Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

powerslavenegi

New Member
tphuang said:
?? I can't see J-10 being that far from 1 m^2 right now. Remember, J-10 in terms of size is only slightly larger than mig-21 and definitely smaller than Mig-29. In terms of RCS, Mig-21 and Mig-29 have often been speculated at 3 and 5 m^2. That was before either aircraft incorporated stealth technologies like RAM paint. J-10 should have that and also canopy coating that disperses radar. Plus, J-10 has incorporated some features like S-shaped intake and usage of composite materials.

I don't see why a future J-xx can't exceed the performance of F-22 right now in some categories. For example, the processor used on F-22 right now definitely would not be able to compare to the processor used on any newly developed fighter in 15 years.
Again you are comparing a J-10(2005-6 make) with Mig-21 (1959-60) more importantly J-10 is small in size as compared to most of the twin engine jets and hence it having an RCS in vicinity of 1msq aint something to boast about(for even Mig-21 2.5 msq would have a similar RCS of 1msq after RAM treatment) more over as I said earlier A/C's having RCS greater than 1msq wont differ much from each other in terms of probability of getting detected.Actual benefits of low RCS can be reaped only when one manages to achieve RCS figures <=0.05msq or so.Speaking of processor used on F-22 it doesnt use one that is available in the global market and hence you wont know much about it's performance and it would take at-least a decade or so for it to be accesible to nations apart from US and coalition,moreover what makes you think that F-22 would be using same processor 15 years down the line as it uses today.:D
 

Big-E

Banned Member
tphuang said:
I don't see why a future J-xx can't exceed the performance of F-22 right now in some categories. For example, the processor used on F-22 right now definitely would not be able to compare to the processor used on any newly developed fighter in 15 years.
I think by 2020 the F-22s will have undergone several hardware upgrades by then and the PLAAF hardware will be ... :rel
 

wp2000

Member
powerslavenegi:

I think we have some misunderstandings. I was replying to this line: "But they should be able to field a decent A/C with an RCS less than 1msq". I thought you were implying that China would be able to field a plane in 2020 of something less than 1msq (like 0.5, 0.8). That's why I said current J10 is not far from that target already. 1 msq RCS fighter is not worth billions dollars investment.

As far as I know, before 2002, J10's manufacturer had a concrete plan of an export version J10: 1.5 msq RCS plus imported AESA radar and TVC engine. Their sales people already started discussions with potential customers. But that was blocked by PLAAF later (I believe it's 2002).

J10 has a belly intake, so does Lavi. But the design of the 2 intakes are quite different.
 

wp2000

Member
Big-E said:
I think by 2020 the F-22s will have undergone several hardware upgrades by then and the PLAAF hardware will be ... :rel
So should they give up now? or Keep trying?;)
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
powerslavenegi said:
Again you are comparing a J-10(2005-6 make) with Mig-21 (1959-60) more importantly J-10 is small in size as compared to most of the twin engine jets and hence it having an RCS in vicinity of 1msq aint something to boast about(for even Mig-21 2.5 msq would have a similar RCS of 1msq after RAM treatment) more over as I said earlier A/C's having RCS greater than 1msq wont differ much from each other in terms of probability of getting detected.Actual benefits of low RCS can be reaped only when one manages to achieve RCS figures <=0.05msq or so.Speaking of processor used on F-22 it doesnt use one that is available in the global market and hence you wont know much about it's performance and it would take at-least a decade or so for it to be accesible to nations apart from US and coalition,moreover what makes you think that F-22 would be using same processor 15 years down the line as it uses today.:D
i was simply trying to make the point to wp2000 that it was ridiculous to make 1.5 m^2 as the target of a future J-10, when it's more likely that it is less than that already.
 

Transient

Member
To what extent does the J-10 incorporate signature reduction measures? Has there been any mention of a Have Glass equivalent program for the J-10?
 

wp2000

Member
RCS measures on current J10? A little bit as far as I heared, but not much: S shape intake, ram painting, cockpit RCS reduction measures like inner paintings, canards made of "full"(?) composit materials.

As of their on-going r&d items in the stealth tech area, that's not what I know. I only know China's first RCS (mainly ram painting stuff) research team was established in the late 60s. In the early 70s, China created their national level stealth tech R&D Management team. No major news later on, I only saw patchy news here and there. So I can only say they are not sleeping.
 

Transient

Member
Wow, thanks. Could you point me to a source? I've been searching high and low for a reliable source that the J-10 has such measures but to no avail. Thanks again.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
wp2000 said:
So should they give up now? or Keep trying?;)
I think they should stick with what works... steal the plans and reverse engineer it. They do it with everything else.:eek:
 

wp2000

Member
Big-E said:
I think they should stick with what works... steal the plans and reverse engineer it. They do it with everything else.:eek:
That is what they are doing! Isn't it great?:)
 
Last edited:

wp2000

Member
Transient said:
Wow, thanks. Could you point me to a source? I've been searching high and low for a reliable source that the J-10 has such measures but to no avail. Thanks again.
No, I don't have any source.

:( sorry, you have to find them yourselves.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
wp2000 said:
RCS measures on current J10? A little bit as far as I heared, but not much: S shape intake, ram painting, cockpit RCS reduction measures like inner paintings, canards made of "full"(?) composit materials.

As of their on-going r&d items in the stealth tech area, that's not what I know. I only know China's first RCS (mainly ram painting stuff) research team was established in the late 60s. In the early 70s, China created their national level stealth tech R&D Management team. No major news later on, I only saw patchy news here and there. So I can only say they are not sleeping.
well, I wouldn't call that not much. We don't know if it has any kind of active cancellation. But other than the stealth fighters, how many other fighters have gone beyond using composite materials, RAM paint and hiding engine blades?

If later blocks of F-16s can have RCS of 1, I don't see why J-10 cannot.

And for those who thinks J-10 is copied from Lavi, I suggest you should read up on J-9 and you will see that it's not. There is a little bit on it in the article "China's Hidden Power" in Combat Aircraft.
 

wp2000

Member
Well, all those measures are not ground breaking new technologies and have been used to various degrees on other aircrafts already.

Given the current technology level, none of these measures can give any aircraft a decisive edge over same class counterparts. I am not saying they are not important. But just for the moment, if J10 does not have an internal weapon bay, I can only regard those measures as "not much".
 

LancerMc

New Member
The likelyhood that the PLAAF will have a fighter in the capabilities of the F-22 by 2020 is unrealistic. Look how long it took to develop the Raptor. Even with China's large man power, they don't have any experience developing an aircraft that complex. I don't doubt they could develop a aircraft that looks like the F-22, and can be as or more manuverable by then. If the aircraft use Russian all aspect thrust vectoring nozzles, the jet could have awesome moves in the air. I think the part China will have problems developing is the advance stealth tecnology and advance avionics. Remember the U.S. has about a 20 year advantage in stealth technology. Also the F-22 is considered by many of the pilots that fly it an Mini-AWACS. The Raptor can pull in / push out so much information it is in a class by itself. China will be able to duplicate some aspects of the F-22 in the next 15 years but not all of them.
 

wp2000

Member
It's true that to get a complete F22 equivalent plane for China in 2020 is very difficult, if not entirely impossible.

But it's also true that some of F22's advanced capabilities are unique to US's need. To China, or to many other countries that don't need to do "global attacking", the requirements can be lowered down and still be able to hold its ground against F22.

In one word, China's Jxx definitely won't achieve all the specs of F22. It will only pick some of them to suit their defensive requirements.
 

Viktor

New Member
The likelyhood that the PLAAF will have a fighter in the capabilities of the F-22 by 2020 is unrealistic. Look how long it took to develop the Raptor. Even with China's large man power, they don't have any experience developing an aircraft that complex. I don't doubt they could develop a aircraft that looks like the F-22, and can be as or more manuverable by then. If the aircraft use Russian all aspect thrust vectoring nozzles, the jet could have awesome moves in the air. I think the part China will have problems developing is the advance stealth tecnology and advance avionics. Remember the U.S. has about a 20 year advantage in stealth technology. Also the F-22 is considered by many of the pilots that fly it an Mini-AWACS. The Raptor can pull in / push out so much information it is in a class by itself. China will be able to duplicate some aspects of the F-22 in the next 15 years but not all of them.
You are not thinking about Russians. Russians by my opinion will hell Chinese build 5th generation plane for a money no doubt about it - just like tons of other stuff.
 

rjmaz1

New Member
To China, or to many other countries that don't need to do "global attacking", the requirements can be lowered down and still be able to hold its ground against F22.
Exactly china doesn't need an F-22 equivalent to shoot down another F-22. The chinesse dont even have to aim as high as being able to shoot down F-22's, they just need the ability to reach the level of the Navy JSF and Super hornet.

If you took an aircraft in the class of a Saab Gripen and made it using the best stealth techniques possible and acheived a radar cross section equal to that of a F-22 then it would be BIG trouble to the US.

China doesn't need advanced communication to link its fighters into a network. A Chinesse interceptor would need only two internal medium range missiles which could be applied on a very small aircraft. Remember if you have an airforce with 1000 aircraft (china) and an airforce with 100 advanced aircraft (USA) and they go head to head, then the advanced aircraft needs to carry 10 times as many missiles just in case.

Engine performance of the Chinesse aircraft doesn't matter, information display doesn't matter, all it needs is excellent stealth and a decent radar or even loose the radar completely and go with passive Infrared. These features in a Mig-21 size aircraft would mean big trouble to the US as China could make over 1000 of these aircraft. This would provide a wall preventing all JSF's and Bomber aircraft from entering Chinesse airspace.

All china needs is an aircraft that cannot be easily picked off at beyond vision range by F-22's. You dont even need the ability to pull 9G, a modified F-117 would be fine. As long its stealthy enough so that the F-22 can only detect the chinesse aircraft at say 50miles and the chinesse aircraft detects the F-22 at 40miles. The Chinesse will never be able to match the US when it comes to radar, it will be lucky to ever have a radar that is half as powerful. As the F-22 produces considerable heat when supercruising IR is probably the best way to go, combined with a stealthy aircraft so you can get close enough to an F-22 so that it doesn't see you first. The two air to air missiles could use the same IR tracking, so radar is not used at all.

This same small aircraft you could replace the two medium range air to air missile with an air to ground version giving 100+ mile standoff range. Better yet the air to missile can also attack ground targets. US navy would be shitting themselves as by the time they detect the chinesse aircraft that would be the indication that they just released their missile and its on their way. Again the navy ships could be located using IR from relatively far away, then the missile itself tracks that same boat using autonomus passive tracking allowing the Chinesse aircraft to turn around while the a missile is launched.

The potential threat of a wave of 30 of these aircraft would be enough to have the carrier battle groups located very far off shore. Also the Navy would have to double the number of escorts for the E-2 hawkeye just in case it detects 30 aircraft at 100 miles and closing with only two super hornets protecting it. The superhornets would shoot down a few but then the 20 chinesse aircraft proceed to shoot down the hawkeye and then shooting the remaining missile at the US navy ships.

This is why its crucial that the USAF doubles or even tripples its F-22 order as its the only aircraft that the chinesse will never be able to match.
 
Top