I see several comments casting doubt over the indigenous 5th gen fighter due to this purchase. However, Japan wants an F-22 class fighter. So they have to continue with the X-2 program. They will likely jump to a 5+/5.5 gen fighter. There was already some good news regarding the next-gen engine core.
J-20 IFR – It has been blurred out but you see the doors opening and closing
https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/1062383422793019392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Wx67vc_Xo
– See seconds 37-42 for a test setup that is nice, tidy, and clean. The cabling for the test engine is properly configured and bundled together, and clutter is minimized. Cables are bundled together according to official drawings and documentation. Should they get unexpected results on the test rig, the engineers can quickly find the proper cable bundle, verify the proper connection, and determine whether they simply have a connectivity issue or a true unexpected result. The Russian setup is a mess. If they have unexpected results they will have to jump on that thing and hunt, and the very fact they have it bundled up that way makes it more likely that they will cross connections or something of that nature. Now, some will reply that doing it that way is faster to setup. It is, but I’ve never had much respect for that opinion. I’ve always liked to get a schedule made up at the beginning to account for a nice clean job at all levels, and should I need to expedite to satisfy a requirement I rush elsewhere – such as speeding up deliveries, front loading start dates, etc. I don’t like to take shortcuts on test day. Your grade is whether you completed the project on time and on budget. Being ahead of schedule helps you some, but nowhere near enough to compensate for being behind schedule. So I try to avoid situations that will likely lead to unplanned work – like a lengthy troubleshooting. It’s just my philosophy on engineering design and program management though.
I’m not saying their program is flawed. They are clearly making progress (and the publications show they are confident in their results). Whether they are on schedule or not I can’t say, of course. And it doesn’t mean they are going to run into problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx2CxkRmpvY
Seconds 41-47 shows the setup for the F135 engine. It’s haphazard and cluttered too, and it turned out well. It’s just not the way I would have done it
Nice promotional video. Now let’s look at some prototype GE/RR F136 test images,
EDIT: Very nice – https://www.reddit.com/r/engineteststands/comments/8cz535/the_gerollsroyce_f136_engine_in_the_j2_test_cell/
https://www.arnold.af.mil/News/Artic…through-paces/
http://avstop.com/news_march_2010/ge…new_engine.htm
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?d…6-5cf2ab0b8998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera…d_f136_006.jpg
EJ-200 TVC testing – https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-inLy3nTNk…00_Testing.jpg
Is is a stable design? Why is the canard not deflecting positively during tight turn? No room to put another missile unless they make the bay little bit longer.
Lengthening won’t really help. The issue is with the fins of the PL-15 and PL-12. They have to develop folding fins or completely redesign the fins.
The 5th and 6th missile will be a squeeze.
In the future, the PL-15 will have a version with either folding fins or drastically changed fins to have 6x in the main bays. For the moment it is 4x. And if the fins fold like the Kh-58UShKE then yeah, from certain angles, not just 5 and 6 but all missiles will look like squares
.
I like how the side bay doors close even with the SRAAM deployed, very neat. Although the side bays seem they could hold more than 1 ASRAAM ?
1x in each side bay.
Klimov never make TVC for Flankers. The Su-37 Bort 711 and 712 were supposed to have AL-31FM-1 with TVC. BUT since that engine was not available at that time. There comes AL-31FP. With 2D TVC and as we see today in Su-30MKI families.
The Su-35S and Su-57 however are bit different. Same method as FP BUT it’s 3D instead.
Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA (AL-31FP), Su-35 (117S), Su-57 (117) all have the same nozzle arrangment – photo. Difference is in a more advanced FBW. Thanks to a lot of tweeking KnAAPO has totally eliminated the need for canards in the Su-35. They also eliminated the air-brake. The Izd.30 for the Su-57 will probably have completely different TVC system.
I don’t think you understood my question. I asked if the TVC on the J-10B have a multi axes movement or only a two directional movement.
And you can easily leave out the Mig-29OVT TVC design. It did not go any further than that prototype
….
It is multi-axis. Implementation is not the same as the F-16 VISTA (MATV) or F-15 ACTIVE (P/YBBN). It uses the Salut design that have split outer petals.
…
Now Klimov had a multidirectional TVC for Flankers, in which was mounted on the Su-37, Bort 911 if i’m not mistaken.
Edit; I am mistaken, that TVC moves in the same axis as F-22 TVC, only they also move independently from each other. So they are also two directional.The other TVC is now the long time in service two directional TVC from Salut(If i’m not mixing the manufactors here..)
All Russian TVC in service are from Saturn not Salut. Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA, Su-35, Su-57. They all have same nozzle arrangment – image
J-20 same demo day 3. Better quality – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBEu6ORHE5I
What kind of TVC are we seeing here. Is it multi directional or two directional?
i thought it was Klimov whom designed the all aspect TVC
Klimov and Salut have all aspect 3D TVC nozzles. We all saw the MiG-29OVT but you also can see the Salut nozzle on the Su-27LL.
The J-10B TVC nozzle is like the Salut nozzle. China had ground tests of F-16 MATV like nozzle back 2000 but they seem to have gone with the Salut design.
Also it seems they cut down on range of maneuvers for the J-10B TVC. The following manuveur seem to have been cut down during the official display days –Link.
J-20 has had restriction on maneuvers it can perform slightly loosen compared to 2016.
It is aerobatics that wows crowds. Also, it is a clear indigenous solution. The Russians control the deflection farther forward and this isn’t the paddle trick that has been tried before either. I doubt that they can get much deflection from the petal tip method, but it is something that they should be able to easily install on other aircraft – including J-20.
The petals of the WS-10 series are shorter than the AL-31 series. The TVC mechanism used here is very likely influenced by MMPP Salut. Salut and CAC go waaaay back. When it comes to TVC solutions people often think of the Su-30MKI, Su-35, Su-57, but those are not all-aspect 3D TVC. They are by Saturn and are 2D-TVC nozzles fixed at a 30′ angle canted inwards. MiG-29OVT has all-aspect 3D TVC nozzles. This is the Salut nozzle – Link-1, Link-2 (Title says Saturn in the 2nd video, which is wrong). You can see this nozzle on the Su-27LL.
Here is the WS-10 testing:
Sideways deflection – Link-1
Up-down deflection (23s onwards) – Link-2
Regarding installing on other aircraft, it seems they have already installed it on a J-20 prototype. This is from the chief designer himself – Post.
Some more details on the J-20 from SDF – Post
But, but…..TVC equipped J-10B stole the show
Nozzle defelction


