that explains why they bought Su-35.

Sorry, can you provide the source that they will continue using AL-31?

 

[MiG-29SMT]

China's J-20 fighter aircraft will stop using Russian engine - Defence View

Chinese social media have been talking about replacing the engine currently installed on the new generation of J-20 fighters for several days. will replace it with a modernized motor of its own production. “The Chinese WS-10C engine, a modified version of the WS-10 engine, is not inferior to the...

defenceview.in

“The Chinese WS-10C engine, a modified version of the WS-10 engine, is not inferior to the Russian AL-31F engine.” This was reported to the South China Morning Post by a source in the Chinese military circles.

“China cannot rely on a Russian engine because Russia has asked China to buy more Su-35 fighters in exchange for deals with AL-31F engines,” an insider said



WS-10 engine used in the Chinese J-10 and J-11 fighters
Online photos posted online indicate China has produced a new batch of second-generation J-20 prototypes for flight testing, according to a report posted on the War Industry Black Technology WeChat account by Shenzhen-based Quantum Defense Cloud, a military company.
A military insider confirmed that the new J-20 prototype was powered by two WS-10C engines, but said the modified engine remained a temporary choice for the J-20.

“The use of the WS-10C to replace Russian engines was due to the fact that the WS-15 did not pass final evaluation in 2019,” said an insider.
“The Air Force is unhappy with the final results, requiring engine technicians to rework the engine until it meets all standards, such as the F119 engine used in the American F-22 Raptor”.

But these production J-20s will continue to be powered by Russian engines because, according to an insider, the WS-10C will take at least a year to test.

Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

In a separate video, released on Tuesday by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for its pilot recruitment program, Chinese media outlets identified a J-20 that is equipped with domestically developed WS-10C engines instead of imported Russian engines.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Since J-20 uses Al-31 means J-11s with WS-10 are inferior versions to Su-27 variants made in Russia or India

 

[shiphone]

oh....an 'Indian media/self-media' as the source...lol...so funny

the J20A with WS10(X) has entered serial production for two years which is the only mass product varient in CAC now... the PLAAF Test flight & Combat training unit got these birds first which doubles their J20 fleet strenth and the 2nd and 3rd PLAAF Combat units(brigade) are recieving them after that... lol...

obviously the idiots don't understand those pix posted here pages back but keep bullshitting...

Latest version of J20, new type of engines and wing modifications:

View attachment 73030

a little more here...lol

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Sorry, can you provide the source that they will continue using AL-31?

oh....an 'Indian media/self-media' as the source...lol...so funny

the J20A with WS10(X) has entered serial production for two years which is the only mass product varient in CAC now... the PLAAF Test flight & Combat training unit got these birds first which doubles their J20 fleet strenth and the 2nd and 3rd PLAAF Combat units(brigade) are recieving them after that... lol...

obviously the idiots don't understand those pix posted here pages back but keep bullshitting...


a little more here...lol

I suggest you to have some manners, the thread is to opine, not to insult.

When you have a picture of 30 or 40 J-20 with WS-10 you will prove your point, however most pictures are with Al-31.

The Indian article for starters quotes the South China Morning
while the second source is the CCP mouth piece the Global times.

So pretty much both confirmed Al-31 are used on J-20 and both said WS-10C will start to equip J-20 and both say as good or better than Al-31.

Conclusion simple J-20 is underpowered with Al-31 and WS-10C is at best marginally better than Al-31 at best, but clearly inferior to F-22 with f119 and Su-57 with T-30/117.

Since China has no better engine than F-135 and very likely WS-10C is inferior to 117, why?

Simple J-31 has two RD-93 instead of a equivalent of F135 because WS-15 is a failure.

Plus their robowings are smaller to Okhotnik

compare to the smaller chinese flying wing a smaller craft then smaller engine and smaller payload

it uses a RD-93 conclusion no WS-15 nor WS-10C, Okhtnik at least uses an Al-31.

Conclusion WS-10B inferior to Al-31 because China confirms J-20 uses Al-31, ucav has no Al-31

 

[MiG-29SMT]

 

[Instr]

TBH, the fact that the J-20 is up against InAF Raffys is quite fun, insofar as the J-20 is virtually a Rafale variant in 5th gen. They both share a LERX-Canard-LERX-Delta layout, although the J-20 makes heavier use of body lift (chines), employs ventral strakes for directional stability at high speed and high AoA control, and is long-coupled.

And as to MiG-29SMT's comments about how the Europeans have nothing to learn from the J-20, the Eurofighter (another long-coupled canard) developed AMK LERX and strakes similar to that of the J-20 after the J-20 took its first flight. That said, the Eurofighter WAS originally intended to be a cranked arrow delta, but that suggestion was shut down before final development.

===

Stealthwise, the J-20 on Taiwanese studies is around -20 dBsm (minimum), while in other studies the aircraft gets to -40 dBsm, although with caveats about all-aspect stealth. It's a pretty credible VLO aircraft as they come, although not to the level of the F-35. The large canards are actually a beneficial part of the design; the large canards (Chinese canards are typically larger than other countries' canards) most importantly resist low-band resonance radars (when it comes to low-band resonance, larger is better), while adding substantial lift (in stable parts of the flight regime).

===

In total, the J-20 is not a bad aircraft, it's just not a great aircraft either. The weapons bays, for instance, are too short to carry heavy interceptor missiles like the Su-57 can, and its strike potential is similar to that of the F-35 (i.e, limited by missiles, although the J-20 has shallower but wider weapons bays).

Kinematic design seems more designed for transonic / supersonic regime; when it goes slow (and it likely will given its relatively poor engines, a T/W roughly on par with the F-35) it will suffer from poor sustained turn rate, but good instantaneous turn rate.

Stealth-wise, it makes some compromises but these compromises don't take it into the LO range, just something closer to the Su-57 (which isn't designed for full stealth optimization, just anti-tracking detection to cancel missiles).

Where the J-20, however, does seem to excel, is in terms of range. The aircraft is estimated to have a combat radius in the 1250-2000 km range without tanks, likely putting Tokyo within striking distance, and for that matter, Delhi, but the Indian northern border is fortified with airbases and it'd have to fight through that first.

I'm more looking forward to what Chinese attempts to 6th generation aircraft, or drone support for the J-20 look like. One of the great promises of the J-20 project was how the airframe could have been developed if the engines went from interim to final (WS-15), but as it turns out, the WS-15 is a disaster project. Now, when you consider the revised timelines for the J-20, the developments of the J-20 will likely be too late to do much good.

 

[Instr]

Relevant to Indian interests, the key strength of the J-20 in a force engagement vs India (and I strongly suggest India just nuke up and quit trying to match China conventionally, the Chinese seem to have a goal of "Vietnamization", where India ends up spending too much on military build-up, resulting in massively increased taxes, government debt, reduced social / infrastructure spending, or a combination of all three) is that it can be deployed from Chengdu (roughly the center of China's territorial expanse) to either the Indian theater or the East China Sea theater fully armed and combat ready within 2 hours or less, and fly a combat mission while it's at it.

In other words, an Indian attempt to apply pressure on China, assuming the Chinese will take pressure off Taiwan or American pressure on Taiwan / East China Sea will cause China to reduce its Indian commitments, will fail because the Chinese can put their air force onto the Chinese geographical center and use it to strike anywhere on the Chinese border. Moreover, with Chengdu basing, J-20s on the ground will be out of range of current Brahmos, although response time will be a factor.

 

[rockdog]

Supersonic cruise flight of Vth generation fighters

 

[Haldilal]

oh....an 'Indian media/self-media' as the source...lol...so funny

the J20A with WS10(X) has entered serial production for two years which is the only mass product varient in CAC now... the PLAAF Test flight & Combat training unit got these birds first which doubles their J20 fleet strenth and the 2nd and 3rd PLAAF Combat units(brigade) are recieving them after that... lol...

obviously the idiots don't understand those pix posted here pages back but keep bullshitting...


a little more here...lol

Ya'll Nibbiars Yeah but still better than The Ghotala times editior what was his name again I forget.

 

[Marliii]

Ya'll Nibbiars Yeah but still better than The Ghotala times editior what was his name again I forget.

Hu xijin that's that guys name.he is a rabid dog of the communist party.

 

[Haldilal]

Hu xijin that's that guys name.he is a rabid dog of the communist party.

Ya'll Nibbiars this would be ours answer to The Ghotala Times Prachar.

 

[Marliii]

J20 however good or bad it be will only be known when it goes to fight with a another 5th generation aircraft or like the pakis who got their f16 shot down and still joys that there 4.5 generation aircraft shot down a 3rd generation mig21 and our jf17 fires antimatter missiles and paf pilots can overcome 100Gs it is all just a guessing game.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

TBH, the fact that the J-20 is up against InAF Raffys is quite fun, insofar as the J-20 is virtually a Rafale variant in 5th gen. They both share a LERX-Canard-LERX-Delta layout, although the J-20 makes heavier use of body lift (chines), employs ventral strakes for directional stability at high speed and high AoA control, and is long-coupled.

And as to MiG-29SMT's comments about how the Europeans have nothing to learn from the J-20, the Eurofighter (another long-coupled canard) developed AMK LERX and strakes similar to that of the J-20 after the J-20 took its first flight. That said, the Eurofighter WAS originally intended to be a cranked arrow delta, but that suggestion was shut down before final development.

===

Stealthwise, the J-20 on Taiwanese studies is around -20 dBsm (minimum), while in other studies the aircraft gets to -40 dBsm, although with caveats about all-aspect stealth. It's a pretty credible VLO aircraft as they come, although not to the level of the F-35. The large canards are actually a beneficial part of the design; the large canards (Chinese canards are typically larger than other countries' canards) most importantly resist low-band resonance radars (when it comes to low-band resonance, larger is better), while adding substantial lift (in stable parts of the flight regime).

===

In total, the J-20 is not a bad aircraft, it's just not a great aircraft either. The weapons bays, for instance, are too short to carry heavy interceptor missiles like the Su-57 can, and its strike potential is similar to that of the F-35 (i.e, limited by missiles, although the J-20 has shallower but wider weapons bays).

Kinematic design seems more designed for transonic / supersonic regime; when it goes slow (and it likely will given its relatively poor engines, a T/W roughly on par with the F-35) it will suffer from poor sustained turn rate, but good instantaneous turn rate.

Stealth-wise, it makes some compromises but these compromises don't take it into the LO range, just something closer to the Su-57 (which isn't designed for full stealth optimization, just anti-tracking detection to cancel missiles).

Where the J-20, however, does seem to excel, is in terms of range. The aircraft is estimated to have a combat radius in the 1250-2000 km range without tanks, likely putting Tokyo within striking distance, and for that matter, Delhi, but the Indian northern border is fortified with airbases and it'd have to fight through that first.

I'm more looking forward to what Chinese attempts to 6th generation aircraft, or drone support for the J-20 look like. One of the great promises of the J-20 project was how the airframe could have been developed if the engines went from interim to final (WS-15), but as it turns out, the WS-15 is a disaster project. Now, when you consider the revised timelines for the J-20, the developments of the J-20 will likely be too late to do much good.

An aircraft only consider wing loading and thrust to weight ratio.

AJ-37 versus Rafale, both have canards but what makes Rafale a 4.5 generation is it has a very high thrust to weight ratio compared to AJ-37 and lower wing loading.


The Rafale has low wing loading thus it could resist the F-22.

However F-22 has high thrust to weight ratio and thrust vectoring

comparasions are only given when you have similar parameters, for example same wing type with canards or tailplanes.


same wing area different shape.

what does the configuration tells you?

Only the compromises.

Rafale has less extensive RCS treatment than J-20 thus you can consider it has a RCS that reflects more radar waves in more directions, and more radar waves bounce back to the emmiter however by the virtue of being smaller less radar capture surface means it has less reflecting area.

Rafale has extensive wing-fuselage blending, in fact has canards in a better position than J-20

So basically the only way a see J-20 better than Rafale is it has a very low weight enough to eliminate the bulgy intake bumps generators of high drag and less than ideal ,canard wing and Lex configuration.

If it has lower wing loading and higher thrust to weight ratio, it might surpass Rafale.

The intake of Rafale also is quiet complex, while Ching Kuo sends the boundary layer bellow the wing, Rafale like F-18 or LCA sends it over the wing generating low pressure over the wing.

To be honest J-20 is a stealthier concept, but aerodynamically much less efficient.

The canted tails of J-20 do generate some lift but reduce to some degree its efficiency as vertical tails.

 

[Instr]

@MiG-29SMT

J-20 vs Rafale comes out to two things. First, the J-20 has a significant RCS advantage in BVR; the J-20 and Rafale have roughly the same design, but the J-20 is more stealth optimized and can stow weapons internally, which the Rafale can't, so in practice, the Rafale has a much higher RCS than stated. The canard placement on the Rafale, likewise, is not optimal either (it's obvious that the Rafale doesn't have coplanar canards with the opposite wings either). Likewise, when it comes to the radar, which is decisive in BVR, the J-20 AESA is significantly larger and likely to be more capable than the Rafale radar. So BVR-wise, the Rafale is not at advantage. The current Meteor, you might claim, changes the equation, but it's attacking a stealth target (needs a lot of datalinking and radar power to actually find the J-20) while not having an AESA seeker like the PL-15, so it'll be vulnerable to jamming.

The other thing comes out to range. The J-20, in a worst case scenario, should range around 1700 km combat radius on internal fuel and likely does 2000 km combat radius. For the Chinese, it allows them to base their aircraft far away from the border, and likewise allows the J-20 to burn fuel if it's using a closer base to the combat zone.

Notice that the F-35, for instance, actually gets fairly good kinematics once it's on low fuel; it can do airshow performance and all sorts of stunts when its fuel tank is low. But the F-35 has a huge fuel tank, around 40% of its loaded weight. The J-20, likewise, reaches the same level, but since it has larger range than the F-35, it can fight with even less fuel than the F-35 and still get back to base.

Once the J-20 is fuel-depleted (i.e, not operating at its maximum range), all its numbers start to look rosy (better thrust to weight, better wing loading). The Rafale has a good combat range as well, but that's with external tanks, and once the external tanks are jettisoned the Rafale is still carrying a full fuel tank and its kinematics go to shit. If it's flying at "normal" ranges (400 km or so away from base), it has very good numbers, but the same ranges for the J-20, the J-20 is either comparable or better.

===

I think with the Indians, who are more trained in the Russian style of wanting to go WVR, will be reasonably happy with the Rafale compared to the J-20. The J-20, until it gets TVC WS-15 engines, isn't going to be exceptional WVR, and it's going to be more oriented toward its PL-10 ASR to settle WVR fights and leave instead of having it become a true dogfight. It's just, first, not worth assuming the J-20 is screwed once it gets WVR (it has missile superiority), and second, not worth assuming you'll be able to trap a J-20 in WVR.

The InAF is probably better off moving to the F-35, whatever they can get, to offset the J-20 (which I've stated is economic suicide), but it's going to take a while before it gets F-35s (i.e, recession, no requests for F-35s from the United States thus far).

 

[rockdog]

I'm more looking forward to what Chinese attempts to 6th generation aircraft, or drone support for the J-20 look like. One of the great promises of the J-20 project was how the airframe could have been developed if the engines went from interim to final (WS-15), but as it turns out, the WS-15 is a disaster project. Now, when you consider the revised timelines for the J-20, the developments of the J-20 will likely be too late to do much good.

WS-15 is not a failture, it's slow than expected. Some info leaked from our biggest military forum said that WS15 powered J20 will be out in 2022. Twin-seat J20B will seen with 2021.

For 6G fighter, the Chief Designer of JF17 & J20, Mr Yang Wei, gave few comments in an artcile of 2017:

First, he believes that the sixth-generation machine is modified and cannot be accomplished overnight.

Second, he believes that mobility plays a smaller role in air combat.

Third, he believes that the future of air supremacy is that information is king, and intelligence is supplemented.

Fourth, he believes that the number of air-to-air missiles is more important than the range of air-to-air missiles.

第一，他认为六代机是改出来的，不可能一蹴而就。
第二，他认为机动性在空战的作用越来越小。
第三，他认为未来的制空权是信息为王，智能为辅。
第四，他认为空空导弹的数量要比空空导弹的射程更重要。

提示信息 - 超级大本营军事论坛 -

,超级大本营军事论坛

lt.cjdby.net

 

[MiG-29SMT]

@MiG-29SMT

J-20 vs Rafale comes out to two things. First, the J-20 has a significant RCS advantage in BVR; the J-20 and Rafale have roughly the same design, but the J-20 is more stealth optimized and can stow weapons internally, which the Rafale can't, so in practice, the Rafale has a much higher RCS than stated. The canard placement on the Rafale, likewise, is not optimal either (it's obvious that the Rafale doesn't have coplanar canards with the opposite wings either). Likewise, when it comes to the radar, which is decisive in BVR, the J-20 AESA is significantly larger and likely to be more capable than the Rafale radar. So BVR-wise, the Rafale is not at advantage. The current Meteor, you might claim, changes the equation, but it's attacking a stealth target (needs a lot of datalinking and radar power to actually find the J-20) while not having an AESA seeker like the PL-15, so it'll be vulnerable to jamming.

The other thing comes out to range. The J-20, in a worst case scenario, should range around 1700 km combat radius on internal fuel and likely does 2000 km combat radius. For the Chinese, it allows them to base their aircraft far away from the border, and likewise allows the J-20 to burn fuel if it's using a closer base to the combat zone.

Notice that the F-35, for instance, actually gets fairly good kinematics once it's on low fuel; it can do airshow performance and all sorts of stunts when its fuel tank is low. But the F-35 has a huge fuel tank, around 40% of its loaded weight. The J-20, likewise, reaches the same level, but since it has larger range than the F-35, it can fight with even less fuel than the F-35 and still get back to base.

Once the J-20 is fuel-depleted (i.e, not operating at its maximum range), all its numbers start to look rosy (better thrust to weight, better wing loading). The Rafale has a good combat range as well, but that's with external tanks, and once the external tanks are jettisoned the Rafale is still carrying a full fuel tank and its kinematics go to shit. If it's flying at "normal" ranges (400 km or so away from base), it has very good numbers, but the same ranges for the J-20, the J-20 is either comparable or better.

===

I think with the Indians, who are more trained in the Russian style of wanting to go WVR, will be reasonably happy with the Rafale compared to the J-20. The J-20, until it gets TVC WS-15 engines, isn't going to be exceptional WVR, and it's going to be more oriented toward its PL-10 ASR to settle WVR fights and leave instead of having it become a true dogfight. It's just, first, not worth assuming the J-20 is screwed once it gets WVR (it has missile superiority), and second, not worth assuming you'll be able to trap a J-20 in WVR.

The InAF is probably better off moving to the F-35, whatever they can get, to offset the J-20 (which I've stated is economic suicide), but it's going to take a while before it gets F-35s (i.e, recession, no requests for F-35s from the United States thus far).

Consider i said aerodynamically speaking Rafale is very likely the better machine at least in what respect canard lex and wing configuration.

Rafale has proven it can keep up with F-22 in WVR.

J-20 has the stealth factor, but it has no F-22 performance, remember that lightly loaded Rafale supercruises.

At this moment is doubtful J-20 supercruises, so in my opinion India bought Rafale because while it is not a 5th generation fighter it supercruises, has good sensors and agility.

J-20 by having weak engines, no supercruise, poor sustained turn rate, so if it tries to catch up with Rafale, the speedy Rafale will make J-20 with Al-31 get tired and thirsty. and to keep up it will need afterburners.


frontally Rafale is not so bad in terms of stealth specially lightly armed.

 

[johnq]

The J-20's RCS is too great to avoid detection by any decent long range radar. It's a mistake to automatically assume that the J-20 has 5th generation level RCS reduction, because it's doubtful that China currently possesses the technology to hide the radar, canopy and other high RCS features of the J-20 from enemy radar, which also explains why they kept the canards in spite of them being detrimental (an order of magnitude) for RCS.

 

[rockdog]

Some new images of J20

 

[Instr]

WS-15 is not a failture, it's slow than expected. Some info leaked from our biggest military forum said that WS15 powered J20 will be out in 2022. Twin-seat J20B will seen with 2021.

View attachment 73594


For 6G fighter, the Chief Designer of JF17 & J20, Mr Yang Wei, gave few comments in an artcile of 2017:

提示信息 - 超级大本营军事论坛 -

,超级大本营军事论坛

lt.cjdby.net

We were expecting the WS-15 to be ready sooner. The J-20's development is somewhat crippled without a WS-15; the basic design concept is very flexible and extensible, but it can't be modified until the WS-15 is ready.

Consider i said aerodynamically speaking Rafale is very likely the better machine at least in what respect canard lex and wing configuration.

Rafale has proven it can keep up with F-22 in WVR.

J-20 has the stealth factor, but it has no F-22 performance, remember that lightly loaded Rafale supercruises.

At this moment is doubtful J-20 supercruises, so in my opinion India bought Rafale because while it is not a 5th generation fighter it supercruises, has good sensors and agility.

J-20 by having weak engines, no supercruise, poor sustained turn rate, so if it tries to catch up with Rafale, the speedy Rafale will make J-20 with Al-31 get tired and thirsty. and to keep up it will need afterburners.


frontally Rafale is not so bad in terms of stealth specially lightly armed.

The J-20 does have one small advantage over the Rafale, and that's the fact it's designed to use body lift, which the Rafale isn't. The J-20's Canard Lerx Body Lift Delta formula supposedly delivers 80% more lift at high-AOA than a simple delta, but for body lift to kick in, it'd require high AoA.

As far as for the Rafale supercruising, no it doesn't. The Su-35 supercruises, the Eurofighter supercruises, but none of these supercruises are the same as the F-22 / Su-57 supercruising because the Rafale, Su-35, and Eurofighter all lack internal weapons carriage. The supercruising is only useful when the aircraft is returning from a combat mission, in order to reduce sortie rate. Supercruising is a function of both airframe drag (which means external carriage can't be done) as well as engine dry thrust at altitude.


As far as catching up to the Rafale, the Rafale is maxed out around Mach 1.8 (airframe and inlet design limitations). It's intended as a 4th generation medium omnirole fighter, not an air superiority craft. The J-20 purportedly can reach Mach 2.5 despite limitations due to inlet and airframe design. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the J-20 maxed out at Mach 1.8 as well due to the DSI design; we know that DSI is designed for a specific speed and above that speed the DSI inlet begins to choke.

===

One major feature the J-20 has that the Rafale lacks is the body lift design. The wing area of the J-20 is enormous, at around 72-78 m^2 (depending on whether canards are adding or subtracting lift). That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the J-20 couldn't outperform the Rafale in terms of sustained turn rates at low speeds (the high AoA stuff I've talked about is more useful for ITR, and the J-20 is designed for relatively clipped wings to minimize its parasitic drag at transonic speeds).