Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

Feanor said:

My mistake, it seemed implied.

So, to probe a little further, if the PAK-FA was in USAF service, would you still not call it a 5th gen aircraft? And what exactly in regards to sensor fusion do you take issue with on the PAK-FA? (an interesting critique to direct at it, given that its full sensor suite has yet to be revealed)

Click to expand...

Regarding sensor fusion, US/NATO/allied nations have a long history of operating with off-board sensors, with the relevant datalinks and comm systems to do so. Both Russia and China have yet to demonstrate the same degree of availability, which means that Russian and Chinese aircraft are likely going to have less information available to the pilot, since there would be a greater reliance upon the onboard sensors for Situational Awareness. This reliance upon the aircraft's own sensors, as well as limited availability for off-board detection and queuing, would indicate that less information would need to be integrated and delivered to the pilot during flight ops.

This of course also gets back into the platform vs. system discussion, of which Russia and China are making strides to improve their respective systems, but they both have some ways to go.

-Cheers

Feanor said:

My mistake, it seemed implied.

So, to probe a little further, if the PAK-FA was in USAF service, would you still not call it a 5th gen aircraft? And what exactly in regards to sensor fusion do you take issue with on the PAK-FA? (an interesting critique to direct at it, given that its full sensor suite has yet to be revealed)

Click to expand...

He stated that China and Russia are behind the United States in signal management and sensor development, a view which not many will object. It depends on what he uses as a measuring rod for LO and sensor fusion. I still don't think we have a good parameter to define those things by throughout the discussion in this thread.

If F-22 is the benchmark in which all others compare to, then obviously both J-20 and T-50 won't make the grade, but neither will the F-35. LM has listed stealth, extreme performance, information fusion and advanced sustainment as the cut line, without offering any specifics.

5TH Generation Fighters | Lockheed Martin

Since I browsing Chinese sites quite often, normally they use the "4S" (Stealth, Supercruise, Super-manoeuverable and advanced Sensors), as the measure. Again they offer no specifics other than these vage terms. While F-35 is counted as 5th gen in United States, it is not considered a true 5th gen according to most Chinese. Its ability to supercruise and also its manoevurability is often in doubt.

I imagine the debate will not cease until we get something concrete.

Abraham Gubler said:

??? I didn't say anything about twin engines in relation to LO. But rather in relation to roll rate. A big plane with a wide fuselage, side by side engines and wide wings like a F-15, F-18, F-22, J-20 is naturally going to have a higher roll rate than a narrow, single engine, short wing aircraft like the F-16, F-35 and J-10.

PS: I'll respond to some other points later when I've got more time.

Click to expand...

I am more interested to know the reason you choose to group the F-35 in the same category as J-10 and F-16. Aside from single engine, the plane is much heavier than the latter two, exceeding even the F-15 in terms of empty weight. Of course, the wing area is also larger. I personally would compare it to a Mig-29 in terms of size and weight.

I don't disagree with what you said. I'm still wondering what the answer to my question is.

To elaborate, Russia is far behind in terms of support assets, seriously lacking tankers, AEW, airborne C4I, long range ELINT and SIGINT assets. Also seriously lacking is the experience to integrate and operate said assets as part of the VVS organically. Current exercises using the A-50s (and presumably A-50Us). However setting that aside, what is it about the generational definition that makes the PAK-FA not a 5th gen?

I understand this is tangential to the thread, especially given how little we know on the J-20. But this same question will at some point arise in relation to it.

So to re-iterate. If the PAK-FA platform had compatibility with US comms and datalinks, and was in US service, would you still call it not a 5th gen fighter?

Feanor said:

I don't disagree with what you said. I'm still wondering what the answer to my question is.

To elaborate, Russia is far behind in terms of support assets, seriously lacking tankers, AEW, airborne C4I, long range ELINT and SIGINT assets. Also seriously lacking is the experience to integrate and operate said assets as part of the VVS organically. Current exercises using the A-50s (and presumably A-50Us). However setting that aside, what is it about the generational definition that makes the PAK-FA not a 5th gen?

I understand this is tangential to the thread, especially given how little we know on the J-20. But this same question will at some point arise in relation to it.

So to re-iterate. If the PAK-FA platform had compatibility with US comms and datalinks, and was in US service, would you still call it not a 5th gen fighter?

Click to expand...

It is difficult to say. One of the defintions of a '5th Gen fighter' is that it has advanced sensors, comms and avionics to give a total picture of the battlespace to the pilot, in a useful and manageable format. If an aircraft has the necessary avionics to receive additional imputs from outside sources, but there is nothing external to provide those information flows...

If the aircraft is able to deliver a total picture of the battlespace to the pilot, sans off-board systems, then yes, it would be '5th Gen'. If the aircraft cannot on its own deliver such a picture, then it might not be without the supporting systems. This is one area where a concrete definition of what characteristics really define '5th Gen' would be useful.

One thing to note about the F-22, and also likely with the F-35 once it reaches IOC, is that the Raptor is also expected to have a role as a harvester. This suggests that the sensor/comms package aboard is sufficiently comprehensive to provide a significant SA advantage on its own, with additional information from other US and allied assets just providing that much more of an advantage in awareness.

If the PAK-FA and/or the J-20 is planned to have similarly advanced systems which can hand off detection and targeting data to other assets, then they might also have a similar level of 'sensor fusion'. Time will tell.

-Cheers

Todjaeger said:

Regarding sensor fusion, US/NATO/allied nations have a long history of operating with off-board sensors,

Click to expand...

the USN first did this at the air sea level with decent platforms in sympathy in 1946. They ran the grandaddy to AWACs with the nC-121's. (assuming that we ignore the radome equiped avengers, flying fortress variants and super fortresses)

Todjaeger said:

It is difficult to say. One of the defintions of a '5th Gen fighter' is that it has advanced sensors, comms and avionics to give a total picture of the battlespace to the pilot, in a useful and manageable format. If an aircraft has the necessary avionics to receive additional imputs from outside sources, but there is nothing external to provide those information flows...

If the aircraft is able to deliver a total picture of the battlespace to the pilot, sans off-board systems, then yes, it would be '5th Gen'. If the aircraft cannot on its own deliver such a picture, then it might not be without the supporting systems. This is one area where a concrete definition of what characteristics really define '5th Gen' would be useful.

One thing to note about the F-22, and also likely with the F-35 once it reaches IOC, is that the Raptor is also expected to have a role as a harvester. This suggests that the sensor/comms package aboard is sufficiently comprehensive to provide a significant SA advantage on its own, with additional information from other US and allied assets just providing that much more of an advantage in awareness.

If the PAK-FA and/or the J-20 is planned to have similarly advanced systems which can hand off detection and targeting data to other assets, then they might also have a similar level of 'sensor fusion'. Time will tell.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Your first sentence summs up my feelings on the subject. What I was trying to probe was where Abe's strong conviction comes from.

To respond a little directly more to your reply, your question is answered with the F-22 and F-35 being the benchmarks. And yes I do believe time will tell is the only real answer to any of this. And naturally no matter what happens, the VVS will not have the same level of SA both tactically and strategically that the USAF will. Not in the forseeable future. Needless to say the same applies to China.

Feanor said:

Your first sentence summs up my feelings on the subject. What I was trying to probe was where Abe's strong conviction comes from.

Click to expand...

the issue for me is that govts (as opposed to the internet chat) had firm views about what constituted 5th gen aircraft.

we've migrated well beyond that now, 5th gen is of course something that a particular platform has from design intent (not as a mod) - but the bigger discussion in govt is about the ability of that aircraft to be an active participant in the sensor and battlespace "fusion" box.

ie, its less about the plane in isolation, its about those known greenfield build game changers + how they participate at a joint service level

Feanor said:

I wouldn't jump to conclusions in regards to the parallels between the J-20 and the PAK-FA.

Click to expand...

My conclusions have little to do with the respective program status of the two aircraft or even the needs of their potential operators. Rather a backwards analysis on their apparant capability based on design features and what role this type of capability would provide in a contemporary battlespace. Both share a high emphasis on speed and a lack of the kind of 4-5 significant figure reductions in RCS required of true VLO aircraft (F-22 and F-35).

Feanor said:

I would go as far as to say that the PAK-FA is the true Super Flanker. (something usually reserve for the Su-3XXXX series).

Click to expand...

When it was first revealed I did an overlay analysis of the PAK-FA and FLANKER and it was clear they shared a core design basis. A number of key components like landing gear, wing roots and engine bays all aligned exactly in three dimensions. The sort of thing that only happens when one design is used as the basis of another.

Feanor said:

The J-20 on the other hand is far less known quantity, and given that it's also further from a serial run, we can't be positive about what exactly it's expected to do. It may even be a tech demo as has been suggested. I would wait and see.

Click to expand...

Wether it’s an EAP or the first EF2000 is immaterial. It is clear from looking at it that it has certain capabilities or lacks thereof. Of course such opinions are ballpark stuff but they are as obvious as a Porsche 911 is a sportscar and not a utility van.

Feanor said:

So, to probe a little further, if the PAK-FA was in USAF service, would you still not call it a 5th gen aircraft? And what exactly in regards to sensor fusion do you take issue with on the PAK-FA? (an interesting critique to direct at it, given that its full sensor suite has yet to be revealed)

Click to expand...

Nope. I think the key issue in 5G capability is the significant advantage in situational awareness over previous aircraft. This is both in denying SA to the opposition via stealth and having far greater SA via sensor fusion, highly sensitive sensors and networked sensors.

Now the PAK-FA may or may not have some great sensors onboard but it doesn’t have VLO level stealth, it doesn’t have the networked sensors (Russia just doesn’t have the same degree of sensors even if they can network them) and it is highly unlikely they have the same degree of onboard sensor fusion. Making that last call is based on the immense engineering effort to develop the software to provide this capability. Russia just hasn’t come close (by significant figures) to providing this effort compared to the USA even with their advantages in labour costs.

Pathfinder-X said:

I am more interested to know the reason you choose to group the F-35 in the same category as J-10 and F-16. Aside from single engine, the plane is much heavier than the latter two, exceeding even the F-15 in terms of empty weight. Of course, the wing area is also larger. I personally would compare it to a Mig-29 in terms of size and weight.

Click to expand...

It’s not an issue of gross weight but how that weight is distributed in the aircraft. In the F-35 it is wrapped around the centreline axis and the wingspan is short (area isn’t the metric). These features provide the core for how fast a plane can roll. Something like the MiG-29 with poded, widely separated engines and high wing aspect ratio is going to have a naturally lower roll rate. Of course it has other features to make it roll faster but its not going to match a ‘rocket’ type design.

Abraham Gubler said:

Nope. I think the key issue in 5G capability is the significant advantage in situational awareness over previous aircraft. This is both in denying SA to the opposition via stealth and having far greater SA via sensor fusion, highly sensitive sensors and networked sensors.

Now the PAK-FA may or may not have some great sensors onboard but it doesn’t have VLO level stealth, it doesn’t have the networked sensors (Russia just doesn’t have the same degree of sensors even if they can network them) and it is highly unlikely they have the same degree of onboard sensor fusion. Making that last call is based on the immense engineering effort to develop the software to provide this capability. Russia just hasn’t come close (by significant figures) to providing this effort compared to the USA even with their advantages in labour costs.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

you must be kidding!

Admin - Please read the Forum Rules re posting standards. One liners are generally not permitted as they do not add substance and content to the debate. ie. what comment are you responding to?

Re:

K-DLI-03-1 datalink with OLEN encryption + BVsVM-486 digital computer. Okhotnik image processor w Buk video enhancer.

Think that's the current sensor fusion suite for the export Suks. Considering that they have been using hms w EO/FLIR etc for quite some time...

Seriously wondering about the capabilities of the J-XX. On the net its mostly compared to the F-22 and looks similar too (atleast the posted pics do). But how much is the Chinese really capable of?? I Mean most of their 'indigineous' aircraft are just reverse engineered planes. So is it really possible that the J-XX has similar characteristics to the F-22?? I find it hard to believe. And by the way any one know if the Chinese have inducted the JF-17 into the PLAAF? Or was developped exclusively for PAF?

Not sure if this is related. The Chinese seems to have access to very advanced composite materials building technology that many people don't know.

XAC, headquartered in Xian (China), and ATL, headquartered in Hongkong, now formally are the majority owners of FACC AG, holding 91.25% of the shares of the leading Austrian aerospace supplier in which XAC holds 90% and ATL holds 10% shares. 5% remain in the possession of the Austrian holding company ACC Kooperationen und Beteiligungen GmbH and 3.75% are owned by Stephan Ges.mbH.

*ttp://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6894/gfggf.jpg
*ttp://img690.imageshack.us/img690/1258/facc1.jpg
*ttp://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9571/gfhgfm.jpg

facc.at/

Click to expand...

AVIC also has another venture with Boeing & Hexel, base in China. The JV companies has been supplying composite parts for Boeing planes for many years.

I find the F-117 wreckage metal are primitive compare to these..

truckie said:

Not sure if this is related. The Chinese seems to have access to very advanced composite materials building technology that many people don't know.

AVIC also has another venture with Boeing & Hexel, base in China. The JV companies has been supplying composite parts for Boeing planes for many years.

I find the F-117 wreckage metal are primitive compare to these..

Click to expand...

Majority foreign ownership of a company is not the same as having access to advanced technology. The owned company still holds the IP, expertise and production equipment, in the country they are located in. That does not automatically transfer over because another company located in a different country purchased it.

This is particularly true where some of the materials and IP are restricted.

-Cheers

indianbravery said:

Seriously wondering about the capabilities of the J-XX. On the net its mostly compared to the F-22 and looks similar too (atleast the posted pics do). But how much is the Chinese really capable of?? I Mean most of their 'indigineous' aircraft are just reverse engineered planes.

Click to expand...

If you are behind in terms of technology, reserve engineering is the best option to go. Remember how Japanese and Korean cars used to just inferior clones, but that doesn't mean they will stay that forever. Chinese is not a race that's too dumb to capable of science, look at the amount of Chinese Scientist and Engineer around the world.

Todjaeger said:

Majority foreign ownership of a company is not the same as having access to advanced technology. The owned company still holds the IP, expertise and production equipment, in the country they are located in. That does not automatically transfer over because another company located in a different country purchased it.

This is particularly true where some of the materials and IP are restricted.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. AVIC is currently building a new FACC plant in China, bringing all the tooling and experience engineers over to train their
Chinese staff to work on their new C919 aircraft.

They did the same thing when they bought SCHIESS & Zimmermann. Zimmermann makes 5~7 axis machine tools use by Boeing, Airbus, and big automakers.

f-zimmermann.com/
schiessgmbh.de/cms/

truckie said:

Not so sure about that. AVIC is currently building a new FACC plant in China, bringing all the tooling and experience engineers over to train their
Chinese staff to work on their new C919 aircraft.

They did the same thing when they bought SCHIESS & Zimmermann. Zimmermann makes 5~7 axis machine tools use by Boeing, Airbus, and big automakers.

f-zimmermann.com/
schiessgmbh.de/cms/

Click to expand...

Please note the bolded text.

Todjaeger said:

Majority foreign ownership of a company is not the same as having access to advanced technology. The owned company still holds the IP, expertise and production equipment, in the country they are located in. That does not automatically transfer over because another company located in a different country purchased it.

This is particularly true where some of the materials and IP are restricted...

Click to expand...

While the company might very well be building a facility in China, and some/all of the information might be allowed to transfer, it is not something which occurs automatically. Also, depending on where certain companies are based (which country), as well as the technology desired, there could be TOT restrictions.

The key thing to remember is not that TOT cannot occur, because it can. The point is that it is not something which occurs automatically, nor does it/can it always happen.

-Cheers

bmews said:

A plane is a plane - it doesn't matter in long run. What really matters are the systems that are installed on that plane. F22 has the most advanced ones in the world and even the Eurofighter can't match those. If F22 finds J20's on it's radar, it can lock automatically on 20 of them and shoot them down with fire-and-forget missiles. First strike, First look, Fist kill.

Click to expand...

a F22 does not have 20 missiles. the fact of the matter is China will likely deploy cheap UCAV drone against F22, in which forces F22 to shoot them down or risk counterattack and exhausting the F22's munition before the main force arrives, forcing it to RTB/reload. China intent to win by attrition not superiority.

China's doctrine remains entirely defensive and so long as the fight take place near china(within 1st island chain such as Taiwan), US cannot prevail by superiority, it must commit numbers. this is why there is increase carrier deployment, F22 cannot beat China, US need numbers which F16/18 can provide(until more drone are available). it would be a attrition battle with J20 and F22 held in reserve performing only strategical/critical missions.

The age of manned fighter is coming to a close as UCAV gives the missile the "brains" to fight without the fighters, the future will be a drone war. perhaps why the F22 is cancelled is because the DOD already consider them obsolete to whatever secret UCAV they have cooking.



let all consider this: is the J20 really the centrepiece of Chinese defence? or is it just "a marketing tool"? the J20 is probably released to upstart the pakfa program which flew the year before. using the J20 to fight F22 is probably not what the Chinese had in mind. but it had to be cheaper, more economical, it has to be "sellable"! US can't even sell the F22 to Japan; they don't want an "unmarketable" F22. it all about the $$$ for them...