36 replies to this topic

[Martian]

I am still locked out of the old J-20 thread for some unknown reason. In other words, I can't post in that thread. Therefore, I have created a new J-20 Mighty Dragon thread to allow me to post. Here I go.

----------

J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" is airborne!







[Note: Thank you to Marchpole for the pictures.]

[Martian]

J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" first flight



Extended version follows:



[Note: Thank you to Frank Lau for the video links.]

[Martian]

J-20 Mighty Dragon has three times the combat radius of the F-22 Raptor

I view the J-20 Mighty Dragon as a large F-22. It has greater range and a similar payload. Two side-bays for short-range air-to-air missiles and a main weapon bay to carry medium-range air-to-air missiles.

J-20 combat range: 1,243 miles (see http://en.wikipedia....#Specifications)

F-22 combat range: 471 miles (see http://en.wikipedia....#Specifications)


----------

Physics analysis

How about a physics argument?

China's J-20 is indisputably larger than the F-22. Therefore, it can carry a larger volume of fuel. Hence, China's J-20 indisputably has a larger combat radius than the F-22. The conclusion is the same.

-----


The F-22 Raptor combat radius of 471 miles was determined from flight test data (see http://www.f22-rapto...ology/data.html).

The larger Russian T-50/Pak-Fa has been reported to have a combat radius of 1,500 km or 900 miles (see http://www.flightglo...ircraft-353034/).

It is perfectly reasonable to expect the physically larger Chinese J-20 to have a far greater combat radius than the F-22.

----------

[Dizasta]

I see that the 2002 test-aircraft has had some significantly visible changes. For one, the main landing gear door's, that were hanging out in the 2001 test-aircraft, while on the ground ....... remain closed on the ground at all times and only open up, when the Mighty Dragon is taking-off, so that the landing gear folds in to the fuselage.

Also, the nose seems to have been reshaped and enlarged. It is perhaps, that China is looking to incorporate a larger and more powerful AESA Radar on the J-20 Mighty Dragon.

All in all, it is exciting to see the development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. I wish China, all the best and success in the development and finally the operational deployment of their brand new and awesome looking stealth fighter.

Personally, I think the J-20 Mighty Dragon looks such a Badass stealth fighter, even more than the F-22 or the T-50.

[王涵嘉]

希望“黑丝带J-20”比“猛禽F-22”更安全点儿

[Martian]

JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is inferior to J-20 Mighty Dragon

1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.

2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.

The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.

3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.

6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.

7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.

The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.

8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.

In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).

Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.

----------

Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs


Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.


The prominent DSI (diverterless supersonic inlet) strake was probably extensively modeled with Chinese supercomputers.


When the WS-15 engine is ready in a few years, China can replace the J-20 LOAN nozzles with flat nozzles. The J-20 will be good to go against the F-22.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

[Martian]

My proposal on shooting down a true fifth-generation stealth fighter (F-22 or J-20)

Bi-static or multi-static radar is problematic in shooting down a F-22, because the most likely conflict is over Taiwan. Taiwan is an island in the ocean and it's difficult to receive the radar bounce from the underbelly of a transient F-22 flying overhead.

My proposal is purely theoretical. I don't believe the actual scenario will happen.

a. Chinese SRBM can neutralize all Taiwanese military bases in about 20 minutes. The war is over.

b. F-22 has too short a combat radius (e.g. 471 miles) to be deployed in the Asian theater. Japanese airbases can also be vaporized by Chinese SRBM, IRBM, and cruise missiles in 20 minutes. This war is over. There are no Japanese air bases available for F-22 operation.

I can't think of a plausible scenario where the F-22 can realistically reach the Chinese coast. Air-refueling tankers are giant targets and they'll be shot out of the sky in record time. Drop tanks imply a one-way kamikaze trip. Also, the F-22 will not have enough fuel to loiter and fight in the airspace above the eastern Chinese coast.

----------

Anyway, let's move on to the more interesting discussion of shooting down a F-22 (or J-20).

1. A F-22 or J-20 is optimized to minimize its reflection of centimeter-resolution X-band AESA radar.

2. However, a F-22 can be detected with meter-resolution Low-Band radar (see Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)).

The problem with Low-Band radar is that it can only provide a general location (within a few meters or tens of meters) of a fast-moving stealth fighter. How do we narrow down its true position in space?

Let's use triangulation. While the Low-Band radar from a single unit will provide uncertainty in a bubble of space, we will use multiple Low-Band radar units scattered over the entire eastern Chinese coast. We will aggregate the readings from multiple Low-Band radars over a wide area and that should provide the location of an incoming F-22.


Using triangulation, we can pinpoint the location of a F-22 with meter-resolution Low-Band radars. Relay the targeting information to a SAM or air-to-air missile and you have a good chance of shooting down a stealth fighter.

Alternatively, we can conceptually build a dual-seeker missile. The missile could fly towards the center-point of its Low-Band radar reflection. Within 20km of its target, it activates its AESA radar and looks for a F-22. Even if the success rate is only 20%, it would only require five missiles to shoot down a F-22. If you like, you can experiment with a Low-Band radar and tv dual-head seeker.

[Martian]

Tracking a F-22 with a low-band radar through statistical averaging

The problem with meter-resolution low-band radar is that it provides a general area where an enemy stealth fighter is located. Previously, I discussed the technique of triangulation from multiple low-band radar sites to narrow down the position of the F-22.

Today, I want to discuss the technique of statistical averaging. Using a single low-band radar, it might be possible to predict the coordinates for the location of a F-22. Though a single low-band radar reflection may be imprecise, the continuous tracking of a F-22 and the plotting of a smooth curve would show the current F-22 location.


By tracking the radar reflections from a single low-band radar, it may be possible to precisely identify the location of a  F-22 through statistical averaging.

Obviously, the most effective defense is to use a network of low-band radars and combine the techniques of triangulation and statistical averaging to identify the exact location of a F-22. To neutralize an enemy stealth fighter, SAMs or air-to-air missiles can be used.

If all else fails, vector in a squadron of J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighters for an intercept.

[Martian]

J-20 Mighty Dragon is critical to building low-band radar defense against F-22

In theory, we know we can use the physics principle of "resonance" (see citation below) to determine the approximate location of a F-22 stealth fighter. In addition, we know we can use the principles of triangulation and "tracking through statistical averaging over time" to pinpoint the location of a F-22.

Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)

"The Rezonans-N radar is a mobile highly automated coherent all-round surveillance phased-array radar employing the resonance wave reflection effect in the metric wavelength band. It is designed to monitor airspace, to acquire, identify and measure with high accuracy co-ordinates and flight characteristics of a wide range of existing and prospective air targets at long ranges and high altitudes, including low-observable cruise and ballistic missiles and hypersonic aircraft, as well as stealthy ones, in severe jamming and clutter environment, as well as to be used within automated/non-automated command and control systems, non-strategic missile defence systems, rapid deployment assets, and in various military/civil-purpose applications."

----------

How do we utilize these physics principles and build an effective low-band radar defense network against a F-22? The development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter becomes critical. Except for the rear aspect (due to the current lack of flat nozzles), a J-20 is a close approximation of a F-22 in frontal, side, and underside aspect stealth.

Chinese engineers need access to a real stealth fighter (e.g. J-20 or F-22) to test and refine their low-band radar defense network. The development of the J-20 allows Chinese engineers the opportunity to evaluate their low-band radar defense network performance and perfect an effective defense against intruding F-22s.


65th test flight of China's J-20 stealth fighter. (Sourced from Xinhuanet: 65th test flight of China's stealth fighter J-20 - Xinhua | English.news.cn)

A precondition to building an effective low-band radar defense network is the construction of a stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragon. By pitting a J-20 against their low-band radar defenses, Chinese engineers can perfect a functioning and reliable defense system.

[Caesar]

We haven't really heard anything more on J-20, everything has gone silent all of a sudden. My guess "Engine Issues".

[Martian]

Caesar, on 18 July 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

We haven't really heard anything more on J-20, everything has gone silent all of a sudden. My guess "Engine Issues".

I have no idea what you're talking about.

In post #6, those three photographs of the J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" are very recent and were posted by Greyboy2 on 7/9/2012.

Greyboy2 also posted more flight photographs on 7/4/2012 and 7/5/2012 for J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002."

I just didn't feel like posting more endless photographs of the J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002." I'm trying to focus more on analysis and new insights.

However, here are more pictures of the J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" during its test flights in the last two weeks.

grey boy 2 said:

J-20 (2002) fly again on July 4

grey boy 2 said:

Guess who is J-20 test flight partner?=J-7

[Dizasta]

I believe that the J-20's flight tests are going along at a steady pace. We now have two flying prototypes and will possibly have a third flying prototype soon. It is an exciting time, as work is progressing for J-20's engines as well. Although it is certain that the entire test-flight squadron would be equipped with modified non-Chinese engines. And as exciting as the J-20's progress is, so is the progress with the J-10Bs, J-11B/BS and the JF-17s.

One can only hope that Shenyang will come out with all guns blazing, with the F-60s breaking cover and should see a flying prototype by the year's end, or beginning of next year.

[safdar]

Martian, on 16 July 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Using triangulation, we can pinpoint the location of a F-22 with meter-resolution Low-Band radars. Relay the targeting information to a SAM or air-to-air missile and you have a good chance of shooting down a stealth fighter.

Martian bro. Not sure if these WW2 radars are the answer that cant tell the difference between a flock of birds or a plane and are highly prone to jamming. Considering F-22 and J-20 they will have excellent electronic counter measures. I understand you mention triangulation, however I have never heard of active radar triangulation. If I am right you are using 3 radars, hence the intersection point (the little triangle in the three spheres denoting F-22) would be cluttered beyond recognition due to cross modulation.

Triangulation would work best in passive seeker mode. I think, GPS signals from GEO could be used as the medium in which to detect anomalies in phase pattern of the GPS signals, when  a stealth fighter would fly through it. Even mobile phone masts are effective at this as well. But of course a multi-layered radar defence is required.

[Martian]

I am discussing triangulation with AESA radars, not WWII radars. For example, the ALR-94 is a passive system. I am proposing an active system with AESA radars or radars using S, C, L, or low-frequency radar bands.

I have not heard of active radar triangulation either, which is the reason I am suggesting it. With passive radar triangulation, the radio signals emitting from a target already exist. My novel idea is to create the "bounced" radar signals or emitter source from the target through active triangulation.

Let's use an analogy. There is passive sonar that listens without transmitting. There is also active sonar that transmits.

I am suggesting erecting a comprehensive network of fused data from an active radar network. There will be data from powerful ground radars in all radar bands from both fixed and mobile radars. The KJ-2000 AWACS will search with its L-band radar. The Type 052C destroyer searches in the S-band. Stealth fighter jets or stealthy UAVs search in the X-band with interspersed pulsed searches.

I don't think the F-22 can penetrate this radar net of active X, S, C, L, and low-frequency radars. To my knowledge, the F-22 is really stealthy only in the X-band.

The F-22 can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The AIM-120C only has a 100km range. China can safely deploy its large radar platforms against the F-22 and use fighters to intercept. The F-22 won't receive the more advanced AIM-120D until 2016.

----------

http://aviationintel...dominance-team/

"Further, the F-22′s passive ALR-94 electronic service measures (ESM) suite is so fine tuned that it turns the aircraft into a mini-EC-135 “Rivet Joint” electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft. The ALR-94, and its receiving antennas based strategically around the F-22′s airframe, can not only sense the direction of the enemy’s radio frequency emitters, but it can actually classify and triangulate their exact location for immediate targeting and subsequent destruction. Once again, this is a passive system and does not require the F-22 to use it’s high-power APG-77 radar. In other words, if anything sends out a radio signal, such as those used by an integrated air defense system to pass information, or especially an enemy search radar or SAM site attempting to search or engage enemy targets, the F-22 will know not only what it is, but exactly where it is. Such high-fidelity real-time targeting information allows the F-22 and other aircraft that are connected to it via data-link to prosecute a variety of air defense related targets with unprecedented speed and accuracy."

[safdar]

Martian, on 18 July 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

I am discussing triangulation with AESA radars, not WWII radars. For example, the ALR-94 is a passive system. I am proposing an active system with AESA radars or radars using S, C, L, or low-frequency radar bands.

Yes,but Martian, low frequency is low frequency, whether AESA or not it doesn’t change the physics of the electromagnetic radiation. For high resolution high frequency is required, which is inherently susceptible to atmospheric attenuation which reduces range. And low frequency for better range and return however low resolution due to clutter.

I thought you meant 3 identical monostatic radars (identical in frequency, polarisation, phase and power, which is an ideal system by the way) working in a data-fused environment and which would require to be synchronised to transmit and receive at the same time, and scan a single area. this system would be in order to exploit the stealth fighters ability to reflect radars waves away from the source. Hence if three active radars transmit towards a single target their returns would be picked up by either one of the radars? That would work as an ideal active triangulation system.

The only problem with such a set up would be the 3 identical radars operating closely (closely since they are to receive each others returns and create an intersection trap point for a stealth fighter), and the main problem would be the intersection point, where direct signal interference from each radar would either return a null or peak unity of the backscatter coefficient due to mutual coupling of the radar beam concentrations. Now this interference isn’t really understood, but perhaps un-scientifically applying Fresnel-Arago’s 2nd law could shed some light that: Two parallel coherent linearly polarized waves will interfere in the same way as natural light.

And if you have 3 monostatic radars at different polarisations with different frequency bands and phases, scanning the same area, would not work as a single system for triangulation since all 3 radars are tuned to receive their own transmitted return. And again creating a intersection of radar coverage presents anomalies and interference, where to calculate with certain resolution one would require enormous computing power or signal intelligence. Or a basic ISTAR system for triangulation, however adding a cluster of radars wouldn’t necessarily alleviate resolution or target acquisition problems but rather complicate it. On the other hand a comprehensive radar coverage is practical.  

Say for example the PAVE PAWS system of USA would be ideal where intersection points are eliminated specially over mainland America because that airspace is reserved for civil aviation radars and PAVE PAWS radar side lobes at such low power to eliminate intersection points with adjacent radar scan area, no other radar within the vicinity which reduces signal to noise ratio. All radar beams concentrate on the specific areas assigned to them, and multiplexed to a central command centre.

Maybe perhaps you think because AESA radars have many individual transceiver elements in a single array and if interference does not occur in a AESA radar it is possible to have a cluster of AESA within the same area scanning airspace? But the whole technology behind AESA radar is not to have those transceivers interfering with each other and spacing is of at most importance as well as purity of the components to prevent spurious electromagnetic radiation that would cause mutual coupling between frequencies of individual elements.

Martian, on 18 July 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

I am suggesting erecting a comprehensive network of fused data from an active radar network. There will be data from powerful ground radars in all radar bands from both fixed and mobile radars. The KJ-2000 AWACS will search with its L-band radar. The Type 052C destroyer searches in the S-band. Stealth fighter jets or stealthy UAVs search in the X-band with interspersed pulsed searches.

Yes but Martian I don’t see how that is any different to a basic ISTAR  system, which every modern military would adopt.

So for an active triangulation one would require a  network of low frequency AESA radar which has a synthetic aperture (not possible) and a dedicated signal intelligence reserved for that network. The question is how many of these networks are required over china.

[Martian]

New photographs of J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002"




More new pictures from the recent test flight (side weapon bay opened)






J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" around July 31, 2012


From a distance, the J-20 "2002" looks like a compact fighter. It appears to be the J-10 Vigorous Dragon's bigger brother. This picture was taken during the 11th test flight around July 27, 2012.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

----------


Another picture from a good angle.

[Note: Thank you to No_name for the picture.]

[Martian]

Best rear-side profile of J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002"

J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" around July 31, 2012

From a distance, the J-20 "2002" looks like a compact fighter. It appears to be the J-10 Vigorous Dragon's bigger brother. This picture was taken during the 11th test flight around July 27, 2012.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

[Martian]

Exported/Downgraded F-35 has beach ball-size RCS of 0.15 m2

Let's address the obvious question. Why would the United States downgrade exported F-35s?

Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.

Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.

This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.

Stealth rankings:

1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of marble" on radar]

2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
[intermediate size between marble and golf ball]

3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of golf ball"]

4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (see citations below)
["size of beach ball"]

5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
[size of a gigantic beach ball]

----------

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au

"Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters
By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006


Like a beach ball on the radar … the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter. (Photo: Jason South)

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: 'We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.'"

----------

eurofighter @ starstreak.net • View topic - Typhoon for South Korea?

"Export model F-35 is revealed to have a frontal RCS rating in 0.1~0.25 m2 (Hence the LO rating) class thanks to Canada's Defense Ministry disclosure."

"Scribd
In the page 2.

F-35 has a 95% RCS reduction over 4th-gen jets according to Julian Fantino, the vice defense minister of Canada. Going by the standard RCS of a generic 4th gen fighter used by radar vendors (5 m2), that would be 0.25 m2. If he was going by CF-18's RCS of 3 m2, then it would be 0.15 m2."


Canadian government defense document page 1


Canadian government defense document page 2


Canadian government defense document page 3


Canadian government defense document page 4

[Martian]

Mighty Dragon is the most appropriate name for the J-20 stealth fighter


The J-20 stealth fighter should be called the "Mighty Dragon." All other names are inferior.

There have been different names proposed for the J-20. I will explain why I think "Mighty Dragon" is the best name choice. Other proposed names for the J-20 have deficiencies.

1. Black Eagle. The Russians would love to have the J-20 called the Black Eagle. It creates confusion in the mind of the typical American/westerner. The Black Eagle has long been associated with Russian Czars.


"Double-Headed Russian State Imperial Eagle Crest Coat of Arms. The Double-headed Eagle was adopted as a Russian Emblem in 1497 by Tsar Ivan III."

There is a second argument against naming the J-20 as the Black Eagle. Whether you like it or not, Hollywood movies have programmed people's minds to associate "white" with good and "black" with evil. The hero always rides a white horse. Black Eagle will evoke a subconscious perception of evil.

The third argument against the name Black Eagle is the inevitable cheap shot accusation of copycat. There is already an American F-15 Eagle. Those anti-China losers are waiting in the wings to claim the J-20 name is a copycat. Don't give them the chance.

2. Black Silk. This name is too effeminate. Chinese are already dealing with a perception problem in the West. They accuse us of being too passive. Black Silk will reinforce this negative stereotype. Black Silk is suitable for the world of fashion. It does not belong among combat fighter jets.

3. Black Silk Stocking. This suggestion is absolutely terrible. I could care less about the play on words in the Chinese language. You cannot name the J-20 as Black Silk Stocking in English. Why in the world would you equate China's premier stealth fighter with women's hosiery?

4. Firefang. NATO's proposed name for China's J-20 is too aggressive. While it is true that the J-20 has superb fighting abilities, the name is too threatening. China built the J-20 and it alone has the right to name the stealth fighter. Do not fall for NATO's trick to subconsciously affect people's minds and imply China is an aggressive nation.

----------

Now, I will turn the tables and argue that J-20 Mighty Dragon is the most reasonable name for China's stealth fighter.

A. Everyone is already aware of the predecessor J-10 Vigorous Dragon. Staying with the convention of naming China's premier fighters as Dragons is a natural extension of the nomenclature for China's best jet fighters.

The Dragon has always been associated with Chinese culture and the name J-20 Mighty Dragon immediately creates an association between the stealth fighter and China.

Also, the dragon is a symbol of wisdom in Chinese culture. Subconsciously, the implicit message is that the J-20 will be used wisely. This is very different from NATO's attempt to characterize China's best fighter jet as a weapon of mindless destruction (e.g. Firefang).

B. The consistency in naming China's premier fighters as Dragons would follow standard industry practice. The United States names its premier fighters after birds of prey. There are the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F-22 Raptor.

In conclusion, China has designed and constructed a fabulous stealth fighter. A name influences the way people think. China's J-20 deserves the name "Mighty Dragon."

For example, the name Marilyn Monroe rolls off the tongue. Marilyn sounds like a sophisticated woman's name. Monroe may subconsciously tie itself to President James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame. Anyway, Marilyn Monroe wisely abandoned her original and real name of "Norma Jeane Mortenson."

China should choose the name for the J-20 with great care. Marilyn Monroe certainly did.

----------

While I'm on the subject of nomenclature, I want to make the case that Shi Lang is the most suitable name for China's aircraft carrier.

The Russians would love for you to call the Shi Lang as the Varyag or the ex-Varyag. Why? In the minds of most Americans/westerners, it suggests that China is buying premier military technology from Russia.

The average person does not know that only the hull of the Shi Lang is Russian. Every military system on the Shi Lang is Chinese. However, if you call the aircraft carrier as the Varyag or the ex-Varyag, the average American will only remember the impression that China's aircraft carrier is based on Russian technology.

Therefore, it is a terrible idea to call China's aircraft carrier as Varyag or ex-Varyag. The Russians will say that the Chinese are acknowledging the important Russian contribution. Don't give the Russians the opportunity to make a ridiculous claim. China rebuilt the Shi Lang and it deserves a Chinese name.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the J-20 Mighty Dragon picture.]

[Martian]

J-20 Mighty Dragon weapons tests should occur around 2018

I think the weapons tests will occur around induction. For the J-20, the induction date is around 2018.

For example, production F-35s were first delivered to the US military in May 2011 (see first citation below). Yet, the first F-35 INERT bomb drop occurred in August 2012 (see second citation below). We should expect to see a similar schedule for the J-20 Mighty Dragon.

----------

Lockheed delivers first production F-35 to US Air Force

"Lockheed delivers first production F-35 to US Air Force
By:   Stephen Trimble Washington DC
9 May 2011
Source: Flight International

Lockheed Martin has delivered the first production F-35 Lightning II to the US military to reach a long-delayed milestone, but there remains no firm timetable for inducting the new aircraft into operational service.

US Air Force officials formally accepted series-production model AF-7 at Lockheed's final assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas, on 5 May. The aircraft was then flown to Edwards AFB, California, to complete an airframe-specific flight test programme.

The hand-over marks the delivery of the first production jet nearly 10 years after Lockheed won the contract to deliver 1,763 F-35As to the US Air Force, plus a total of 640 F-35Bs and F-35Cs for the Marine Corps and navy, respectively.

"Today we begin to fulfil the vision of our government and international customers," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed's F-35 programme manager. (article continues)"

----------

Bombs away! Jinxed F-35 fighter passes its first weapons test... but there was no target and costs have spiralled to $300m | Mail Online

"Bombs away! Jinxed F-35 fighter passes its first weapons test… but there was no target and costs have spiralled to $300m

•   Current Pentagon plans for jet programme projected to top $396 billion
•   Department of Defense dropped 1,000lb inert bomb over Atlantic
•   Trial was carried out to see if jet could drop bomb from carriage but did not test for targeting

By Amy Oliver
PUBLISHED: 06:49 EST, 10 August 2012 | UPDATED: 04:11 EST, 11 August 2012

The Pentagon's F-35 fighter jet programme has been plagued with problems and spiralling costs.

But this week, the Department of Defense was keen to put the aircraft's troubles to one side to launch its first weapons test - using an inert bomb with no target.

The test marks something of a step forward in the programme, which may yet be axed to reduce the $1.4 trillion U.S. deficit.

Current Pentagon plans call for buying some 2,443 F-35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy through to the mid-2030s at a cost projected to top  $396 billion (£254 billion). In February last year the Pentagon said the price of each fighter jet could rise to a staggering $304.15 million (£194.8 million).


Test complete: The Pentagon this week successfully carried out its first weapons test on an F-35 jet to see if it could drop an an inert bomb on no particular target

The 1,000lb inert bomb was released over the Atlantic, the Naval Air Systems Command said in a statement. Wednesday's test checked the jet could actually release a bomb from its carriage systems and path away from the aircraft but did not check for targeting.

'The targeting aspect will come further down the road,' said Victor Chen, spokesman for the F-35 integrated test facility at Patuxent River, Maryland. He declined to say when however.

Captain Erik Etz, director of test for the naval versions, said in the statement: 'While this weapons separation test is just one event in a series of hundreds of flights and thousands of test points that we are executing this year, it does represent a significant entry into a new phase of testing for the F-35 programme.'

The Pentagon this year postponed production of 179 F-35s until after 2017, stretching out development and testing to curb costly retrofits. But the latest restructuring, the third such major revamp, has added 33 months and an extra $7.9 billion to the development plan.

Last year The commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps General James Amos defended the programme and said there was 'no plan B' if the plans were axed.



He said at the time: 'To do the things that our nation requires of this Marine Corps, we need this airplane. So I don't speculate: "Will it make it through probation?" I'm absolutely confident it will.' (article continues)"

[marchpole]

2003 with gray radome：

[gnak]

j-20 prototype 3

[Magnus]

Prototype 3:

[Magnus]

[Dizasta]

Damn, is it me or is the 3rd prototype longer than the previous two????

[gnak]

Dizasta, on 25 October 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Damn, is it me or is the 3rd prototype longer than the previous two????

no thats just the photo being stretched

only diff i notice is nose cone

maybe indication of new radar?

[Skull-Buster]

The air intakes in prototype 3 are also different.

[gnak]

looks like there was no prototype 3

just j-20 - 2002 with new nose cone and possibly radar

[Magnus]

[noxiouspython]

Aoa


Wasn't j20 the one Pakistan was supposed to get?

w/salaam

[Dizasta]

^^ Pakistan Air Force is due to get FC-20, which is the J-10B, with DSI and IRST.

[oneman28]

An impressive video of J20.

[noxiouspython]

Aoa

Dizasta, on 02 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

^^ Pakistan Air Force is due to get FC-20, which is the J-10B, with DSI and IRST.

FC-20 not same as J-20.?


w/salaam

[waz]

oneman28, on 04 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

An impressive video of J20.

Very impressive. Having been to many airshows myself, the J-20 moves like a far smaller fighter.

[Dizasta]

noxiouspython, on 04 November 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Aoa



FC-20 not same as J-20.?


w/salaam

No, the FC-20 is the 4.5+ Gen fighter that Pakistan Air Force has a critical requirement of and is envisaged to become it's advance fighter for the immediate future.

The J-20 is a Gen-5 fighter, which is stealth and the requirement for Pakistan Air Force would arise for a Gen-5 fighter, when the enemy seems close to inducting one.

At the moment, Pakistan Air Force has the task of fully integrating 250 JF-17 Thunders, 70 F-16 Falcons and in the not too distant future, 150 J-10Bs (which PAF refers to as the FC-20).

[noxiouspython]

Aoa

Dizasta, on 06 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

No, the FC-20 is the 4.5+ Gen fighter that Pakistan Air Force has a critical requirement of and is envisaged to become it's advance fighter for the immediate future.

The J-20 is a Gen-5 fighter, which is stealth and the requirement for Pakistan Air Force would arise for a Gen-5 fighter, when the enemy seems close to inducting one.

At the moment, Pakistan Air Force has the task of fully integrating 250 JF-17 Thunders, 70 F-16 Falcons and in the not too distant future, 150 J-10Bs (which PAF refers to as the FC-20).

Shukria for explaining bro.

w/salaam

[pingpong]