Chinese 5th Gen Fighter Photo - Aviation Week

**Phoenix10** · 23 Feb 11,, 15:30

Originally Posted by andrew

...a new version of the Al-31FN with an extreme electric power generator of 0.5 megawatt per engine, which can be switched on for 1 minute two times during the life of the engine

Thanks Andrew, very interesting. What good would a high power jammer or plasma generator (or any other feature) be if you could only use it for 1 minute 2 times over the life of the engine? I can't think of any directed energy weapon, EW device, etc that would buy you any real operational capability if you can only use it a couple times. It's kind of like buying a gun that becomes worthless after shooting 2 bullets. Something about that just doesn't add up.

**andrew** · 23 Feb 11,, 15:59

Don't know.
Perhaps it's like that American airborne laser that could be ignited just one or two times.

**Phoenix10** · 23 Feb 11,, 16:14

Originally Posted by andrew

Don't know.
Perhaps it's like that American airborne laser that could be ignited just one or two times.

The ABL could be fired many more than 2 times though. If the J-20 were intended to fire a laser at another aircraft or ground/sea target you would want more than a few shots (one would think). Also, unless the Chinese have made a MAJOR breakthrough in directed energy weapons there are far more efficient ways to handle these targets. A directed energy weapon on the J-20 could be used to take out a satellite (in theory). In this case, only a few shots would be required. Still, there are other ways that this can be done without having make the major sacrifices/compromises to the J-20's design that this would required.

Still, I think the likelihood of a directed energy weapon is very very slim. Something about the article you mentioned doesn't add up. Time will tell.

**andrew** · 23 Feb 11,, 16:52

Well, the author just tell us about that Chinese request made during official talks.
He is a respected academician, and I doubt that he would lie or speculate without any basis.
As for the requested engine with a 0.5 megawatt generator, anyone can guess by oneself for what purposes it could be used.

**Phoenix10** · 23 Feb 11,, 17:13

Sure. I have no doubt about the authors credibility. His comments about the engine make sense. Time will tell about the 0.5MW issue. My curious mind can't help but speculate.

**andrew** · 23 Feb 11,, 17:53

For those who can read Russian, the March 2011 issue of the Popular Mechanics Russian edition can be downloaded here:

Deposit Files

The file is .pdf file inside of .rar file.

**zraver** · 23 Feb 11,, 18:56

Originally Posted by andrew

Chengdu J-20.
China's tool to ram "cheese boxes on rafts".
Vladimir Karnozov
Two engines together develop in between 30 and 40 tons of thrust. If that is so, then the capability of the propulsion system is enough for supercruise, or supersonic cruise flight at military power (highest power setting without afterburning). We may also expect that the J-20 with restricted fuel and combat load (for instance, when flying air-to-air mission) can fly vertical without losing speed at subsonic regimes and low altitudes.... China prepares a tool to ram them. [/url]

An article from a man who pretends to be an expert. (But some of his assumptions cast doubt that he really is.)

Assuming he is, I think he has gotten his basic premis wrong. If China wants a VLO aircraft for strike missions vs US carriers it needs missiles with big warheads capable of actually threatening a carrier. Big warheads= weight, I doubt the J-20 can supercruise with a credible strike load. It will be subsonic flying in relying on its screen of convetional fighters and then a dash of supersonic speed to get it close enough to launch missiles close enough to cut down US anti-missile responce times.

The range with a useful anti-shipping combat load is probably pretty short. Carryign more fuel reduces weight of armaments and China only really needs to be able to present a credible threat within 500 miles of its own coast. If they can keep carriers 500 miles of China's coast, then Chinese targets can only be hit by missiles and the B-2. Taking the bomb trucks out of the equation buys China time to work its plans.

**Phoenix10** · 23 Feb 11,, 19:08

Originally Posted by zraver

Assuming he is, I think he has gotten his basic premis wrong. If China wants a VLO aircraft for strike missions vs US carriers it needs missiles with big warheads capable of actually threatening a carrier. Big warheads= weight, I doubt the J-20 can supercruise with a credible strike load. It will be subsonic flying in relying on its screen of convetional fighters and then a dash of supersonic speed to get it close enough to launch missiles close enough to cut down US anti-missile responce times.

The range with a useful anti-shipping combat load is probably pretty short. Carryign more fuel reduces weight of armaments and China only really needs to be able to present a credible threat within 500 miles of its own coast. If they can keep carriers 500 miles of China's coast, then Chinese targets can only be hit by missiles and the B-2. Taking the bomb trucks out of the equation buys China time to work its plans.

That is, until the successor to the X-47 comes online

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/pr...heet_final.pdf

Range listed is 2,100 nm.

**Skywatcher** · 23 Feb 11,, 19:21

Originally Posted by andrew

There is an article about the J-20 in the new Russian edition of Popular Mechanics.
The author has disclosed some interesting details:

In recent years, apart from the finished engines, China has been buying parts of the Al-31 core to the tune of more than $100 million annually. While the used parts of the previously purchased engines are not returned to the Russian manufacturers, as it usually happens. The assortment of the purchase suggests that the new parts are used to assemble Chinese engines with the Al-31 core.

Or the Chinese could be using them for their AL-31 engine refurbishment and overhaul factory.

**andrew** · 23 Feb 11,, 19:58

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Or the Chinese could be using them for their AL-31 engine refurbishment and overhaul factory.

May be. But the author stresses that it is not a usual exchange of used parts for new ones, as it happens with a regular refurbishment.
The used parts are not returned and the quantity and assortment of the new ones suggest that they are used for production of new engines.

**andrew** · 23 Feb 11,, 20:06

Originally Posted by zraver

Assuming he is, I think he has gotten his basic premis wrong. If China wants a VLO aircraft for strike missions vs US carriers it needs missiles with big warheads capable of actually threatening a carrier. Big warheads= weight, I doubt the J-20 can supercruise with a credible strike load.

I think it's rather strange if you assume that the Chinese will attack the US carriers with conventional warheads.

**zraver** · 23 Feb 11,, 20:32

Originally Posted by andrew

I think it's rather strange if you assume that the Chinese will attack the US carriers with conventional warheads.

If they go nuclear, we trade carriers for cities. The B-2 and Ohio's lets the US decide what nuclear targets it wants to hit and when and China will have no opportunity to react.

**andrew** · 23 Feb 11,, 21:08

Originally Posted by zraver

If they go nuclear, we trade carriers for cities. The B-2 and Ohio's lets the US decide what nuclear targets it wants to hit and when and China will have no opportunity to react.

Containment works both ways.

**zraver** · 23 Feb 11,, 21:59

Originally Posted by andrew

Containment works both ways.

Not really, containment requires both the ability and the desire. China might have the desire but lacks the ability. If the US decides on war, then China is in a bad spot. Her ability to deliver long range precision fires for a sustained period is almost nil. Ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads look impressive on paper, but only on paper. A single B-2 can carry the explosive force of 16 missiles per sortie. Bombs that wll strike with pnly seconds warning if any. Sure China can hit a few US targets, mostly island bases, but they can't reach Missouri with a non-nuclear payload. Missouri however can reach China.

Sinking a carrier strips the US of some combat power and a lot of prestige but it does not cripple the US' ability to stomp on China. It won't even insure the invasion of Taiwon. US subs have the ability to sink the Chinese navy and past Chinese air feilds. This lack of convetional ability is why China has been so active in the cyber realms. However again, this is a less than ideal solution. Such attacks would be by nessecity highly damaging to US civillians, they could cost a lot of lives as power failed. That would be a violation of the laws of war if some of the effected areas had no military value and the US would likely respond WWII style.

The other option China has is debt, however if the US has decided or felt compelled to act the debt monster is toothless. Becuase the US issues its debt in its own currency it retains the ability to simply inflate its way out. More likely however is that the Us will apply extreme force and get a treaty to its liking including reparations that wipe away the debt.

**wuguanhui** · 23 Feb 11,, 22:06

But the author stresses that it is not a usual exchange of used parts for new ones, as it happens with a regular refurbishment.

I'm sure that the PLAAF refurbishes her Russian built jets inside China.

I think it's rather strange if you assume that the Chinese will attack the US carriers with conventional warheads.

China doesn't need a 5th gen stealth plane to launch nuke attacks against carriers. An ancient H-6 can do that already. Heck, we wouldn't bother spend so much energy trying to get precise AShBM if it going to be nuke loaded. A nuke fight is not on the agenda. I'm sure that the American and Chinese nomenklatura both intend to live long healthy lives.