Here’s your Monday morning dose of fighter porn; it’s China’s J-20 stealth fighter pulling streamers as it appears to do a roll. Last week, we showed you a clip of it doing a half-roll. It looks like the test pilots have since become comfortable pushing the big jet all the way over as they expand its flight envelope. Enjoy.
{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }
can anyone tell me that is the landing down or stowed? because every pic or vid of the j-20 when airborne before this had it's landing gear down. if stowed, that means this j-20 should be ready for some high performance tests (which i don't think they might conduct with gear down)
Too grainy, and not much detail, if any on the ventral aspects. I might even be half-convinced to say that on every photo of the rolling fighter we cannot see the ventral aspect…?
Hooray! It can do a roll! Yeah so can a Boeing 707. This plane looks so "toyetic" meaning they can make millions on the model and toy mockups of this plane. Maybe that is what they really are doing, creating this plane for merchandising.
You can buy the trumpeter 1:72 scale model now. I am sure there are DoD employees buying them as gifts to their sons.
i'm sure overconfidence is something the chinese will accept very williingly:)
Respect your opponents.
From the third picture the fuselage looks a lot like an f-15 with canards. They just moved the wings back and canted the vertical stabilizers.
It will carry 8 longer range AAMs than the F-35 which cannot even carry 6 AAMs internally. Wake up, USAF. Hopefully a President Rick Perry can straighten out USAF leadership.
Calm down and have a little faith in our military leadership. God knows they have more intelligence at their disposal, influencing their decisions, than we could ever hope to have.
Besides, long range missiles don't give you much advantage if your radar blows your stealth. China isn't yet capable of procuring a low probability of intercept radar, so it's stealthy design hints at a long range surface attack role.
"Calm down and have a little faith in our military leadership. God knows they have more intelligence at their disposal, influencing their decisions, than we could ever hope to have."
I would say that their actions over the last 10 years+ would stand in contrast to that statement…
USAF leadership has repeatedly tried to retire the B-52 and B-1 despite their heavy use; They have an overworked and ancient refueling fleet they we overly rely on; they said an "all stealth" air force is the ONLY way forward and stuck us with the anchor that is the F-35; they screwed the pooch with maintaining any EW platform and now rely on Navy Prowlers and the shorter ranged Growler. Tell me again what the recapitalization of the Air Force road map looks like and how any of that seems like well thought out intelligent leadership.
We constantly seem to be replacing old platforms with new ones that have less capability. The Chinese and Russia seem to be doing the opposite. That gives me cause for concern…
Mmm, yeah.
- As is stands right now the USAF has the B-52 slated for service until 2045.
- They've also just chosen the replacement tanker through the KC-X program.
- Hating on the F-35 this early on is pointless (You have no idea how successful it may or may not be)
- Growlers are a cheaper, more versatile approach to Electronic Warfare.
- And we're delving into a lot more unmanned vehicle programs and operations which is shaping up to make the Military a whole lot more potent all around.
I see no reason to doubt their leadership.
Had the AF had it's way, that would not be the case. I would thank Congress for forcing the AF to keep the B-52s around.
They 'just' chose the replacement tanker after how many attempts to recapitalize and how many lost years?? Hating on the F-35 is fair if it is objective. How many years behind the original schedule are we now? and what % of the flight testing has been done? The plane is a flying compromise to try and address too many needs for too many branches. The promised high % commonality went way out the window and the best part of the plane will be the avionics (which could go on a much more superior air frame). JSF was designed to work in a high-low mix with Raptor's clearing the high end threats well ahead of them. Now with only 100 or so combat coded F-22s, the F-35 will be expected to perform roles outside of what it was intended to. I am a fan of dominating the enemy, not parity. F-35 numbers will be cut and the cost per unit will go up and we will wind up with an aircraft that costs more than planes that outclass it.
Growlers are OK in the near term but without a solid NGJ pod and longer legs, it certainly isn't an ideal platform, just another 'plan B' that they can thank the NAVY for. UAVs are great in zero threat airspace but if any nation we were fighting had modern manpads or even an operational air force, the uav story would be quite different. The promise of UCAV was another USAF debacle as they quit the program and left the X-45 out to dry. Thank the Navy again for sticking with UCAV and the X-47…bailing them out, again. I just don't see it as anything but very poor leadership. The Navy is suffering from it too with the LCS.
"God knows they have more intelligence at their disposal…."
There were just so many jokes crowding up in my head that I had to go take a lie-down.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
LOL @ rick Perry.
Regarding PLAAF AAMs, all I can find are PL-12, PL-11, PL-10 and PL-4 for BVR. Notes on the web suggest a possible Block 5 replacing the two internally-stowed bombs with four AMRAAMs for a possible total of six. Then again, if we find that the external stowing of a minimum of AAMs has an insignificant effect on RCS, this may even the odds. Alternatively, designing stealth mountings and a stealth "cover" for missiles may even the odds…but this is all a moneymaking project for LM?
Rick Perry can't even tie his own shoes- that's why he wears cowboy boots.
After he straightens out our biology classrooms, I would hope. AMIRIGHT?!?
Assuming you mean Rick Perry, exactly how do you think he's going to 'straighten out our biology classrooms'? Please don't say it's to introduce Creationism or something, because if he does that then America's scientific lead is going to evaporate.
The Chinese must be falling over themselves laughing to think that the world's most technologically advanced military power might soon be run by someone who tried (very unsuccessfully) to pray for rain.
Blessings on us all.
The Chinese J-20 maybe designed with Russian Mikoyan 1.44 technology and may beat F-22 in any closed dogfight encounter. We need to modify our F-22 or YF-23.
That a big maybe – and besides modern fighters don't dog fight. The F-22 would identify and eliminate the J-20 before it even knew it was in a fight – thats the whole point
Im tired of always seeing this Chicom crap show more T-50 or MiG-35 China makes crap get over it.
Why so hostile, Lance?
T-50? Both of those T-50′s in MAKS 2011 aren’t flying because of problems… why dont you call them crap?
Remember that the F-22 Raptor isn't flying either at all since four months back … and the JSF isn't even near entering service any soon and is also grounded.
They must be crap too I guess!
Actually, two T-50 did flight in MAKS-2011
Because Lance is Indian and he is jealous.
Can we settle this once for all . The USAF,US NAVY and USMC long with the RAF have fought two major total war air campaigns in the last twenty years as well as Close Air Support for the last ten . Their logistics , tactics are battle hardened while the Russians nor Chinese have no experience of waging major Air Campaigns .
Now lets factor in Pilots with years of current combat experience and flight time under war conditions and better Planes , Missiles , Awacs , Radar , ECM etc etc etc never mind the F22 and JSF .
If somebody here thinks the Chinese or Russians can gain that experience just because they have a couple of non-operational Flights of Fancy crawling through the sky then I would suggest they never play the Stock Market or hit Vegas.
I would take the USAF in its current form minus the F22 against anything the Russians or Chinese are going to field in the next ten to fifteen years.
People wake up the USAF can not be beat by a bunch of knock off supposed Stealth jets that are ten years from full operational use.
Yes. They have plenty of experience bombing countries with zero defensive measures like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Truly battle hardened.
It may not have given us much combat experience, but the lessons you learn just from deploying forces like that overseas are nothing to laugh at. It's a logistical nightmare and can really present some problems if you're at war with the wrong people. Luckily we had the opportunity to smooth these things out in a more docile atmosphere. We'll be much better prepared for future deployments because of it.
The RAF / FAA faced a little resistance from some South Americans…
@justsaying:
“Yes. They have plenty of experience bombing countries with zero defensive measures like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Truly battle hardened.”
Do you understand exactly *why* those countries have zero defensive measures? It’s because of… air campaigns!
See, wasn’t that easy?
Wait, we ran SEAD missions on Taliban SAM sites and air to air combat with Taliban Migs? What war did I miss?
is strafing RPF personnel counts as air defense asset?
I beg to differ… Iraq had an impressive SAM defense. The reason they don't now is BECAUSE of the allied proficiency for knocking them out BEFORE the war so the remainder of the forces following behind could sweep up the rest of their forces.
The air campaign was a bit more than a full month (Jan 17-Feb 23 of '91).
Wikipedia gives the order of battle as >2,200 aircraft versus 500 on the Iraqi side, plus associated defenses, and apparently requiring ~100,000 sorties. Not exactly a walk in the park.
That said, pulling 100,000 sorties on ~2,000 aircraft belonging to a variety of nations, speaking a variety of languages and operating on a variety of doctrines (though NATO forces did train together, but not Arab units) is an impressive feat.
The Air Force built up doctrinal lessons on how to wage air wars, and gradually refined and updated their doctrine with the times. It's accumulated experience that you can't pick up overnight.
For Japan, Meiji Restoration required sending dozens of Japanese persons to England. Engineers to learn about steel production, modern industrial techniques, shipbuilding, weapons design; young sailors to learn how to handle modern ship guns, young midshipmen to learn how to command capital ships and how to fight in a line of battle and long range, plus other personnel to "copy" the entire /mindset/ of various European nations…Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
China hasn't done anything like this yet. Are Chinese soldiers serving overseas in Iraq as observers in American units? Are their sailors serving in long distance cruises in Somalia? (Yes). Are Chinese persons coming to the states to absorb our culture and way of thinking? (Yes). Are they directly adapting American technology for their own needs? Not yet. They're stealing lots of commercial tech in pieces, but nothing holistic…yet.
Whichever western nation develops a close relation to the PRC will be the one that most closely influences its military doctrine, simply through exposure and influence.
Really? Kosovo, Desert Storm, 2nd Iraq war… those ALL had air defense, some significant and including fighters. @justsaying…. try to get at least the basic facts right before throwing bombs.
Iraq was the forth most powerful military in the world prior to the First Gulf War. It had a modern and capable IADS. Open a book some time.
Tim,
We have fought "two major total war air campaigns…" against whom? A totally f*'ed-up Arab country and a Central Asian dirt-track Pashtun hell-hole? You're proud of that?
It would be Afghanistan, then Iraq during OIF, Iraq during the NFZ days, Serbia in early '90s, Serbia in late '90s (Kosovo) Iraq for GW1, followed by half-baked airstrikes on Lebanon, air work in Vietnam and before that Korea and then WW2.
I may have missed a few.
Gosh darn, did I miss Laos and Cambodia? We were never there, were we not?
As opposed to the Russians that fought Georgia and shot down half of their own aircraft, which makes their sir force it's own biggest threat, and the Chinese who have done nothing.
air, not sir
It's ironic then that the USAF has undertaken more offensive operations than the VVS (and the PVO was inherently defensive), even throughout the Cold War. More likely than not there was clandestine aid to the client states that did their fighting, but no overt deployments like the United States.
The Russians in the end have had to destroy their own equipment because they've been engaged in CIS countries since the '90s. Chechenya briefly had an air force until it was annihilated, and Georgia's was also quickly annihilated as well.
Then again, moving units from Moscow to Vladivostok is probably its own logistical chore…
Interesting, both Russia and China showing off their Stealth fighters around the same time. Russia signs deal with India to help develop their plane and Pakistan lets China check out the stealth helicopter wreckage. Must say we have some great allies. And the best part, we send them all foriegn aid. Anyone have trouble with this?
It may give us an opportunity to test our aircraft against the new Chinese and Russian planes. Cope India exercises a few years back taught us a thing or two about how our F-15's might stand up against Su-29's, very valuable stuff. Not sure if we still do that with India, though.
PAK-FA is domestic Russian program and it's nothing to do with India.
As for Russian-Indian cooperation, look FGFA.
China's J-20 has the looks and maybe even some of the moves of a modern jet; but the secret of any advanced jet is more than skin deep as it's the aircraft's avionics and how it's assembled. I've seen a Ferrari shell built over a Pontiac Fiero, so it's going to take more than pictures or a video to prove to me that the J-20 is a 5th Generation fighter.
amen
I think our (USA) YF-23 designs are better. Hopefully they will be back.
The YF-23 was a better design, but only marginally better, as in maybe 5 -10% better. It wasn't a huge difference because both 5th gen fighters are about 20-30x better than 4th gen fighters. (My estimates are simply known kill ratios in tests between 5th and 4th gen fighters) The deciding factor was not thrust vectoring, since thrust vectoring is not a big deal, 5th gen designs are about stealth and first sight, first kill — but quality of the manufacturing chain. The reputation of the F22 build chains were substantially better than the YF-23. Perhaps it wasn't the best decision in retrospect, but it wasn't terribly so.
If you want to look at s design CF, take a look at the JSF F35. We should have taken the Boeing design for the VTOL requirement, and the F35 for the other A and C variants
73.6% of internet statistics are made up.
True, but in this case you can pull the numbers right off Wikipedia and run the cacls for yourself.
Definitely, J-20 is not supposed to be air superiority fighter. It's strike/multirole aircraft in the first place.
1. There hasn't been a full-on fight for air superiority between two remotely equivalent adversaries since the big players tooled up with nukes.
2. Unless Palin wins the US presidency there isn't going to be one, because no one wants to be extinct. North Korea is tiny, nuts, armed with WMD and they've fired on a US ally, but the US hasn't done anything because they're backed by China. Likewise China has never done more than make a big noise over Taiwan, because they're backed by the US.
3. Whatever else it's designed to do, one of the J20's main roles is the same as their aircraft carrier and the 2008 Olympics: to show the world – and more importantly their own people – that they're progressing fast and the only way is up.
4. I like the J20, wherever the design came from. A sort of Typhoon on steroids with an internal weapons bay and a bit of stealth. It will be really interesting to see how it turns out.
I go along with Ed. It looks like a toy and not aerodynamical.
I'm not a fan of air combat at the moment, I mean i conduct my dirty business on a sub HOO-YAH, but this thing, mind you the Chinese are freaking geniuses, might be an issue in conflicts to come. Sure it looks like a toy, but so did the F-22 and the F-35 (which is a waste of money btw). As long as countries like China can build something to rival us, we should take interest.
You conduct dirty business on a submarine?! So the rumours about the Navy are true – yuk.
Only joking – it’s good to hear some common sense from someone who actually serves.
OPINE
F18 EMD to Full Operational: circa 1975 to 1990
AV8B EMD to Full Operational: Circa 1979 to 1984/5
F15 EMD to Full Operational: Late 1960s to early 1970s.
F22 EMD to Full Operational: 1986 to First Flight 1997, Operational 1999.
Point.
One Chinese Toy flighter does not make a real, live, operational threat. Takes years, hundreds of flight hours, testing and logisitcal support to make a threat real.
Point
We, the US has literally hundreds of active, viable, fighters, bombers and support aircraft NOW. Count all the USAF, USMC, USN, CG, and UAVs, the amount is staggering.
Point
We have multiple Aerospace Companies doing what they do, develop, build and produce US Aircraft to defend the Nation. Knock their progress all you will, til you stand on a production line, working to the tolerances required in 21 st century manufacturing, no one has the viable rationale to bi…. about the aerospace efforts.
IT takes one H… of a lot of expertise to build, fly and test, these birds.
end
Semper Fi
It doesnt matter what they come up with…we can still track it…and shoot it down…lol.
But you won’t.
Beat your chest til it hurts, as soon as a country has some nukes, you’re all talk.
I will simplify for some of the nay Sayers , comparing the USAF to the Chinese or Russian Airforces is like comparing Man Utd to La Galaxy .
It's a cute plane but if the chinese are as bad at flying as they are driving we shouldn't have much to worry about!
amen
China vs the US = M.A.D. – so the comparisons with US capabilities are irrelevant.
Does this enable China to project more power in it's region vis-à-vis India, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, etc? Yes.
i mean RPG personnel
"Whichever western nation develops a close relation to the PRC will be the one that most closely influences its military doctrine, simply through exposure and influence."
Assuming this is true, this argues for *closer* ties between, for example, the PRC and the USA. You don't just absorb military doctrine and forgo the rest unless there is a serious disconnect. The Japanese could as easily have been "partners" in the Pacific rather than opponents. There were no major ideological stumbling blocks that would have prevented closer relationships with the UK, the US or any of the other colonial powers.
Of course, that didn't happen (and how). Partly, I would suggest, the issue was one of an inability by the Western powers to come to terms with an industrialised and powerful Asian nation.
They *tried* deterrence.
Lots of lessons in the 1905 to 1941 political situation in East Asia, in my opinion.