If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[DeltaV]

Did you notice in the photos that it is not a thrust vectoring platform?

It might not even need thrust-vectoring with the all-moving canards and tail surfaces. Easy enough to add later, though...

How about the multitude of control surfaces, like the "horizontal stabilizers" tucked in under the rear of the main wings? Makes a nice radar pocket there.

I'm guessing the moving surfaces and the fins are mostly composite, with RAM filler/coating. I'd bet the ventral fins actually reduce the lateral RCS from those metal nozzles. If they upgrade to 2-D TVC like F-22, maybe the ventral fins would go away. I'd bet they also use the canards and tail surfaces as speedbrakes, besides having lots of control authority in dogfights. I can't tell from the photos if it has elevons too, but it might, if those massive actuator bulges are not just for flaps. That would add up to some serious aerodynamic moments (torques).

How about that nice solid canopy structure? Hmmm.

Looks similar to an F-22's, once it's closed, just no metallic coating visible. Easy enough to add later.

Stealth is about penetration, it is an offensive capability.

It certainly looks much more stealth-optimized from the front than the rear. Front stealth is what matters most for offense. Maybe they wanted to get flight test started before the final engine/nozzle combination is determined?

[ladajo]

If you compare closely the canopy structure to the F-22, you notice the f-22 does not have framing.

The chinese design also lacks the blended facet approach of the F-22, not for lack of trying.

I would think that adding thrust vector would also mean an entire new avionics suite, not to mention competely re-defining the envelopes based on the new stress dynamics induced in the air-frame.

I do not think that thrust vectoring is "easy to add later". If it was, we would have a butt ton of vectored F-16's and F-18's by now. Granted, we do "farm boy" vectoring with the nozzles, but it is not nearly the same as a ground up rig.

I am also not so sure that the chinese are fully up to speed on materials. But until you melt one down, I guess you'll never know...

I still think there is some un-informed hype to this, especially when you take the historical long view of systems and predictions in the chinese and russian system.

But again, I really wonder if some designer over there has a bootleg copy of Firefox. Maybe it has a chinese version of thought controlled avionics.

[Ivy Matt]

你得思用中文。

[DeltaV]

If you compare closely the canopy structure to the F-22, you notice the f-22 does not have framing.

I dunno, I don't see much difference:

The chinese design also lacks the blended facet approach of the F-22, not for lack of trying.

Even if it has RCS only a fraction as good, if there are 3 times as many of them... I suspect the J-20 is trying to be a longer range F-22 with a greater weapons load, like the never-built FB-22. Not quite as good in dogfights, but maybe closer than we think (it is a huge airframe though)... We'll have to invite them over to Red Flag to know for sure.

I would think that adding thrust vector would also mean an entire new avionics suite, not to mention competely re-defining the envelopes based on the new stress dynamics induced in the air-frame.

Not an entirely new avionics suite, just some I/O upgrades to the flight control computers and mods to the FCS and Throttle software, plus a few other HW/SW odds and ends pertaining to the added sensors and actuators. Air Data SW might need some tweaks, too. Wouldn't surprise me if the I/O HW expansions were already in place, and TVC placeholders in the flight test software. Since China now has the fastest (publicly acknowledged) supercomputer, generating new aero coefficients, mass properties, structural modes and transfer functions for the flight sim, before a TVC version actually flies, should be no big deal.

I am also not so sure that the chinese are fully up to speed on materials. But until you melt one down, I guess you'll never know...

The latest issue of a randomly-selected materials science journal shows 18 out of 37 accepted papers submitted by Chinese teams. I was too lazy to drill down and see how many of those were from the 'rebellious island province' (AKA Taiwan):
Journal of Materials Science, Volume 46, Number 3, February 2011
(Edit - fixed dead link.)

I still think there is some un-informed hype to this, especially when you take the historical long view of systems and predictions in the chinese and russian system.

There may be some hype involved, but remember that the modern China is a far cry from Mao's day, and moving forward fast.

But again, I really wonder if some designer over there has a bootleg copy of Firefox. Maybe it has a chinese version of thought controlled avionics. :shock:

I read somewhere on the net that PRC hackers downloaded 3.5 TB of F-35 JSF info. I'm sure none of that found its way onto J-20...

[djolds1]

If we (the people of the United States) are lucky, the US government will descope the F-35 project down to one flavor (the F-35C for carrier) and shove it down the throats of the USAF and USMC. Why build only the carrier bird? It can fly off the carriers which give reasonable flexibility. I leave it to those wiser than me to figure out whether to build more F/A-18E/Fs in the future. Why punish the USMC by having no STOVL capability? We can't afford it and the F-35B is the smallest production run (besides causing most of the technical difficulties).

Problem. Both the RN buy and the USN's new LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship are predicated on the F-35B.

[DeltaV]

你得思用中文。

你得思用中文。= You have to think in Chinese.

[djolds1]

The J-20 appears to have a delta wing (I saw some pictures of its wheelie during a high-speed taxi test) and if so it most reminds me of an FB-22 (sometimes called the Strike Raptor).

Lambda wings.

[rjaypeters]

Problem. Both the RN buy and the USN's new LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship are predicated on the F-35B.

The UK has bailed out of the F-35B. From the most recent UK White Paper* (emphasis mine):

"A single carrier needs to be fully effective. As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth will not be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it...We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear...
•
The strike needs to be made more capable. Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant."

LHA-6? I don't have answer for that one, except to load the LHA-6s with helicopters and tiltrotors and let the USN provide the air cover. Among their other sterling qualities, the USMC has provided steadfast support for the F-35B, others are not so stubborn. I have read the USMC does not have a plan B for close air support for its amphibiously deployed troops. To that I must say, "Are you kidding?"

*
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 191634.pdf

[rjaypeters]

Lambda wings

If you like. The article is speculative on this point. I admit the tips don't appear to come to perfect points (the J-20 pictures I've seen do remind me of an F-15 planform) and it is unusual to pair delta wings with elevators (fixed rear strakes make more sense), but not unknown. Until we see top or bottom views, we won't know.

More important though, is the article's speculation the J-20 is a bomber! That makes sense to me.

[Skipjack]

if there are 3 times as many of them

Well right now there is not even one of them. There wont be even one of them until at least 2017, probably not before 2020 (these things never get finished on time). And then they have to start producing them. And then years later they may be at a point where they have as many of those as the US has of F22s (its not like those 200 F22s are all produced over night). If their leadership makes the decision to build more of these than the US has F22s, then the US will know about that, probably even before the order reaches their factories. That should still leave the US years to react in one way or the other, before they have even built as many of these as the US has.

[djolds1]

Problem. Both the RN buy and the USN's new LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship are predicated on the F-35B.

The UK has bailed out of the F-35B. From the most recent UK White Paper* (emphasis mine):

"A single carrier needs to be fully effective. As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth will not be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it...We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear...

Well, that answers that.

IIRC, a ski jump/catapult combo also works well.

LHA-6? I don't have answer for that one, except to load the LHA-6s with helicopters and tiltrotors and let the USN provide the air cover. Among their other sterling qualities, the USMC has provided steadfast support for the F-35B, others are not so stubborn.

USMC has been using amphibs as Jeep Carriers (CVEs) for decades. Doubles the effective number of flattops without shoving it in Congress' face, like calling all modern cruisers "Destroyers." I favor going to the F-35C and adding ski jumps and cats to all jeeps, but then Congress will notice that they're actually carriers.

I have read the USMC does not have a plan B for close air support for its amphibiously deployed troops. To that I must say, "Are you kidding?"

The people who pushed the MV-22 lemon for 20 years and have the most effective military PR operation on the Hill? Yes, they're serious.

[ladajo]

USMC has been using amphibs as Jeep Carriers (CVEs) for decades. Doubles the effective number of flattops without shoving it in Congress' face, like calling all modern cruisers "Destroyers." I favor going to the F-35C and adding ski jumps and cats to all jeeps, but then Congress will notice that they're actually carriers.

I beg to differ. Apples and oranges. "Jeep" carriers were created around the need to protect convoys.
The air that comes off a modern LHA(D) does not compare in any way to CV aviation. Even if you cite the recent Aviation Initiative <admin> move that screws the marines into providing more support to Strike Group Ops, and less to Expeditionary by making them rotate squadrons more on CVN's.
The issue at hand is that Marine Air lives breathes and dies on supporting Marines on the ground. Navy air does not. There is no comparison to USMC air working AV-8's and Rotary from a big deck amphib to fixed wing CVN ops. Two different animals. Even the Marine variant F-35 is not-the-same as the navy variant. The VSTOL package completely changes its utility. That is almost the same as saying an F-18C is the same as a E/F.
Rant complete.

[DeltaV]

Well right now there is not even one of them.

Actually, there are two, one for flight test and one for ground test.

There wont be even one of them until at least 2017, probably not before 2020 (these things never get finished on time). And then they have to start producing them. And then years later they may be at a point where they have as many of those as the US has of F22s (its not like those 200 F22s are all produced over night).

These things never get finished on time in democracies, with budget battles, union strikes, etc. Firing squads are great motivation to keep on schedule. There will be hundreds in the production queue by then.

In late 2009, the deputy head of China's air force, General He Weirong, said the country's stealth fighter would be operational sometime between 2017 and 2019, reports said.

If their leadership makes the decision to build more of these than the US has F22s, then the US will know about that, probably even before the order reaches their factories.

Your faith in US Intelligence is astounding.

That should still leave the US years to react in one way or the other, before they have even built as many of these as the US has.

The US may have designed its last fighter, given the exponential national debt. USAF wants a new fighter by 2040, but that assumes a semi-normal budget. More likely is 2050, if ever. Those 187, oops, 186 now, F-22s will have to face at least 3-4 times as many J-2Xs and T-5Xs in the second half of their lifespan. By the way, Russia has paid off all of its debt.

[rjaypeters]

...If we (the people of the United States) are lucky, the US government will descope the F-35 project down to one flavor (the F-35C for carrier)...

A step in the right direction: "And some parts of the multiservice Joint Strike Fighter will be stretched out over a longer time. Gates announced that the vertical take-off version of the jet requested by the Marine Corps -- and plagued by design and cost problems -- will be placed on what amounts to a two-year probation.

Gates warned that if the program couldn't meet its goals it would be cancelled."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/06/ ... tml?hpt=T1

[djolds1]

USMC has been using amphibs as Jeep Carriers (CVEs) for decades. Doubles the effective number of flattops without shoving it in Congress' face, like calling all modern cruisers "Destroyers." I favor going to the F-35C and adding ski jumps and cats to all jeeps, but then Congress will notice that they're actually carriers.

I beg to differ. Apples and oranges. "Jeep" carriers were created around the need to protect convoys.

The air that comes off a modern LHA(D) does not compare in any way to CV aviation. Even if you cite the recent Aviation Initiative <admin> move that screws the marines into providing more support to Strike Group Ops, and less to Expeditionary by making them rotate squadrons more on CVN's.
The issue at hand is that Marine Air lives breathes and dies on supporting Marines on the ground. Navy air does not. There is no comparison to USMC air working AV-8's and Rotary from a big deck amphib to fixed wing CVN ops. Two different animals.

You're quibbling. You're also inflating the definition of CV beyond what it actually is. USN Supercarriers are not the only ships on earth permitted the designation "CV." LHAs/virtual CVEs provide a mid-sized CAS air group to MEUs on deployment. If you don't want to call it that for reasons of acronymical correctness and scale, that's fine. But they still fill a niche not far different from the RN Invincible class CVs. Rip the flight decks off the current Jeeps ala the Essex class CV to LPH rebuilds, fit a new ski jump/ catapult deck ala the Admiral Kuznetsov class, and they can service a COTL and rotary airgroup of 25 to 35 aircraft. Jump jets no longer required.

That plus a well deck for the MEU would be truly killer, but possibly too much to hope for.

Even the Marine variant F-35 is not-the-same as the navy variant. The VSTOL package completely changes its utility. That is almost the same as saying an F-18C is the same as a E/F.
Rant complete.

F/A-18? What's that? Do you mean the YF-17 Heavy?