Chinese J20 Stealth Fighter revealed

[eble 3]

sorry if it's old news, etc...

From looking at some of the pictures you can see the Su-47 heritage in it, it seems to be a good cross between the Su-47 test bed and the Russian Stealth fighter.

I guess it won't be long before the Indian Stealth fighter is seen next.

http://toptodaynews.com/chinese-stealth-fighter-photo-leaked/

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/chinese-stealth-fighter-chinas-j20-stealth-fighter-jet-photos-2744574.html

Edited January 13, 2011 by Eble

[VanhA-ICON 11]

Stealth fighter is seen

I bet it's not supposed to be like that..

:D

[Tonci87 163]

HAHA LOL good one^^

[Muahaha 10]

If every countries has their own stealth fighters, I guess no one will ever see a fighter jet ever...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its just the answer to the F-22. Lets see how many "stealth" planes will be really operational...

Btw the PAK FA/FGFA is a joint venture between Russia and India. Its said that soon and after long years of delays and technical problems the first home build Light Combat Aircraft "Teja" will be in service for India Air Force.

[icebreakr 3107]

Muahaha: they can still go visual dogfighting like in good old times ;)

[Rindier 10]

Its just the answer to the F-22. Lets see how many "stealth" planes will be really operational...

Btw the PAK FA/FGFA is a joint venture between Russia and India. Its said that soon and after long years of delays and technical problems the first home build Light Combat Aircraft "Teja" will be in service for India Air Force.

Wasnt the f-22 cancaled? yah they made some but there not making more.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Is this another one of those fighters that Israel helped the Chinese build with their US technology transfer?

Israel's role in China's new warplane

By David Isenberg

Dec 4, 2002

The recent unveiling (sort of) of China's first domestically designed (sort of) fighter jet was the culmination of a long saga of international military-hardware wheeling and dealing that has seen US-designed or -funded high-tech weaponry fall into the hands of potential military rivals.

The showpiece of many years' work, dating back to the late 1980s, recently happened - albeit unobserved - when China confirmed the existence of, but did not unveil, the Jian-10 fighter jet. It had been reported that the J-10 (F-10 being the export version, using North Atlantic Treaty Organization designation) would be shown in public for the first time during the fourth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China 2002) held in Zhuhai in southern Guangdong province from November 4-10, but the plane did not appear.

The J-10 is a multi-role single-engine and single-seat tactical fighter, with a combat radius of 1,000 kilometers. Although billed as a domestically produced fighter, in truth the J-10 could not have happened without the help of other countries, especially Israel.

The program began in the late 1980s and is thought to be based on an Israeli design. It contains Israeli and Russian avionics, and is powered by Russian engines.

Chinese engineers developed the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel's US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was canceled in 1987, according to the Federation of American Scientists website. The Lavi was based on the US F-16 and built with US$1.3 billion in aid from Washington.

In 1983, when US support for the Lavi commenced, the program was opposed vigorously by the Defense Department, partly because of re-export concerns. An early supporter of the Lavi was George Shultz, then secretary of state in the administration of US president Ronald Reagan. Shultz would later label his advocacy of the program a "costly mistake".

Only in early 1995 did the US government make public its concerns about Israel's Lavi-related technology re-exports to China. David Lari, director general of Israel's Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in an Associated Press interview that "some technology on aircraft" had been sold to China and that some Israeli companies may not have "clean hands"...

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/DL04Ad01.html

As always follow the link to the original text in full

China seems to have made serious improvements of its technolgy in aircraft, missile and stealth technology in a suspiciously short time period, consider their military budget while increased is only a 10th of the US and less than a third of Russian budget, yet they have beaten bothe the Russians and the Europeans to having Stealth fighter ready to fly.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 13, 2011 by walker

[Prydain 1]

Goodness, it didn't take long before Walker infected your thread Eble.

[xdmerciless 14]

Wasnt the f-22 cancaled? yah they made some but there not making more.

Right, the DoD cut production of the raptors in FY2010.

AF leaders: F-22 cuts a matter of priorities

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/04/airforce_F22_oped_041309w/

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Apr 13, 2009 13:06:15 EDT

The Air Force’s top two leaders explained in a newspaper op-ed Monday that they recommended capping production of the F-22 Raptor program because they couldn’t justify spending billions more on stealth fighters when other higher service priorities exist and money is tight.

The op-ed in the Washington Post by Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz was their first public statement on the F-22 program since Defense Secretary Robert Gates released the 2010 budget last week.

Schwartz and Donley acknowledged they had wanted an F-22 fleet of 243 but came to realize “buying more F-22s means doing less of something else.†The $13 billion for the 60 additional fighters could be better used to repair the service’s nuclear enterprise, ramp up its unmanned aircraft fleet and better fight irregular wars.

The leaders pointed out they remain dedicated to air superiority and have confidence that a combination of the 187 F-22 fleet Congress has approved and the 2,443 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters the Defense Department plans to buy will provide that.

As Gates continues to guide the Defense Department away from Cold War-era weapons programs and shape the services to fight both irregular and conventional wars, Schwartz and Donley said F-22 requirements changed.

“Based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment†for F-22 fleets of 243 or even 381 aircraft.

Only a handful of F-35s have been built, though, and Schwartz and Donley said they understand concerns exist with shutting down the F-22 production line in 2011 before the F-35 production line reaches full capacity in 2015. But the risk wasn’t worth the cost of buying more F-22s.

“We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line,†they wrote.

Schwartz and Donley said they recognized the F-22 is the military’s best air-to-air fighter and continue to support the four more F-22s that will be purchased with this year’s supplemental defense spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that will bring the fleet’s final number to 187.

“The F-22 is a vital tool in the military’s arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.â€

Hi all

Is this another one of those fighters that Israel helped the Chinese build with their US technology transfer?

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/DL04Ad01.html

As always follow the link to the original text in full

China seems to have made serious improvements of its technolgy in aircraft, missile and stealth technology in a suspiciously short time period, consider their military budget while increased is only a 10th of the US and less than a third of Russian budget, yet they have beaten bothe the Russians and the Europeans to having Stealth fighter ready to fly.

Kind Regards walker

Thanks for sharing that article, as that raises some eye brows with how the State Department handles ITAR with respect to the sell of weapons/technology to allied countries - if the foreign forces have to sign some non-disclosure agreement, and what ramifications there are for violating that NDA. I honestly wasn't surprised with the new Chinese stealth fighter, as there were some House or Senate committee hearings back a few years ago regarding the modernization of PRC forces, and calls for more transparency to better US-Sino relations. One of these hearings in particular I recall was PLA Naval modernization, in which there was analysis where an US Navy official equated the Pacific ocean as our own backyard but is now being threated by the PRC.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57462.pdf

(For more about China's Naval Modernization)

The normalized GDP defense spending statistics could be misleading if you were analyzing it from a pure aggregate view, total defense spending. Moreover, I'd imagine, if one were to break down total defense expenditures, there would large disparities between where the spending was allocated. The Economist article back in December of last year, shows that Chinese defense spending has steadily increased in the past decade, with total expenditures estimated at $100 billion.

Whereas the out of the $663 billion defense budget the US spends approximately $125 billion for Veterans alone.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_defense_spending_30.html#usgs30230

I have no doubt that there was some export of US technology that violated ITAR, whether that be deliberate espionage/hacking or inadvertent leaks, like when an defense industry employee lost his flash drive containing JSF information, however the concept for low-observability, and techniques aren't new, and were developed back in the late 60s/early 70s under the leadership of Kelly Johnson at Lockheed. What I feel is more threatening are the Chinese advances in missile technology, the development of avionics and control systems capable of hitting targets with pin-point accuracy from intermediate to long range distances specifically anti-carrier missiles which would obvious effect US Naval force projection in Asian hemisphere if a conflict where to arise, say for example, Taiwan.

Edited January 13, 2011 by XDMerciless

[Muahaha 10]

Muahaha: they can still go visual dogfighting like in good old times ;)

That is.... IF they are able to locate each other first... with all the stealth planes going supersonics and stealthy i doubt they would even realize someone just flew by... hahaha....

A lousy example:

Vrooooom.....

Pilot: Oh did I hear something ?

Pilot2: Nah, probably just what you ate last night...

[jblackrupert 14]

So how long before we can buy cheap knockoffs in Chinatown?

[icebreakr 3107]

Didn't the Americans say that this plane still needs 1 year of development to make an actual maiden flight? :)

[eble 3]

they probably said that about the J10 10 minutes before it flew past in formation and full production.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Goodness, it didn't take long before Walker infected your thread Eble.

He's not even refering to the right plane now.

@Walker - Its the J-10 mentioned in that article. But please keep going. I've got a bet on that you'll actually hit a solid, provable fact at least once in the next 11 months. Statisically it has to happen at some point.:D

they probably said that about the J10 10 minutes before it flew past in formation and full production.

They've always under estimated the Chinese production system. But to be fair the J-10 has had a very rough ride into service over the last 8-10 years. Lots of crashes (if leaks and rumours can be beleived), avionics and engine issues. I imagine the J-20 will also have its problems.

I am curious about its construction though. Has anyone come across any details about the materials its made from?

[eble 3]

first flight? thought it was only doing taxi runs...

The first flight of the J-20 began at 12:50pm on January 11th, 2011, and lasted approximately 18 minutes. The location of the test was an airstrip at Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group's main facility in the southwestern Chinese city of Chengdu.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/chinas_new_j20_stealth_fighter_quietly_makes_first_flight

Edited January 14, 2011 by Eble

[rksl-rock 1300]

A couple of videos of the first flight:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2011/01/j-20---the-camera-doesnt-lie.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/11/351702/video-chinas-j-20-completes-maiden-flight.html

And even Wikipedia has created a page for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

[icebreakr 3107]

Yeah, in formation with two J-10s.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Anyone found a good 3-view drawing as yet?

Ones I've seen dont seem to be accurate to recent photos/videos.

[eble 3]

not much about yet, well anything that accurate thats for sure, when that thing takes off the wings look much more delta like than the 3d drawings I've seen.

Having a look at the F35/F22 and Russian Pak this seems to be a mish mash of all the designs.

The engines can't be the productions ones as when it was warming up they pilot made not thrust vectoring checks.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Gnat;1834279']Anyone found a good 3-view drawing as yet?

Ones I've seen dont seem to be accurate to recent photos/videos.

The best ones ive seen are:

And best comparative size given Bill Sweetman's guestimates:

[walker 0]

He's not even refering to the right plane now.

@Walker - Its the J-10 mentioned in that article. But please keep going. I've got a bet on that you'll actually hit a solid, provable fact at least once in the next 11 months. Statisically it has to happen at some point.:D...

Hi RKSL-Rock

I was referring to the illegal Transfer of Technology, which as you know included avionics of a kind needed for an aircraft that is inherently unstable; in this case the IAI Lavi which the J10 was developed alongside.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.140/pub_detail.asp

As you are fully aware, stealthy aircraft are generally not aerodynamically stable as they are designed primarily to be radar detection resistant and this is often counter to stability. To get round this the aircraft are fly by wire as I am certain you are aware.

I am stating for the record:

The illegal Technology Transfer of Fly by wire software and hardware and aerodynamic design from the IAI Lavi to the J10 project is what allowed the Chinese to develop a flying stealth aircraft, the J20, ten years ahead of schedule.

If you wish to argue this point please do.

Also note the canard and tail design.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 14, 2011 by walker

[xdmerciless 14]

not much about yet, well anything that accurate thats for sure, when that thing takes off the wings look much more delta like than the 3d drawings I've seen.

Having a look at the F35/F22 and Russian Pak this seems to be a mish mash of all the designs.

The engines can't be the productions ones as when it was warming up they pilot made not thrust vectoring checks.

Also note the canard and tail design.

Kind Regards walker

It's interesting to see the the different designs. Some random observations after looking closer at the pictures of the three 5th gen fighters, the Russian PAK, which from afar looks very similar to a Raptor, lacks a conventional center barrel fuselage section, but instead uses a quasi-blended fuselage wing fuselage, which contributes more to lift than the latter. However, this severely reduces the amount of ordinance that can be carried internally to reduce the A/C radar cross section, which would then require additional pylons under the wings for weapon hard points for a multi-role oppose to air-interdiction mission. Whereas the F-22s and J-20s use relatively large fuselages to incorporate internal bays, and though the Chinese choose to use a conventional center fuselage, the control surfaces are interesting to say the least. The use of a canard will severely increase the A/C radar signature while transitioning rapidly to high AOAs, due to the entire surface deflecting at an angle offering a large surface for greater radar return. Moreover, the vertical stabilizers have very little structure to them, significant portion of it seems to moves entirely as one piece, and are unconventional - literally backwards. So from an logistics, flight maintenance perspective I'd imagine the inspections there would be more rigorous than other planes. From a stability standpoint with the canards, they are in the same water line, which would mean that if a pilot where to pitch hard up or down, the control surface would actuate to that position that would blanket and disrupt the airflow to the wings, which depending on the speed, altitude and angle of attack, could lead to an catastrophic unrecoverable stall and lost of the aircraft.

I am curious about its construction though. Has anyone come across any details about the materials its made from?

I am equally curious here too. I would assume it, the J-20, would use an internal structure common with other fighter jets, with steel or titanium bulkheads for the wing carry through structure, aluminum longerons, and ribs that make the internal skeleton finishing with composite or aluminum skins. Be interesting to see if they use any special radar absorbent materials for the surfaces as well. For reference here is an internal cutaway of an F22:

Edited January 14, 2011 by XDMerciless

[walker 0]

...The use of a canard will severely increase the A/C radar signature while transitioning rapidly to high AOAs, due to the entire surface deflecting at an angle offering a large surface for greater radar return...

Hi XDMerciless

Sorry but IMHO this argument is based on falacy.

Canards don't affect stealth modes much, as when in cruise mode eg. on ingress to or egress from target, they will be hardly moving at all; and high angle movments will only occur when in contact, which by definition means the enemy already knows where you are, eg. when dodging AA fire or Missiles already locked and extreme maneuver dogfighting.

Kind Regards walker

[xdmerciless 14]

...IMHO this argument is based on falacy...Canards don't affect stealth modes much

I agree to a certain extent, though the obvious largest contributor to radar cross section (RCS) is the exterior design of the aircraft, with respect to global size and local geometry on surfaces with varying angles to refract the returning waves away from radar receiver. It is fact, that the actuation of any control surface, flap, elevator, or stabilizer - whether it be a canard or traditional aft tail design will vary the RCS and correspondingly the probability of detection. Even the momentary release of ordinance through opening of the bay doors are governed autonomously to close after release to further mitigate the aircraft RCS. Assuming of course that radar coherence is sufficient (strength, distance, wavelength) to detect the aircraft in the first place. But I can agree, that if one were to compile a pie chart representing the % contribution from global size of the aircraft, local geometry of the exterior structure, control surfaces, etc, that one could argue they don't contribute to a significant increase in RCS. But what threshold is enough for a solid active radar lock, from say a AIM-120, or other active seeking air-to-air radar guided missile?

Canards don't affect stealth modes much, as when in cruise mode eg. on ingress to or egress from target, they will be hardly moving at all; and high angle movments will only occur when in contact, which by definition means the enemy already knows where you are, eg. when dodging AA fire or Missiles already locked and extreme maneuver dogfighting.

Incorrect, the canards are constantly moving as are other control surfaces. On a control-canard aircraft, as the J-20, the canard is used to control the angle-of-attack of the wing and to balance out the pitching moment (torque) produced by the deflection of flaps. Such designs are highly unstable. Typically, canard configurations are design such that the aircraft is neutrally stable with the canards removed. Straight level-flight requires the canard to operate at zero lift condition/zero angle of attack and thus carries little of the aircraft weight. This produces a natural downward pitching moment which pilots as early as the Wright brothers were forced to constantly apply stick to, but now with computerized flight control systems such as fly-by-wire, can make these necessarily rapid changes of the angle of the canard to maintain stability. I can't quantify the particular frequency or amplitude in the canard angle, but to argue they hardly move is flawed. Even with at a constant airspeed and altitude, the air density, pressure, and temperature change, our skies are highly dynamic systems - resulting in turbulence, side shear, down shear, etc (why the weather man seems to never get it just right). To maintain straight and level flight the fly-by-wire will make necessarily angle of attack changes to the canard, resulting in a reduction or increase of lift at the forward fuselage station for pitch stability or stability in all operating regimes from take off, climb, ingress, combat, egress, loiter and land. Putting aside the mechanics of flight stability, aerial combat is also equally dynamic as well, fighter pilots will find any excuse to yank and bank.

Edited January 14, 2011 by XDMerciless