First posted by =GT over on CDF…
2D TVC nozzle?

Designing & Certifying a plane with internal bays for multirole is not cheap or less time consuming.
infact using diffrent supply line of avionics, materials may raise the cost of the plane even more with even more fuel consumption & more maintainane of less light weight materials & lower quality sytems.

I think the point is that J-19 can be a lower cost multirole complement to J-20 and there’s no real way anyone can prove it cannot, if this plane exists.
I’m sure you can think up a few methods in which one aircraft can cost less than another.

It does not say it is related to J-20. and this guy will be long retired. so what he says wont matter. he may be copying this 4S term from news media as it was associated with some other plane ages ago. it is very easy to google search it.

The fact is this is a PLAAF general who explicitly gave us definite information on the aircraft known as the “4th generation fighter” and “J-XX” at the time. He even said it would make its maiden flight “soon”. That was in late 2009. In early 2011 J-20 made its maiden flight.
“4S” is a term coined by the general himself which seemed to come into widespread use on chinese boards after that interview.
You’ve not given anyone any reason to consider why we should not take his words as fully true. The fact PLAAF released a statement backtracking a few days later shows the extent to which he weirong revealed.

I think you are just denying what’s right in front of you at this point.

I am not sure using truck as measurement is correct as J-20 has much larger wings so truck may be parked far away than the plane.

Of course the truck is towing the J-20. Now unless the chinese use a much more complex and different method to lug things around, I think the measurement is correct.

I’ve basically saved it on my sinodefence account because I’ve had to refer to it so often -_____-;

It was also around the first 10 pages of the old J-20 thread here, when emile and I first discussed the matter. I’m not going to bother digging it up though. No matter how many times I bring up that and other images for measure people try to find fault with it, making mountains out of molehills of things like reference distance and perspective, even while they ignore those and even greater faults in their own comparisons.

Zzz yeah. true.
I’ll post it again now:

Tow truck’s 4.95m from the manufacturer’s website, anyone with a ruler and intermediate school maths can figure out how long J-20 is from that. The error from J-20s perspective, while prevalent will not effect the overall measurement greatly. For example, with the above picture I got 20.16m from J-20s nose to tail. Because it’s at a slight angle the real length is probably a little greater. Would it make it +21m or god forbid 22m? No sorry the perspective error is not that great.

So basically we’re done with the J-20’s length. It’s set. 20-21m. kkkkk

i am not sure cheaper & multirole can coexist. unless it is single engine plane with very modest mulitrole ability like J-10. There is no website for design bureau/factory for any 4S claims associated with this plane that your putting.

I don’t think CAC has a website, and I don’t think they would be advertising the fact they’re developing J-20 in the first place lol.
And if J-19 uses less advanced materials and avionics than J-20 there’s no reason it cannot be cheaper.

As for 4S… I raise you a PLAAF general’s CCTV interview saying exactly that and more.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-light-on-chinese-4th-generation.html

There is no math in J-20 size.

O rly?

You can clearly see avg size people standing under the wings. if you put those people on top of the plane. There hands wont reach the top of the tails when they are in place.
width of canards extend to half of plane wing. Adding all those structures to the plane will add considerable weight. and on top of that taller landing gear. why would J-20 need tall landing gear when it is airsuperiority fighter?
F-35 is multirole with tall landing gear
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/f-35b.jpg
http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/china-pla-j-20-stealth-fighter-jet-04.jpg

Why the high clearance? Well maybe because they don’t want the MLG door hitting the ground every time they land??

I swear you must have an overarching point to make somewhere, but for the life of me I can’t see it.

That’s great, my overlayer made this impossible according to the size someone insist.
Nothing more I want to say, just see the image.

Not to mention the J-20s radome could be larger than F-22s…

Now that we’re done here… a few posts by huzhigeng translated. First posted by S10 over on Pakdef then schrage musik over on SDF.

Don’t take everything said for as granted, but a lot of it seems consistent with what we’ve been hearing about J-20, SAC’s 4th gen and the upcoming naval 4th gens.

没有所有的项目都给南边吧？四代南边有。北边也给了。海四肯定要竞争，虽然说601在研制歼1 5上有更多的 经验。但是611从来都是争强好胜。611从来都是吃着碗里。看着锅里。。同时还想着外卖。

CAC didn’t get all the projects. SAC also got its own 4th gen. Navy’s 4th gen will be a competition between the two. Eventhough SAC has more experience with J-15, CAC will be looking to take their pie.

两所都有方案。还没有正式PK。。。只能说北边更有优势。北四方案改一下基本就能上舰。而南四 的话。呵呵。 。气动布局要大改。。还有。海军对以后的海四要求是隐身条件下的超音速巡航。超音速机动性。另 说一句。海四 肯定是重型。

Both design institutes have their proposals (for navy’s 4th gen), but competition hasn’t start yet. SAC’s convention design has more advantage in this area, since it requires little modification. CAC’s design require significan altercation. Navy has requirement for stealth and supercruise, as well as supersonic manoevurability. One more thing, navy’s 4th gen will be a heavy fighter.

文章还是不错的，，相当客观。歼20载弹量确实极为优秀。歼20也并不大。和T50，F22都 是一个量级的 。比苏27要小。歼20的电子设备招标也基本结束。。性能还不错。如果六七年后服役的话，电子 设备基本上相 当于现在的F35的电子水平，比现在的F22 要好。还有一点。歼20的机头相控阵雷达是四代机之中最大的。。

Decent and objective article. J-20’s paylod is quite good compared to its size. It’s roughly about the size of T-50 and F-22, smaller than Su-27. Competition for avionics is basically done. If it enters service in about 6 or 7 years, its avionics will be roughly on par with F-35 today. And the dimension of its radar will be the largest among all 4th gen (including F-22, F-35 and T-50).

北四航电比南四要低一个档次，有点差距。。。南四的航电是全程竞标，设备都是国内顶尖中的顶尖 。载弹量怎么 说呢。北四通用性要好一些。。

SAC’s avionics will be slightly inferior to CAC’s. CAC’s avionics were chosen from a competitive process. In terms of payload, SAC’s design has more flexibility.

07年招标是南边鸭式边条翼和北边的三翼面的招标。和现在的北四常规布局是不同的项目

2007’s competition was between canard design of CAC and tri-wing design of SAC. It is different from current conventional layout project ongoing at SAC at the moment.

我说的招标结束是分系统产品已经测试结束，就等上2003和2004了，一起集成测试。

Competition for J-20’s sub-systems is already over. We’re waiting to intergrate and test them on 03 and 04 prototypes.

全状态的南四和F22相比。各有所长。电子设备比现在的F22要好一些。4S当中。有两项要更 突出。当然隐 身性能和F22还是有点差距的。

When completed, we estimate J-20 will have better avionics than current F-22. Among the 4S requirement, two will likely exceed it. Of course, F-22 will still be better in terms of stealth.

歼20的设计思路就是满足隐身的条件下，突出超机动性和超音速巡航性能。这点和老宋的论文一致 。

J-20’s design philosophy is to meet stealth requirement, while emphasizing on manovurability and supercruise, similar to Mr. Song’s (designer of J-10) article.

既使中国的发动机和美帝水平一样。还是会用YA子的。。

Even if our turbofan engines are on the same level as Americans, we’re still likely to use canards in our design.

WS15本来就是全向矢量。毛子的也是。只有美帝的F22才是二元矢量。二元和三元矢量各有优缺点。。 。就 看哪个更适合自己的国情。所以不要指望什么歼20的屁股装上二元矢量的了。

WS-15 engine will be equipped with 3D TVC. Russians will do the same thing with their engines. Only Americans will use 2D TVC. Each has its pros and cons, depending on what’s more suitable for the user, so don’t expect F-22 style nozzle on J-20.

南四和北四后面都会量产服役的。配合使用。四代是一个体系。。都是其中的节点而以。。

CAC and SAC’s projects will both be produced, and used in conjunction. All 4th gen are part of our future air combat network.

北四原计划确实是不装矢量的国产发动机。不过现在也有装矢量发动机的计划。

Originally, SAC did not plan to install TVC on their project, but now the plan has changed.

你们不要指望歼20装反舰导弹，不可能的事，也没必要。歼20的做战目标就是纯空优，20的标 配就是6+2 。。空优机就是空优机。

Don’t expect J-20 to carry anti-ship missiles. It’s both impossible and unneccessary. J-20’s sole focus is air superiority, carrying 6 medium range and 2 short range air-to-air missiles.

Yeah, i hear you Amiga500.:)
The VVS still see the Ultra Long ranged Mig-31 as a reliable Interceptor.

The VVS Flankers are and have allways been a Heavy interceptor, but not quite in the same class as the Mig-31 though.

And now with the Su-35S, it has more power and more range than ever before.

China like Russia has Huge territory areal to cover.. so why wouldn’t China be interesting an a long range interceptor:confused:

Again, I’m not sure either of you actually read what I wrote — I did say dedicated interceptor or striker. Dedicated.

If anything I agree with you that J-20 can be used as a long range interceptor — it has the weapon bays and size to do it. Heck, any aircraft capable of decent speeds, altitude and range can act as an interceptor so long as it has a few missiles or rounds in its pocket.
But is J-20 a dedicated interceptor, forfeiting everything for speed? No.

Is the J-20 design an answer to VVS Mig-31 deployment in the Far East and US F-22 deployment in Asia.. thats the real question!

J-20 I think is part of a PLA answer to F-22 deployment in the westpac, among others.

Unstable platform would be equally suitable for a strike aircraft as it would for a fighter, in fact the canard configuration might also improve aerodynamic efficiency to inch out that extra mile.

Just because the DF-21 flies hypersonic or has a large range does not mean that the J-20 would have to be the same, by virtue of its stealth or VLO features and low level flying it could create a similar effect.

Remember the idea is not about a replacement for the DF-21 but a fall back incase the DF-21 kill chain is compromised which is very likely and i would say fragile.

I listed SSKs, long ranged shore based AShCMs, FACs, and conventional anti ship missile carrying aircraft as supplements to the DF-21D. The primary PLAN surface force itself could act in the A2AD role if needed.
J-20s acting as anti carrier aircraft will not exactly be much more effective than most of those options and certainly not a very good fall back — espicially considering their small payload capacity and the USN’s powerful anti air capabilities. Maybe J-20 will be turned to after the 7th or 8th options fail.

Put this case against a backdrop by which the USN aviation wing is the size of most airforces around the world and its reputed ability to detect targets at long range. If anyone has the greatest chance of detecting stealth aircraft or having such technology it will be the US.

Yes exactly, so it not make sense sending in high value stealth aircraft — or any aircraft — for anti carrier roles especially if they can just carry a few small, unpowered guided bombs uncapable of stand off strikes.

Going only with the DF-21 as a kill option would be foolish the PLAAF are clever enough to have a fall back incase the bluff fails.

Well that’s assuming USN would risk risking their carriers in a potential conflict in the first place. Actually calling the PRC’s “bluff” is another matter, and there are other avenues of attack the PLA has at their disposal to target CVBGs.

But that’s OT — the point is only in very strange and desperate situations would PLA send J-20s for anti carrier roles. Think how strange it would be to send F-22s for anti shipping duties and you have a similar situation with J-20.