Chinese 5th Gen Fighter Photo - Aviation Week

**Chogy** · 19 Nov 11,, 13:46

I can see them being strain gauges, makes sense. But it is still interesting to ponder, which quadrant has optimized reduced RCS, and in the case of the J-20, I think it is front/low. That would imply it is designed to fly high, fast, shoot & scoot. Once it turns tail, RCS may balloon a bit, but enemy missile envelopes collapse dramatically due to the speed of the jet.

**Skywatcher** · 19 Nov 11,, 16:11

Originally Posted by Chogy

I can see them being strain gauges, makes sense. But it is still interesting to ponder, which quadrant has optimized reduced RCS, and in the case of the J-20, I think it is front/low. That would imply it is designed to fly high, fast, shoot & scoot. Once it turns tail, RCS may balloon a bit, but enemy missile envelopes collapse dramatically due to the speed of the jet.

That's what Ryan Criere (sp) and I have been pondering on and off again: the J-20 is optimized as an interceptor of sorts (albeit a very maneuverable interceptor).

**gf0012-aust** · 19 Nov 11,, 20:31

I just don't buy the "optimised for interception" type scenarios - as it means that it bucks against what we know of "known" developments and changes in how we fight at the system level.

LO is about penetration and getting as close as possible to the primary before release so as to increase the chances of overcoming defences before they can see you and/or respond.

planes (even F-22) do not do that in isolation as they are part of a bigger systems event.

so the question for me always has been, where is the evidence of other supporting assets and capability that is needed for this platform to achieve its stated role effectively?

from what I can see, there isn't much of that at all - so I'm still seeing this as a CTD more than a defined construct.

on top of which, you don't build and buy sexy fighters first, you make sure that you have the systems construct in place first as you have to train everyone else on how to fight and play in new ways.

again, from my perspective, this is a relative CTD orphan.

**Jimmy** · 19 Nov 11,, 23:50

Seems a bit oversized for a sneaker interceptor.

**paintgun** · 20 Nov 11,, 03:08

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust

I just don't buy the "optimised for interception" type scenarios - as it means that it bucks against what we know of "known" developments and changes in how we fight at the system level.

LO is about penetration and getting as close as possible to the primary before release so as to increase the chances of overcoming defences before they can see you and/or respond.

planes (even F-22) do not do that in isolation as they are part of a bigger systems event.

so the question for me always has been, where is the evidence of other supporting assets and capability that is needed for this platform to achieve its stated role effectively?

from what I can see, there isn't much of that at all - so I'm still seeing this as a CTD more than a defined construct.

on top of which, you don't build and buy sexy fighters first, you make sure that you have the systems construct in place first as you have to train everyone else on how to fight and play in new ways.

again, from my perspective, this is a relative CTD orphan.

gf, will you kindly explain what kind of parents this type of plane needs for its missions? tankers,aew? satellites, network data capabilities?

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Seems a bit oversized for a sneaker interceptor.

latest estimate puts this bird at 20.3 meters long, people who watches this bird in various forums hover around this number with their calculations based on pictures available

it is longer than the F-22 and it has more volume (and probably mass), also Raptor's horizontal tail contribute a lot of length protruding out of the body mass

i will be surprised if they can keep this bird at F-22 weight class
and that adds to another issue, engine

Originally Posted by Chogy

I can see them being strain gauges, makes sense. But it is still interesting to ponder, which quadrant has optimized reduced RCS, and in the case of the J-20, I think it is front/low. That would imply it is designed to fly high, fast, shoot & scoot. Once it turns tail, RCS may balloon a bit, but enemy missile envelopes collapse dramatically due to the speed of the jet.

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

That's what Ryan Criere (sp) and I have been pondering on and off again: the J-20 is optimized as an interceptor of sorts (albeit a very maneuverable interceptor).

China's premier shooter in its frontyard (East Pac)? get in fast and get out as fast, with lots of fuel and range

**citanon** · 20 Nov 11,, 06:11

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust

I just don't buy the "optimised for interception" type scenarios - as it means that it bucks against what we know of "known" developments and changes in how we fight at the system level.

LO is about penetration and getting as close as possible to the primary before release so as to increase the chances of overcoming defences before they can see you and/or respond.

planes (even F-22) do not do that in isolation as they are part of a bigger systems event.

so the question for me always has been, where is the evidence of other supporting assets and capability that is needed for this platform to achieve its stated role effectively?

from what I can see, there isn't much of that at all - so I'm still seeing this as a CTD more than a defined construct.

on top of which, you don't build and buy sexy fighters first, you make sure that you have the systems construct in place first as you have to train everyone else on how to fight and play in new ways.

again, from my perspective, this is a relative CTD orphan.

What about sending a few of these planes to threaten enemy high value assets, with the aim of tying down as many enemy air assets as possible, rather than actually going through with the attack?

**Skywatcher** · 20 Nov 11,, 06:54

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust

I just don't buy the "optimised for interception" type scenarios - as it means that it bucks against what we know of "known" developments and changes in how we fight at the system level.

LO is about penetration and getting as close as possible to the primary before release so as to increase the chances of overcoming defences before they can see you and/or respond.

planes (even F-22) do not do that in isolation as they are part of a bigger systems event.

so the question for me always has been, where is the evidence of other supporting assets and capability that is needed for this platform to achieve its stated role effectively?

from what I can see, there isn't much of that at all - so I'm still seeing this as a CTD more than a defined construct.

on top of which, you don't build and buy sexy fighters first, you make sure that you have the systems construct in place first as you have to train everyone else on how to fight and play in new ways.

again, from my perspective, this is a relative CTD orphan.

Interceptor is a rather poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps a very high speed multirole fighter would be more accurate?

**Jimmy** · 20 Nov 11,, 10:46

Where's the "very high speed" part coming from, besides the fact that it looks fast as hell? China (hell, Russia) doesn't have engines to propel that monster to mach 2.

**paintgun** · 21 Nov 11,, 16:57

that could be a good rhetorical question Jimmy sir

as of now the prototype is flying on Russian engines, and no doubt engine will be the hardest challenge to tackle for them

**Skywatcher** · 22 Nov 11,, 04:55

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Where's the "very high speed" part coming from, besides the fact that it looks fast as hell? China (hell, Russia) doesn't have engines to propel that monster to mach 2.

Chinese research projects. But whether those will take off or not is another question.

**Jimmy** · 22 Nov 11,, 10:31

Ah yes, the infamous Chinese "research."

**Skywatcher** · 22 Nov 11,, 15:34

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Ah yes, the infamous Chinese "research."

Yep, very infamous.

5th Generation “WS-15” Turbofan The China Gas Turbine Establishment (GTE) apparently is also leading the development of the 5th gen turbofan that will power the Chengdu “J-20” 5th gen fighters. While this engine apparently was not ready for the start of the J-20 prototype’s test program, it is believed to have leveraged advances contributing to 4th generation engines and is usually described as a 15 ton (33,000 lbs) thrust class engine. In late 2009 a Russian official stated that China was developing an 18 ton (39,600 lbs) thrust engine.[15] It is not clear if this could be a developed version of the GTE engine or a separate program. This engine will very likely have an axisymmetric thrust vectoring system.

International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > China’s Maturing Fighter Force

Now large thrust doesn't naturally equal to high speeds, but with a fighter sized engine of 15-20 tons of thrust, its probably because of high exhaust velocity as opposed to being a high bypass turbofan.

Of course, it will be seen whether the WS-15 turns out to be the next WS-6 or the WS-10A, with the associated implications for Chinese Air Force readiness and force structure.

**gf0012-aust** · 23 Nov 11,, 21:04

Originally Posted by paintgun

gf, will you kindly explain what kind of parents this type of plane needs for its missions? tankers,aew? satellites, network data capabilities?

I spent half an hour typing in a response and then had the laptop lock up and lose the lot - so this is a compressed version of what I did before....

the issue for any asset thats going to enter complex and contested space is what it needs to go in and do the job with a greater level of confidence of success

all LO assets still need a whole pile of other gear assisting to achieve that outcome. they might be the one sexy visible asset that the public focus on, but they are literally (in more ways than one) the tip of the spear.

that means that "something" needs to help plot the cleanest way in, "something" needs to ensure that all the red widgets that can cause harm along the designated waypoints are managed, be it neutralisation of their capacity to detect, their capacity to reach out and touch, their capacity to inform other sensors in "red team" etc....

so the chinese need to deal with a sophisticated player and that by association is the US as they are the only regional power that can dictate on their own military terms, irrespective of what the chinese may like to think about the effect of their power.

so, to challenge or fight on similar terms, where are the equiv satellite constellations (not just regional satellite constellations)?, where are ther Compass "xx" and Rivet "xx" assets? Where are their effective (and I mean working deployed) submerged ISR capabilities, where is the evidence of effective track management capabilities?, where are their demonstrated examples of effective AWACS that can operate within an effective range? (and that means that they need an ability to work outside the umbrella of defensive and supportive land based air

planes can't and don't fight alone. when new constructs are fielded, the homework has already been done and supporting/fighting elements trained to operate with that asset for when it comes into service.

I see no evidence of them fielding this plane at a level which indicates volume intent. If it is, then they are doing normal force development ar$se backwards - which is not how they normally operate.

**gf0012-aust** · 23 Nov 11,, 21:16

Originally Posted by citanon

What about sending a few of these planes to threaten enemy high value assets, with the aim of tying down as many enemy air assets as possible, rather than actually going through with the attack?

Its an expensive way to try and influence the enemy to refocus assets... sooner or later, shifting them also means other noise and activity has to happen to demonstrate that the shift and intent is real...

a new platform with a change in capability generally means new or heavily modified conops - as no similar capability exists in the PLAAF, then that means that sooner or later other supporting assets have to start training to fight and operate within the new paradigm.

they have the same conops issues with their new carrier(s), but at least they're showing training of task force mentality with their "mini world tour" and activity in nth east africa, nth western indian ocean.

**gf0012-aust** · 23 Nov 11,, 21:19

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Interceptor is a rather poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps a very high speed multirole fighter would be more accurate?

the issue is what is its intended fighting envelope?

high speed and long range weapons launched from subsonic or low mach platforms has more impact than a high speed jet with implied manouvrability etc.....

its an excellent feat of engineering but at the end of the day what was the design intent?, what is its functional utility?, how does it support the way that they currently fight? etc.....

none of that seems clear to me yet.