Chinese J-20 Stealth first flight video

As posted online by AvWeb, a pretty reliable source. I looked but didn't see this posted here yet, sorry if it is.

I'm waiting to see some ACM before passing any judgment

S & F Nice video, I had not seen this one yet. I had only seen pictures of the J-20 until now.

it does look pretty sick. i can only imagine what the russians will come up with.

reply to post by JJRichey


it looks like a piece of crap just like everything made in China haven't seen it vector yet so what makes it a 4th gen the fact that it has adjustable wings LOL the same paint that we have on our old stealth fighters from 1986. I'm thoroughly unimpressed even the people who made the video said that it's copying other planes they can't even come up with an original idea so they steal from American's or the Russians.even the post about the supercomputer is wrong blue waters does a petaflop that the trillions to the trillionth power processing per second and it's American.

reply to post by pcrobotwolf


It may not be impressive in and of itself, however, if you have the capacity to do so, you may wish to plot a line of progression through the A-5 Fantan, which was a modified MiG 19 produced at a time when the USA was testing the F-18, via the J-8II, which is directly comparable with the 1960s vintage Sukhoi Su-15 Flagon and was produced in the 1980s when F-22 development was getting started. Then you move on through the J-10, which is comparable to the F-16 at a time when this fightervis still in service and production and finally onto this J-20, which I also see as of limited strategic capability, but as a valuable development tool and a real Mark of progression.

The question is not how good is the J-20 now. It is, having seen Chinas progression in 30 years, how good will it be when it enters service a decade from now? don't kid yourself the USAF won't still be flying large numbers of F-15's with a small number of F-22's, as now, by 2020.

and can we drop the pathetic 'copy' jibes, it's been done to death on here and there isn't a nation on earth that is above the practice. How do you think America got jet engines, radar, transonic aerodynamics, TV and Government

reply to post by waynos

The question is not how good is the J-20 now. It is, having seen Chinas progression in 30 years, how good will it be when it enters service a decade from now?

China's development cycle is somewhat different from America's. Setting a time table for maturation through a comparison with U.S. development is silly. China is, reportedly, looking at the 2015 time-frame for service. Which means we are not likely to see much evolution between now and then. They have about two years to debug, one year to tool up, and another year to build their initial parts inventory to start construction while teething the construction process.

This is not the same as in the U.S. - where competitors build demonstrators to win a contract for development of a production aircraft. This is the production aircraft - more or less.

don't kid yourself the USAF won't still be flying large numbers of F-15's with a small number of F-22's, as now, by 2020.

F-22 service numbers are to be held at 182 indefinitely and all further orders for the airframe have been terminated as of 2009, if I remember correctly.

The F-15E is to replace the F-15C and continue service into the 2020 time-frame before being phased out around 2025 (along with the F/A-18E/F). The competition for developing these fighters is already, more or less, underway (even if the competition has not been commissioned by congress - it's going on between the major defense players): www.flightglobal.com...

..... While crawling through some links on other forums, I came across a link to a research paper done by Boeing in 1995 - ntrs.nasa.gov... - of interest is page 229, to me, at least. Gives you an idea of where their thinking was going and some ideas about where they may be headed.

Considering China just approved the sale of 200 Boeing jetliners for Chinese air carriers, Perhaps they should work on their commercial airliner production instead. Oh, wait, even Chinese wouldn't want to fly in a Chinese made airplane, who want to look up at the belly and see "Made In China"?

reply to post by waynos


i dont know buddy how did the uk get telephones the internet and the ability to use electricity? Flight we started the germans invented jet fighters and probably also stealth look at the hortan ho 229 not the Russians like you think . vectoring came from the english air force on their harriers Im not trying to bust your balls but you dont have the faintest clue what china has been doing to America for years. We send them work and they copy it and make it cheaper then form their own companies and sell it against the people who used Chinese labor to make the product in the first place here in America that would break every copyright law there is here in america. If we stopped using them for cheap labor they would collapse because they don't have the ingenuity it takes to produce products that anybody wants thats why they just paid a ton for our aircraft designs. just you wait it will happen to your country as well

reply to post by pcrobotwolf


Rather than point out everything you got wrong, it will suffice to say that maybe you missed the part where I said no country was above the practice?

Originally posted by Aim64C
China's development cycle is somewhat different from America's. Setting a time table for maturation through a comparison with U.S. development is silly. China is, reportedly, looking at the 2015 time-frame for service. Which means we are not likely to see much evolution between now and then. They have about two years to debug, one year to tool up, and another year to build their initial parts inventory to start construction while teething the construction process.

This is not the same as in the U.S. - where competitors build demonstrators to win a contract for development of a production aircraft. This is the production aircraft - more or less.

Well competing parties for fighter development is a luxury that the US enjoys (and that too as of now, that may fizzle out if the cuts a la Gates continue for years to come). Major military aircraft projects for almost all other nations demand a pooling in of resources. That is what happened with the T-50 and J-20. IIRC, it is pretty much the same in the EU as well?
Although one must note that both the Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters are the result of joint development by 2 separate aircraft corporations; either the unison was existing already (UAC) or it was the program which demanded pooling in of resources (CAC and SAC). Yes of course that does reduce the development cycle but the executors justify that to meet budget and time-frame boundaries.
Also I believe the Chinese look for a decade more to get this into series production, so they have time, and what's more: they have the 5th gen fighter development road pretty much carved out for them by taking cues (overtly and covertly) from similar western developments.

Saying that this is a a production a/c more-or-less is a little premature; I don't think we have even ascertained if this is a tech-demonstrator or a prototype. Now a/c usually do not grow new control surfaces and so externally visible changes will be very minute if at all (as with all a/c development programs) but the insides can change drastically, and there are indications that insides of this a/c are still very fluid int terms of engine and avionics.

Lastly, I think achieving an evolving set of requirements set forth by the PLA is the only and final objective for this a/c as is for any other, not really a date thrown around in the media circles. If this aircraft is to be of any use to that PLA, it will be operational when the PLA accepts it as such, and not anytime before, whether that be 2015 or 2020. Nothing is going to happen by 2015. What we will only be able to differentiate by then is the changes this platform has gone through.

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by waynos

 

. If we stopped using them for cheap labor they would collapse because they don't have the ingenuity it takes to produce products that anybody wants thats why they just paid a ton for our aircraft designs. just you wait it will happen to your country as well

Ah thats where its all wrong. If you stopped using them for cheap labour, you would collapse, not them. Its like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. And its not that they lack the ingenuity, they lack the time, the clout and the access to global resources that you enjoy; which is fair game of course, but so is everything else.
Its not easy playing catchup and trying to adhere to 'morals' which do not buy you any brownie points anyways.

reply to post by Daedalus3

Major military aircraft projects for almost all other nations demand a pooling in of resources. That is what happened with the T-50 and J-20. IIRC, it is pretty much the same in the EU as well?

So, what makes you think this airframe is going to evolve considerably over its development cycle, considering it is such a massive endeavor to get it to this point? The EFA-2000 hasn't really changed all that much since it was first entering tests. The changes that were made were simply to get the thing to work like they wanted it to, not to seriously advance anything on the airframe.

Also I believe the Chinese look for a decade more to get this into series production, so they have time, and what's more: they have the 5th gen fighter development road pretty much carved out for them by taking cues (overtly and covertly) from similar western developments.

If they took any cues from our own fighter development, they would know that having a fighter tied up in development for a decade is hideously expensive, inefficient, and leads to an airframe that is so obsolete by time it enters service as to have negated the benefits of such a development cycle.

Saying that this is a a production a/c more-or-less is a little premature; I don't think we have even ascertained if this is a tech-demonstrator or a prototype. Now a/c usually do not grow new control surfaces and so externally visible changes will be very minute if at all (as with all a/c development programs) but the insides can change drastically, and there are indications that insides of this a/c are still very fluid int terms of engine and avionics.

Unless we're developing a second generation aircraft, here - the avionics are already fairly well set. Internal data buses are already in place with network and information sharing standards. With the way information in modern avionics is processed, everything has to be on the same page. The radar is linked into the navigation systems, linked into IFF, RWR, ECM, etc. In the U.S. - we've developed a sort of "plug and play" set of standards that allow for you to swap out a Lockheed-developed radar for a Northrop-Grumman-developed radar with some 'driver updates' to the overall system.

China doesn't have half a dozen radar and avionics manufacturers. What they've got in there is what is going to be used. It will go through a debug process based on in-flight tests, and any further developments will be for a block upgrade to the production airframe.

If this aircraft is to be of any use to that PLA, it will be operational when the PLA accepts it as such, and not anytime before, whether that be 2015 or 2020. Nothing is going to happen by 2015.

A development cycle extending beyond 2015 is completely unnecessary barring setbacks outside of the time allotted. Even if they do not have privileged information regarding our ATF development - they will note that our entire ATF development cycle was just over 20 years, and that we have elected to discontinue production of the ATF. Demonstrator-to-production for the ATF was something like 500% over any other aircraft developed in the U.S. The most successful airframes the U.S. has developed have had very short initial development cycles and have been upgraded in service as opposed to pre-service: The P-51, F-15, F-16, and F-18 - of note.

They would be insane to choose to extend development into 2020. Moreover, assuming they have been even somewhat competent at industrial espionage; they would have very little need to extend the development cycle for so long. Most of the time spent in our own development of an ATF was chewed up in trial-and-error to determine the cost-effectiveness of different technologies. Thus - there is little need for them to dick around for ten years figuring out what they likely already know from looking at our own process.

Ah thats where its all wrong. If you stopped using them for cheap labour, you would collapse, not them. Its like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. And its not that they lack the ingenuity, they lack the time, the clout and the access to global resources that you enjoy; which is fair game of course, but so is everything else.

The U.S. is the only first-world nation with the potential to be a successful isolationist nation. It would be a rough transition - but China would be hurting without the U.S. as a consumer. Moreover - we could begin contracting and subsidizing a labor market in India and South America, rather than China.

China is in an even tighter spot. Most of their economy is based around cheap labor and price-point competition lacking quality control. They are somewhere between a second and first world nation, and need to start outsourcing labor, themselves, to meet consumer demand. Considering they have been providing the cheap labor for a country with 30% of their own population - they are going to have a hard time finding some place capable of taking on their volume demand.

Which is why they are trying to gain as much leverage right now as they can. They won't have much in the way of leverage when their 'baby boomers' hit peak retirement. They realize their population control policies have sent them up a creek - and it's only a matter of time before they lose the paddle they are currently paddling with.

news.yahoo.com...

"Parts of the downed F-117 wreckage — such as the left wing with US Air Force insignia, the cockpit canopy, ejection seat, pilot's helmet and radio — are exhibited at Belgrade's aviation museum."

I doubt the left wing is authentic. I'd be willing to wager that the Chinese and/or Russians acquired all of the downed wreckage and have already reverse engineered the F-117's design. And what's being claimed as authentic "downed F-117" wreckage is in fact a counterfeit reproduction, albeit nearly identical in appearance.

I'm reminded of a quote from the evil genius antagonist in Under Siege 2:

Yeah, I'm gonna shock the world by spreading ca-ca all over the place. Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. [We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.

Don't underestimate the Chinese...

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Daedalus3

 

Major military aircraft projects for almost all other nations demand a pooling in of resources. That is what happened with the T-50 and J-20. IIRC, it is pretty much the same in the EU as well?

So, what makes you think this airframe is going to evolve considerably over its development cycle, considering it is such a massive endeavor to get it to this point? The EFA-2000 hasn't really changed all that much since it was first entering tests. The changes that were made were simply to get the thing to work like they wanted it to, not to seriously advance anything on the airframe.

So no one is saying that its going to grow an extra control surface or two. Actually your statement that it "won't change much/hasn't really changed much" is such a generalization, that it would be better if you'd point out what you exactly mean. The very qualifying parameters of an aircraft development program playing catch are ever-evolving, to match and possibly surpass the threat it was built to compete against. Same goes for the supporting industries that evolve and even manifest themselves in order to meet the demands.
I'd quote a number of such programs, admittedly in developing countries. As such the a/c does very much end up being 'very different' from what it was required to be at the onset.
Besides, I don't think what you quoted above and what you responded to are contextual.

Also I believe the Chinese look for a decade more to get this into series production, so they have time, and what's more: they have the 5th gen fighter development road pretty much carved out for them by taking cues (overtly and covertly) from similar western developments.

If they took any cues from our own fighter development, they would know that having a fighter tied up in development for a decade is hideously expensive, inefficient, and leads to an airframe that is so obsolete by time it enters service as to have negated the benefits of such a development cycle.

Well then you didn't quite get what I meant by learning from others' experiences. In fact the very nature of your statement seems to indicate that in general all fighter development is futile unless its is considerably shorter than a decade. Again what 'benefits' you refer to I do not know, whether they be monetary, technological or some other kind.

Saying that this is a a production a/c more-or-less is a little premature; I don't think we have even ascertained if this is a tech-demonstrator or a prototype. Now a/c usually do not grow new control surfaces and so externally visible changes will be very minute if at all (as with all a/c development programs) but the insides can change drastically, and there are indications that insides of this a/c are still very fluid int terms of engine and avionics.

Unless we're developing a second generation aircraft, here - the avionics are already fairly well set. Internal data buses are already in place with network and information sharing standards.

A data bus is a data bus and no more. It bounds the system by environmental and performance (data transfer) limits, that is all. The same goes for n/w standards. There's no restriction in stripping are rewiring these as well.
If you are going to use that as a measure of gauging evolution of electronic systems, thats just plain wrong. The rate of evolutionary changes electronic/information systems decreases exponentially as you traverse from the application layer to the network layer. The examples are aplenty in today's world, outside of aircraft even, but here's a relevant way of explaining:

An upgraded F-16 with state of the art avionics (esp radar, missiles and inter link capabilities) is worth at least the number of of missiles its can carry in terms of the same aircraft without these upgrades. Well yes you may have to lay in the cables here to enable the a/c to use these capabilities, but the timelines required are minuscule when compared to the operational boost given.

With the way information in modern avionics is processed, everything has to be on the same page. The radar is linked into the navigation systems, linked into IFF, RWR, ECM, etc. In the U.S. - we've developed a sort of "plug and play" set of standards that allow for you to swap out a Lockheed-developed radar for a Northrop-Grumman-developed radar with some 'driver updates' to the overall system.

And so that doesn't really negate the possibility going from a low end pulse doppler radar to an LPI AESA radar.
the benefit comparison doesn't even have to discussed.

China doesn't have half a dozen radar and avionics manufacturers. What they've got in there is what is going to be used. It will go through a debug process based on in-flight tests, and any further developments will be for a block upgrade to the production airframe.

They don't and yet they may siphon information that provides them with the knowhow to set something up that would require a dozen competing companies to generate over years. the general consensus is that this aircraft does not have much in terms of an engine and perhaps even a radar at this point. That could change easily.

If this aircraft is to be of any use to that PLA, it will be operational when the PLA accepts it as such, and not anytime before, whether that be 2015 or 2020. Nothing is going to happen by 2015.

A development cycle extending beyond 2015 is completely unnecessary barring setbacks outside of the time allotted. Even if they do not have privileged information regarding our ATF development - they will note that our entire ATF development cycle was just over 20 years, and that we have elected to discontinue production of the ATF. Demonstrator-to-production for the ATF was something like 500% over any other aircraft developed in the U.S. The most successful airframes the U.S. has developed have had very short initial development cycles and have been upgraded in service as opposed to pre-service: The P-51, F-15, F-16, and F-18 - of note.

They would be insane to choose to extend development into 2020. Moreover, assuming they have been even somewhat competent at industrial espionage; they would have very little need to extend the development cycle for so long. Most of the time spent in our own development of an ATF was chewed up in trial-and-error to determine the cost-effectiveness of different technologies. Thus - there is little need for them to dick around for ten years figuring out what they likely already know from looking at our own process.

No arguments on the benefits of espionage here. Though I fail to see your point here? You say that they will be able to initiate series production of this a/c by 2015? Well if they do that (and I seriously doubt that) then yes, nothing much will change, but who's to say that they won't release a block upgrade wthin the next 5 years of that?

The U.S. is the only first-world nation with the potential to be a successful isolationist nation. It would be a rough transition - but China would be hurting without the U.S. as a consumer. Moreover - we could begin contracting and subsidizing a labor market in India and South America, rather than China.

Good luck with that and see you on the other side of that isolationist policy.

China is in an even tighter spot. Most of their economy is based around cheap labor and price-point competition lacking quality control. They are somewhere between a second and first world nation, and need to start outsourcing labor, themselves, to meet consumer demand. Considering they have been providing the cheap labor for a country with 30% of their own population - they are going to have a hard time finding some place capable of taking on their volume demand.

As would any economy that is lacking in the know-how to compete in cutting edge technology for production and quality control. I fail to see how not being able to meet growing demand does constitutes a point of failure for their economy model.

Which is why they are trying to gain as much leverage right now as they can. They won't have much in the way of leverage when their 'baby boomers' hit peak retirement. They realize their population control policies have sent them up a creek - and it's only a matter of time before they lose the paddle they are currently paddling with.

The pros and cons of one-child policies are far from as trivial you make them to be. The cost benefits of spending they would have incurred by overburdened social services reeling with massive populations, epidemics etc. are considerable. The funds can be redirected in the years when they are needed most: to play catch up with other more advanced economies. When the baby boomer do come into retirement, China may enjoy parity in numerous aspects with respect to the west, while still ensuring a sizable young working population that is competitive in quantity and quality with other economies.
the jury is still out on one child and its impact.

Is this the one that got caught using the movie footage from Top Gun? (seriously, I saw a news blurb this morning where a blogger compared frames, and found that footage from a Chinese test flight matched exactly with footage of Top Gun....)

reply to post by Gazrok
where did you see this??? more info please, i have been studding this J20 from the first time it hit the wire, er web, and you say footage might be copied from top gun, got a link or source??? oh i am not doubting you just like to see it for my self

reply to post by bekod


Hehe, you should doubt me....as I don't think it's connected to this story, but it's just funny it's so recent also.
Here's a link to what I was talking about..

www.tigerdroppings.com...

Seems fake news is rampant in state-run Chinese television....

Edit: weird, the clip vanished as soon as I posted, so trying another link.

reply to post by Gazrok
yes that series of pic's is fake, good find for one it is not J20 too small and for an other it is the what it is the frame pic's from top gun. nice find thanks for posting i needed a good laugh. what they will do for propaganda.