Chinese J-20 is expected to have a 2019 IOC, 500 to 700 Expected to be Produced

Last December China’s Chengdu Aircraft Company (CAC) inaugurated the production line for China’s J-20 5th Generation, stealth fighter, that has since entered Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). Two LRIP aircraft have already rolled off the line; the first began flight testing in January.

The Chinese People’s Republic Army Air Force (PLAAF) is believed to have received four J-20 jets, which have been tested and completed acceptance tests recently. The first front-line regiment is supposed to activate and receive aircraft by June 2017 and is expected to be combat ready by 2019. That milestone could be pushed forward, given the budget priority. The final requirement could be between 500 to 700.

The configuration of those LRIP planes is similar to the latest prototypes, 2016 and 2017 that were the pre-production and technology demonstrator variants. Nomenclature identifies the aircraft – prototypes and pre-production aircraft are designated 20XX while production versions are designated 21XX.

defense-update.com...

a reply to: anzha

It would be interesting to see how much it costs the Chinese to produce one of these, compared to the Russian SU 35 and the F35 lightning, I would bet the Chinese plane will cost 1/50th of the price of the F35. Thats not to say it will only be 1/50th as good as the F35, It will be good enough, especially for the price....

a reply to: ColaTesla

Pretty sure we are building 6th gen fighters as they are playing catch-up most likely reverse engineering tech from the US and what Russia decides to let them see. I don't feel like the J-20 is going to compare with the classified capabilities our F-22 can utilize, but sure I wouldn't mind seeing how efficiently they can put out a design. Unfortunately we will never hear about the bugs and problems they have with it because they're not very open about the development of their projects...not like we have been with the F-35.

a reply to: ColaTesla

What exactly is "good enough" in combat? Like, it makes it to target, but doesn't make it back?

Meh...good enough. Just make more...

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Good enough as in the way the T34 Tank was good enough against the panzers in WW2, They were crude as hell compared to the germans engineering, but were cheap and quick to produce and thus so the Russians were able to manufacture 168'140 of them in a 18 year production run, Which ultimately resulted in the superior panzers being obliterated.

And yes you read that correctly, just under 170 thousand T34's were manufactured in 18 years. Thats what i meant by good enough.

a reply to: anzha


More Raptors please....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: anzha


More Raptors please....

No, cause they cost too much to make.

a reply to: nwtrucker
New penetrating counter air instead.

a reply to: makemap


Great! Then your willing to cede air dominance to China?


I'm not.

originally posted by: darksidius
a reply to: nwtrucker
New penetrating counter air instead.

Please clarify. How would that alter the fact that China would have air dominance via 5th gen platforms with close to U.S. technology and a much superior numerical advantage?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Jumping to conclusions much?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Jumping to conclusions much?

originally posted by: bra1nwash
a reply to: nwtrucker

Jumping to conclusions much?

Jumping? Not really. Basic logic to the conclusion. At least lacking further information one can only conclude a continued closing of the gap between U.S. and Chinese technology and numbers speak for themselves.

Again, I ask you to please clarify. I am all ears and willing to change my view on it....given reasonable explanation.

I'd be curious to see what the stealth profile of that plane is.

It's a stealthy shape but how stealthy?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Wow.

PCAS, if I am reading the tea leaves right, could be online faster than bringing the F-22 back into production.

Look, you might be too old for this analogy, but I'll give it a try anyways. It is always easier to write new programming code than to learn, understand and maintain something someone else wrote.

Go for a PCAS now, the loyal wingman, the massed mini drone swarms and get started on the sixth gen (or rather 5th gen replacement, whatever that may be).

At best, the J-20 will match the F-22 in numbers by 2023. Most likely, it will be 2025. Even then, we'll have the F-35s

You do realize the US has paid for 130 F-35As through LRIP-8, right?

a reply to: anzha


OK. I can see the mass drone scenario.

The comment about 'code' new vs old, I have several questions/issues with. Any code, one would think. needs to be maintained, be it, F-22 or F-35 or whatever...and someone else always wrote it. So somehow new code and that issue(?) somehow trumps all others??

Let's not forget, aerodynamically, the base F-22 is sound and F-35 avionics should address your concerns about 'codes'.

I can see the argument as six of one and half a dozen of the other. So many possible options and routes we 'could' go.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The problem is the 'old code' vs 'new code' was meant to be an analogy rather than literal. The case here is the F-22 manufacturing uses techniques and machinery from 20 odd years ago. Retraining and resetup will be a PITA. Esp when you don't have the buildings any more. As we have pointed out.

It would be far better to just start from scratch. And that's what they are doing. As noted before, the 6th gen seems to be going through a B-21 like cycle for development and we ought to have something flying in 5 years or less (interesting timing, that). Then IOC within 5 years after that.

Timing isn't very different from a returned F-22C.

a reply to: anzha


Ah, got it.


Still when the USAF returns a hanger queen back to flight status and the logical assumption it is not a program based
line of tests planned for that 'new' bird, and Congress' interest at looking at, at least, the option of an F-22 run suggests it's not dead yet. Rightly or wrongly.


LM selling the buildings doesn't resonate as a valid excuse either. Their choice, their problem. Certainly not one that should influence what's best for the USAF or the U.S. overall.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The Air Force uses whatever is at hand for testing. They test new systems on older aircraft all the time. I know of one aircraft that has two systems on board right now that would make any fifth generation pilot cry if they could see how good they are.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

The Air Force uses whatever is at hand for testing. They test new systems on older aircraft all the time. I know of one aircraft that has two systems on board right now that would make any fifth generation pilot cry if they could see how good they are.

Great! Then we can incorporate them into the F-22 run............LOL.....just messing with you.....