It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is This China’s First Stealth Fighter? (Picture)

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by waynos
The Su 37 has the forward canards, dual tail twin eng, that is what i mean, the Su 47 has the sleek nose cone high vis cock pit, the wheel base seems to be of Su37 as well, the wing is of a f22 same type a design, and might have internal weapons bay F22, f117 influenced shark teeth wheel bays landing gear covers, the twin tail design seems to be F117,F22 influenced as well. it would be interesting if they used the Su 37 eng as well, same model same thrust same thrust vectoring, how ever i did not see this in any video as of yet. some one spots this, pleas post it. just found some things out has eng. from t 50 the A-L-31-f, same dual tail fins, and radar avoidance, type in J20 fight videos and you can see all the bragging going on by China, you would think they would be hush hush...not.

edit on 11-1-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by waynos
Dmitri, if its mounted at the tail, it cannot be a canard. Simple as. It is a contradiction in terms, like saying the glass steel or the dead survivor
canards are mounted at the front, this is what makes them canards. what you are calling a canard tail is actually a canted tail, entirely different word.

My terminology mistake then. By canard, I mean movable air-resistance flap thing. To be honest, it's been awhile since I studied aircraft anatomy but my point remains the same anyways.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Has there ever been a production fighter with full-moving vertical tail canards before?

There will be when the PAK-FA enters service.

Other fighters/interceptors that had moving vertical fins were the YF-12 Blackbird and the YF-23 Black Widow. Obviously though they didn't enter production.


edit on 11-1-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
then the canted tail does come from the T50, as well as the eng's the rest is well at last count about 10 air frames put together and still counting, the wheel struts and avionics are still???? must be fly by wire that is computer controlled, just like the F22, now i did find some odd thing China calm's to have a crashed F22. has any on else seen this it is in the you tube videos J22- F22.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:17 PM

The J-20 has taken to the air.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by FredT

With all due respect. That is on page 7 of this thread-with the video.

Good stuff-check it out.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by FredT

With all due respect. That is on page 7 of this thread-with the video.

Good stuff-check it out.

Should have known better
Its tough to be the first to the punch in this forum. As well.


posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:42 PM
Test of Stealth Fighter Clouds Gates Visit to China
Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:30 PM EST

Check it, now they are bragging...

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Personally, I think you've completely underestimated Chinese ability and intentions with this new J-20.

I grew up in industrial manufacturing and computer electronics. China is modernizing their industry, but their more advanced industries are all being built with consulting and equipment contracts with the U.S. They simply don't have the experience and technology with electronic systems. Anything they produce will be fourth-generation avionics - perhaps a "4.5" incorporating the more powerful commercially available computer equipment with less sophisticated arrays.

It's not called under-estimating. It's called being practical. You're looking at a less-capable airframe than one we developed close to twenty years ago with an even larger gap separating experience and capability in engine and avionics technology. I will cede that they are showing us up in terms of development - they are looking at a much faster prototype-to-production phase, but comparing the development process of the U.S. and China is an exercise in futility - the two are quite different, much like the Russians had a much different way of developing aircraft and continually confounded our estimates.

To expect this airframe to compete with an F-22 or PAK-FA is simply silly. China has developed -one- in-house fighter. Russia has experience developing hundreds of aircraft. You're comparing a trained combat battalion to a group of recruits barely past their processing days. And expecting far too much out of those recruits.

Secondly, I already know all of that drone stuff that you wrote, and I still fail to see how drones have superior abilities than actual, piloted aircraft. Drones are drones, that's all that they are. They don't have emotions or instincts, and some drone operator sitting safely in a bunker watching a TV screen isn't going to experience anything close to the abilities of a combat pilot engaging in combat.

Here's the problem, you're thinking in terms of current generation drones. Even current gen are being programmed to behave autonomously. No pilot necessary, anywhere in the process. The UCAV only requires commands in the context of "go here, go there, kill that, follow that, RTB." And before you get off on how a human pilot is better than a computer - that is true to some degree, but not when the computer can pull 15G turns while maintaining awareness and can attack in groups.

You're also thinking far too linearly. I'm a pilot in an airplane. Rather than try and orchestrate an armada of drones through the strategic combat network, I'm assigned three intercept UCAVs. I give commands to these UCAVs as a tool. I can use those UCAVs to restrict an opponent, or to flat-out engage high-threat targets without risking the loss of my aircraft and person.

Again - it doesn't really matter if they are better or worse than a pilot. Even if we were to just install the units into B-52s and have them fly into a turkey-shoot, the end result is a greater loss to the enemy than to our own forces. You can shoot 90% of them down. It's the 10% that make it to their target that cause problems. All we lost was some metal and explosives - plenty of that.

And obviously a lot of drones are classified. I still have yet to see a single drone design, classified or not, that has the ability to match a fighter. They are all designed for recon or tactical strikes. Are there even any drones currently equipped with air-to-air missiles?

Current avionics allow for targets to be automatically prioritized, acquired, and engaged. The pilot is there to baby-sit and absorb the sense of accomplishment lost to avionics. I'm not aware of goals to merge the two systems, automated piloting with automated engagement (and a functional tactical system for ACM during mergers). Mostly because ROE is too prohibitive in the air-to-air role. Most require visual identification of the target or observed hostile actions to allow the target to be engaged. Often, BVR missiles and capability is pointless. Similarly - there's little use for urgent development of an air-to-air UCAV when a flip of a switch can pretty much turn any aircraft in the arsenal into a UCAV.

That's slightly exaggerated - but we've already got F-18s landing themselves on carriers to test and debug UAV programming. The avionics are certainly capable of being issued a software and firmware update that makes them capable of being operated through strategic commands provided via the strategic datalink.

However, we prefer to leave people in charge. People tend to be more aware of when things are out-of-whack and able to compensate. A computer will land you upside-down because a bug or error causes it to confuse up and down. It doesn't understand what it's doing - it's just stimulus-response. Most people are capable of figuring out that the canopy (and their head) make for insufficient landing-gear, or that their actual and displayed airspeed are in conflict (regardless of what gnome is afoot, causing it).

By that same token, a computer doesn't get confused about the horizon, flip out due to hypoxia, or get drowsy - all potentially fatal errors that are more likely than fatal programming and hardware errors.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by waynos

Aww c'mon now.. don't go with the "I'll leave you all to it then.." Lets hear some thoughts Sir!

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by curioustype

Gates was told about it.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Daedalus3

Okay old friend, though Im not so familiar on here these days.

In my humble view this prototype looks like it represents a massive stride forward for Chinas indegenous industry, which I often used to come on here defending in the past from what I took to be ill-thought out criticisms. However it is a long way short of being a Raptor-killer.

Fair dos - it is only a prototype, and yet it is clearly, to me, designed by a team lacking experience.

Those huge ventral stabilisors were once de rigeur on all the latest western and Soviet nfighters, between 1959 and 1979. What are they there for? If its stability, they could have made the tails bigger, if its to negate any stealthiness in the design, they do a good job

Despite the canards, I cant see this being thrown all over the sky. its very big, with a rear wing and a very close coupled canard, unlike, say, the Typhoon, which can induce a very rapid instantaneous turn thanks to its nose mounted canards. All canards are beneficial in this way of course, but the closer to the wing they are, the less effective they are, which is probably why sukhoi doesnt bother any more. I think the design is optimised more towards shorter take offs from rough surfaces, rather than agility.

It looks to me like the natural successor to the J-8II or, if equipped with A2G ordnance, the very 1960's looking JH-7 perhaps?

I dont think we should expect to see any TVC on it, perhaps in a 2nd generation MLU, but not straight away. Unless China can source engines from elsewhere.

It should prove a very competent aircraft for China with good range and very low observability in the frontal aspect, though from the sides or back, or any oblique angle yopu can think of, but as a defensive interceptor or a fast-approaching interdictor, the frontal aspect is what really counts anyway.

I do wonder if the ventrals I referred to arent just prototype fit and that they will be dropped when the FBW has proven itself, perhaps?
edit on 12-1-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by Aim64C

there is some flaws with your post, first do a F16 search flight controls -computers eys i know it is old tech but the problems are still around F22 fly by wire sys not all sys are fault less, second china is far more advanced than we think, they do hide it well and show off when it is ready for market, J20 is a show toy to them"see what we have made" sort of thing, but some of there stuff is high tech. and, do i dare say,out performs the west. see china made, wonder were the TSA gets there X ray scanners???

edit on 12-1-2011 by bekod because: added info. and word edit.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by bekod

The 2008 story of the F-22 being shot down over the Chinese city was nothing but a hoax. See following video. Note the F-22 wreckage footage at 02:21? It is presented as wreckage of an F-22 in China.

Note how that still image has been edited to remove some of the background? The US UH-60 helicopter has been edited out. He/She should have left it in as the Chinese do operate Blackhawk helos.

Original image.

The image used in the Chinese video was from an F-22 crash in the US during 2004.

The hoax even made it onto Chinese state media.


posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by bekod

there is some flaws with your post, first do a F16 search flight controls -computers eys i know it is old tech but the problems are still around F22 fly by wire sys

There are always going to be problems. The U.S. milspec regulations require 100% inspection of parts with 100% documentation and traceability. If something happens to so much as the access panel of an aircraft - anyone and everyone who worked on that part from the time the work-order for the aircraft was placed to the time the part failed should be on record.

For some things, particularly aviation components, an inspection includes x-rays and various other inspection technologies to ensure there are no faults in welds, cast parts, etc. This isn't like civilian industry where you sample a random part out of every 250 made, or something like that. This goes for electronics, as well (and is part of the reason I always purchase milspec versions of discreet electronic components when available - fewer DOAs and generally better tolerances and more consistent/reliable performance).

China has only recently ventured into silicon lithography (integrated circuitry) and has made a name for itself making buggy clones of processors around the world (such as Intel, Sony, and other related products). While they are capable of making some fairly advanced avionics - they are still very inexperienced in the type of quality control that will put them into a similar class of U.S. and Russian avionics.

not all sys are fault less

This is true. However, human beings fault more often than computers and the programs that run on them. In most cases, failure for humans to follow procedure (due to laziness, forgetfulness, etc - it doesn't matter) causes errors in systems. More pilots crash themselves because they can't differentiate between up and down than computers crash planes because of a hardware or software fault.

No matter how you look at it - the move towards UAVs and UCAVs will improve reliability. This is especially true from a strategic command point of view - you give specific instructions to a UAV and know it's going to do what it is told how you told it to do it. Tell me to "fly here and blow that up" may have me streaking in at Mach 2 or playing in the trees, dodging windmills. There are more types of reliability than simply whether or not it functions.

second china is far more advanced than we think, they do hide it well and show off when it is ready for market,

There is a difference between the ability to produce a prototype or small number of technologically advanced things, and the ability for your industry to produce such a thing. China has a few nuclear warheads. Even some of the smallest and least industrially developed countries could, theoretically, obtain the tools and machinery necessary to make a couple dozen warheads over several years. It's a completely different issue to have an industry that can turn out a hundred or so a year. That's not something you can bring about by any simple means.

For example, well over a hundred man-hours go into the units we build where I work. They are cradle systems for the SDB and other ordnance that go aboard ships to shield the weapons from shock and environmental concerns. Each one we ship out has, collectively, had someone working on it for well over a hundred hours. Our target is to deliver something like 16 per week, and are a fairly small company that contracts work for Boeing, BAE, etc.

That's all milspec. We use some fairly advanced machines, there, just to build the things that hold bombs and missiles when not on an aircraft. It's all industry that is nearly alien in China's landscape. We've got about 20 people in that facility and often do work to feed other facilities within the corporation (not affiliated with the cradle systems). For those of you paying attention, you'll realize we are undermanned for the work we have. Our manager keeps pushing us to turn around parts faster - but the reality is that we need about a 20-30% manpower boost to double or even triple our output (they are still learning this whole process engineering thing and going through some growing pains).

In either case - a lot of our work is done by machines, and a lot of our man-hours are consumed in levels of perfectionism that are simply not customary in most Chinese industry. China's primary industry has been a sort of corporatized cottage industry these past few decades. People turned their local shops and stores into miniature factories that ship their stuff off to centralized locations. When pooled across the population, this made for an almost seamless transition from a pre-industrial society to an industrial society.

However, it's hard to build things like airplanes when most of your industry consists of various metals smelted in people's barns and tooling done out of a garage.

Or, I should say, it's hard to build and maintain a meaningful number. China has been progressing towards more advanced industry lately - but it's inducing a hell of a strain on their society. The very nature of a factory is more efficiency - more product for the same amount of goods. China's industry, in the past, was the philosophy of "more people means more work." But as the demand for more advanced industrial products increases in China, so does the need to migrate away from their traditional industry. This is partly why China is having serious problems with unemployment - they are migrating away from collective cottage industries to centralized manufacturing.

Irregardless - the whole point is that hiding industry of that magnitude is impossible. It's like trying to hide the automobile industry. You can't hide advanced industry of substantial magnitude; unless you want to make the argument China has 'secret factories' sitting idle until some of their projects in development mature to production. It's a silly argument, as no country or corporation does that - even our most desolate facilities for research and final assembly of classified programs rely on the average industrial capability and draw from hundreds of sub-contractors across the nation.

20 is a show toy to them"see what we have made" sort of thing, but some of there stuff is high tech. and, do i dare say,out performs the west.

No. Just, no. China can't compete with western industry when it comes to parts that require quality control and in-house development. Western companies do more than just make parts - they also consult with the design of the parts for a number of reasons - or even submit designs for parts meeting specific criteria to win a contract building that part. While excluding China from this, entirely, would be erroneous - China's primary deal has been simply cheap labor and undercutting prices. The problem is, however, that they can't compete in price of performance with the higher-tech industries that don't take too kindly to die-cast metal parts that shatter like a piece of glass due to hideous quality control.

see china made, wonder were the TSA gets there X ray scanners???

1. American Science and Engineering[6] (device name: Smartcheck)
2. Rapiscan Systems (a subsidiary of OSI Systems Inc.)[7][8] (device name: Secure 1000)
3. Tek84 (formerly Spectrum San Diego Inc.)[9] (device name: AIT84 Body Scanner & Castscope)

None of them have major manufacturing for any of their back-scatter systems from China - not even for non-critical components.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by tommyjo
thank you i was just wondering if this was a hoax i for one do not like saying unless it is proven, so it a hoax.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by Aim64C
yes yes and yes, to long to reply to all, so yes, i do not denie that we are heading for uav ground control type aircraft the F22 has got to be the MAX air frame for a pilot, i see the day when mach 12 @14 g will be the norm for air combat plains. think of a RC F22 full size what would it be able to do?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by waynos

1) I remember seeing people posting the chinese research paper about heat signature reducing and stealth nozzle designs for rare-stealth
Im pretty sure the final version of J-20 has rare stealth; noticed how that engine nozzle has 2 layers of zig-zag edges before the silvery part? There is no point doing that unless they are making it rare-stealthy as well

2) I heard some people suggesting that the vertical tail stablizer might be removed once the plane gets its FADEC TVC engines; those are only there for the prototype

3) As for the canard, there is nothing wrong about it; they have been studying the canard design since the 80s from the J-10 program..

4) The size of J-20 should be similar to T-50 and Su-27; there was a more acurate comparison picture using a service truck to a picture of J-10 with the same service truck, and people conclude it to be about 19.5 meter-ish; so nothing wrong of it being an air-to-air fighter size wise

5) Radar wise, china has been testing AESA radar on their J10B since a couple years ago, so it shouldnt be a surprise to see those on this plane

6) One of the designer did point out that a draw back to this canard + DSI design is its limited top speed; it wouldnt be able to go to mach 2 like some of the previous generation of fighters could. But I do think they are trying to make it able to do supercruise with more powerful engines
edit on 1/13/2011 by warset because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by warset

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:26 AM
Still, China is on the backfoot and will have to climb its way up. Half the population of China is starving, I hardly believe that they could support a war against America and its allies.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in