i agree, there’s nothing serious about it so lets move on.

so why do you feel it has a similar role to the F-22?

Partly from what General He Weirong said in that famous 2009 interview where they were aiming to match F-22’s performance, partly from the fact he said it would have 4S, partly from what we’ve been hearing off the chinese boards for so many years (heavy air superiority fighter), partly from what we can see from the aircraft now (lots of room for fuel) and from all that, partly because such an aircraft would make sense for the PLAAF to procure.

A long range, high speed stealthy aircraft that can fly its way through enemy lines to destroy force multipliers to deny F-22s refuelling (can of worms here I know) and therefore win matches against the biggest challenge to PLAAF without fighting them — but maneuverable enough to duel with F-22 if they ever get into close range (it has doors for SRAAM for a reason) or need to fight their way out of sticky situations like the one above. And we all know how much PLAAF values close dogfighting skills.

But mostly it’s due to what we’ve been hearing over the years, the above paragraph is just my opinion.

but surely the WS-10 is shorter than the AL-31 yes before we continue.

Why should WS-10 be shorter? (or at least so much shorter that it would necessitate making massive changes to the airframe)

i wonder, had the WS10 been made available much earlier when the J-10 was being designed.. would the resulting aircraft been shorter?

The fact WS-10 is installed on the aircraft now seemingly without any modification to the airframe makes me think the change to Al-31 in the nineties wouldn’t have changed the aircraft too much either (apart from the intake, which everyone knows about)

Yes, it will be very interesting to learn what Xian is doing with the Y-20 – it’s said to be Il-76 based and depending on how they approach the project it could turn out to be the final nail in the coffin for Il-476 exports.

It’ll take years for them to get any meaningful production of Y-20 methinks, and they’ll be busy filling PLA orders for years with transport, tanker and aewc platforms.

From pictures it looks like a C-17 and A400M had a baby.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html

No one’s denying there was a hacking, but the idea J-20 was influenced in any meaningful way is rather stupid.

F-35 program flying for 10 years. the actual program much longer. J-20?

Joax. It relied on the notion J-20 “came from” the F-35 hacks which was ridiculous in the first place.

Sorry, by “layout” I was talking about the brake chute flap opening+landing gear opening at the same time function rather than questioning what the use of a brake chute was. 😮

Some nice topside pics.

my JF-17 friend..
well lets go back to your Su-27 and F-16 and F-15 analogy.. sure its more comparable to the F-15 in its size and for the most part, goals.. but its design shows some strong similarities with the F-16.. the planform (position of wing and lerx, choice for under fueselage intakes instead of on the side (like F18/F15), and general agility requirements all into a larger twin engined airframe. its not to say that there were other influences.

JF-17? :confused:
I suppose it really depends what we’re talking about — design features, or role.

now back to the F-22 and F-35, i know people like to deride on the F-35.. but facts are as far as technology goes.. the F-22 is an older design.. the X-35 flew nearly 10 years after the YF-22, the F-35 10 years after the F-22.
alot of things changed by then and new approaches found. the F-35 no longer requires the super boxy fueselage of the F-22, it is much more smoother and rounded. the design of the skin has changed and simplified making it less maintenance heavy and costly, it reduce costs by simplifying the intake with a DSI one.. etc and etc. one of the biggest differences was some compromises made on the F-35 because they had to use a similar design for 3 different aircraft and the B version created compromises for the other two deisgns.. and the lack of a supercruising engine. Since it was a smaller design to begin with.. the bays are smaller. combined with the fact that China also acquired some F-35 information.. its not far to theorize that the J-20 could be considered a more powerful, faster, F-35, which resorted to the use of canards because of limitations to engine technology.

That’s not a very convincing argument, the rumors of China having hacked LM with F-35 info does not change what the J-20 is… and it is a bit far fetched to assume they would immediately put bits and pieces of what they gleaned into J-20 just for the hell of it.

And I’m not sure the feature of canards were to compensate for engine tech, though there does seem, and likely were compromises in other areas.

If I were to rephrase that last part: J-20 could be considered a more powerful, faster, more manouverable, longer ranged, twin engined F-35 optimized for air superiority. Now doesn’t that sound like the F-22?

Now doing so vis a vis F-22: J-20 could be considered an F-22 with longer range. Bam. Why take the bus when you can walk?