Military Review

Preliminary evaluation of the prototype of the unobtrusive Chinese fighter Chengdu J-XX [J-20]

88

The first flight of the Chengdu J-XX prototype [J-20], 11 January 2011. Pay attention to the smooth shape and lower part of the fuselage, optimized to reduce visibility. Nozzles include sawtooth connections and edges (source is Chinese Internet).


Introduction
At the end of December 2010, images of what was claimed to be the new unobtrusive fighter of China appeared on a number of Chinese Internet sites.

At that time, there were no official Chinese statements, so many of the allegations that were widespread about the aircraft in the media could only be speculations presented as facts.

The plane could be a technology demonstrator or a prototype of a mass fighter. The latter, however, turned out to be the most likely, given the statement by the deputy chief of staff of the PLA Air Force General aviation Hee Weironga, made in November 2009 on plans to take the aircraft into service between the 2017th and 2019th years.

The following is only a preliminary estimate that is subject to further review. The APA edition will produce a more comprehensive assessment in the future, as soon as technical materials become available and their detailed analysis.

Preliminary evaluation of the prototype of the unobtrusive Chinese fighter Chengdu J-XX [J-20]

Chengdu prototype, December 2010 (source of Chinese Internet).


Technical notes on prototype design
  1. J-XX / J-20 is a heavy fighter, comparable in size to the F-111. The first sample has a large triangular wing according to the “duck” scheme with a positive angle of transverse CE, with a pair of rotatable vertical / horizontal tail assembly tilted out / back and a pair of similar large angled front rotary flaps that, if left on the production aircraft, will provide aircraft very advanced handling and maneuverability. Undoubtedly, this configuration is designed to provide good stability in supersonic mode with a suitable type of engine, as well as provide good maneuvering characteristics in trans and supersonic modes.

  2. Without a doubt, the form of stealth is much better than on the Russian T-50 prototype of the PAK FA, and even more so than on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being launched into production.

  3. The design of the J-XX / J-20 apparently was largely based on the stealthiness rules of the F-22A Raptor:

  4. The bow section of the Chinese J-XX / J-20 and the shape of the flashlight are similar in appearance to the F-22, providing a similar signature of an already proven design.

  5. The trapezoidal edges of the air intakes of the J-XX / J-20 engines are similar to the F-22, although they appear large and resemble DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) F-35 style, apparently aimed at reducing the visibility of the edges of the air intakes of the F-22 style.

  6. The J-XX / J-20 attachment form of the wings to the fuselage, which is crucial for stealth, is very similar to the F-22 and clearly exceeds the Russian prototype T-50 PAK FA and the American F-35 Joint Fighter.

  7. The flat bottom of the J-XX / J-20 fuselage is optimal for all aspects of broadband stealth and closely mimics the design of the F-22.

  8. The wing shape in terms of the J-XX / J-20 shows the exact angular alignment between the front edge of the horizontal tail and the front edge of the wing and the exact crossed angular alignment of the edge between the rear edge of the horizontal tail and the rear edge of the wing. The sweep of the leading edge of the wing is ~ 43 °, which is clearly intended for effective supersonic flight.

  9. The J-XX / J-20 chassis was equipped with an X-band optimized gear edge technology based on the F-117A and F-22 design.

  10. The stern of the fuselage, tail beams, stabilizers / ribs, asymmetric nozzles that are not compatible with effective stealth, but can only serve as an intermediate solution to accelerate the flight tests of the prototype.

  11. The configuration of the airframe and the shape of the stern of the fuselage corresponds to the design style of the nozzle with a variable thrust vector F-22A or a rectangular nozzle designed for a controlled model of infrared radiation and radio frequency secrecy.

  12. The airframe configuration is compatible with sub-phylum, underwing and placement weapons in the internal compartments and is large enough to correspond to or in one degree or another exceed the internal payload of the F-22A Raptor.

  13. The volume of fuel placed inside the aircraft can also be high given the configuration of the fuselage and the large internal volumes of the triangular wings. This indicates the intention to provide the possibility of a sustainable supersonic cruising flight.

  14. The Chinese do not disclose the type of engine. There is an opinion that the Russian 117С series supersonic engines are used, although taking into account the overall efficiency of the aircraft aerodynamics, they are likely to be insufficient to use the full potential of this modern glider.

  15. A set of internal sensors remains unknown. China has not yet demonstrated a radar AFAR or advanced positioning system emitting radio electronic devices. However, they may become available when the airframe arrives at production. The corresponding Russian equipment is currently at the stage of development and / or testing.



Heavy fighter J-XX / J-20 similar in size to the F-111 (source of Chinese Internet).




(US MoD)



Above and below the histogram of the distances between the PLA air bases along the east coast of mainland China and the American Kaden airbase in Okinawa and Andersen airbase in Guam. The J-XX / J-20 fighter is capable of jeopardizing both these bases.




Fighting radius without refueling for fighters of the size and weight of the FB-111A class, subject to a number of assumptions, is usually from 1000 to 1500 nautical miles. This map reflects geographic reachable from Anshan, Dachang and Foluo Northeast airbases with 1000 combat radius and 1500 nautical miles, respectively. Azimuthal equidistant projections are concentrated at Dachang air base.


General conclusions
The size of the airframe J-XX / J-20 and the obvious emphasis on supersonic show at least the intention to create a long-range interceptor capable of operating up to the islands of the second ridge (including the Philippines and Guam). Most likely, the serial version of the J-XX / J-20 will include the possibility of refueling in the air to further expand the range of combat use.

The inconspicuous, cruising supersonic, long range will provide the Chinese Air Force with the ability to penetrate the integrated air defense system, destroy E-3 AWACS, RC-135В / W Rivet Joint, other reconnaissance and surveillance systems, and most importantly Air Force and Navy air tankers. In case of any unforeseen circumstances, this in turn will significantly complicate if it does not interfere at all with the air operations from Andersen airbase and blocks the bases located beyond the Ryukyu ridge, Japan Islands and the Korean Peninsula.

Any claims that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighter jets would be able to compete in air combat with the Chinese Chengdu, not to mention their penetration into the airspace protected by this fighter would be absurd. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, along with F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, is aerodynamically and kinematically very inferior to that presented by J-XX / J-20, and its shape can effectively neutralize the benefits of any sensors successfully operating against early Russian and Chinese fighter versions .

Features and number of scheduled aircraft
J-XX / J-20 can be used as F-111 class and Su-34 attack aircraft if equipped with guided bombs such as Luoyang / CASC LT-3. FT-1, FT -2, FT-3, FT-4, FT-5 and LS-6. These are Chinese counterparts in American JDAM, some of which are equipped with additional wings modeled on JDAM-ER.

Complete combat capabilities with J-XX / J-20 will be the direct equivalents of the multipurpose FB-22A, as defended by Dr. James G. Roche during his tenure as US Secretary of Air Force until 2005.

The Chinese Air Force has not yet announced the planned production volume. The declared primary operational capabilities of the J-XX / J-20 are directly linked to the write-off of the Su-27SK and the first series of Su-30МКК that are currently in service. Thus, if we assume that the J-XX / J-20 is intended to replace the Su-27SK, and then the Su-30MKK, then the figure in the 400-500 aircraft is acceptable.


The LS-6 pounder caliber 250 and 125 pounds presented in Zhuhai in 2010-th year, which is a direct analogue of the American small-scale bomb GBU-39 / B, currently integrated on the F-22A Raptor.



Prototype Images and Multimedia
[All images and multimedia are from the Chinese Internet]

Flight of the first prototype of 11 in January of 2011 of the year






























Taxi test prototype December-January 2011 year


































Banners
[APA editors do not endorse and do not always agree with the content of third-party multimedia information included on this page]











Author:
Originator:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ataturk
    Ataturk 27 July 2012 09: 04
    11
    Before ovskiy and Russian ass at the plane!
    Stamped by the Chinese. We must fight this. Raise your army.
    These Chinese cannot be trusted!


    There are not enough brains for their acquisition. Any salon, so the Chinese immediately stand with the rulers.
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 27 July 2012 09: 19
      19
      Quote: Ataturk
      Any salon, so the Chinese immediately stand with the rulers.

      And they’re doing it right. In the USSR, at first, too much was copied from American technology.
      1. alex-defensor
        alex-defensor 27 July 2012 11: 03
        23
        Chinese hybrid design solutions MiG 1.44 and F-22.

        It is known that PGO (front horizontal tail) at high speeds gives resistance that significantly increases both engine power requirements (especially for China, which does not know how to make good engines yet) and fuel consumption. It is also known that PAK FA refused to give PGOs, also because this element increases ESR. Ours applied a revolutionary solution with a deflectable toe, which plays the role of PGO, but gives less dispersion.

        Non-separated (unlike PAK FA) engines reduce the internal space suitable for hosting weapons (this is a known drawback of F-22)

        Decreasing the EPR to the detriment of other characteristics of the aircraft is a very controversial decision, and in the case of interaction with the ground-based complexes of the decimeter and meter ranges, it makes no sense. By the way, do not forget that the PAK FA will be equipped with a decimeter radar located at the leading edges of the wings.
      2. Isr
        Isr 28 July 2012 09: 40
        -7
        At first, when? As far as I know, almost all electronics are copied. For this Zelenograd was built, ostensibly for advanced developments, but in fact for reverse engineering.
        1. Gregazov
          Gregazov 28 July 2012 12: 58
          +7
          Are you tired of holding a candle while copying? Something the radar of our many aircraft (MiG 31, A-50, Su-27 for their time was better than that of amers, but you can generally keep silent about guided missiles
        2. 11Goor11
          11Goor11 28 July 2012 15: 41
          +4
          Tell me more that on our technology ALWAYS were lamps and not microcircuits, as for Zelenograd, at the very dawn of microelectronics, two engineers Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant were invited, they, together with our engineers, created our entire initial nomenclature of microcircuits. If it was copied, it was not enough, and only certain parts of the schemes, for military equipment, blind copying is simply suicide.
          Will you criticize the Americans that their space program was created by Werner von Braun and all other German engineers?
      3. Bob's
        Bob's 2 August 2012 13: 39
        0
        The Chinese are handsome in this regard.
  2. Armata
    Armata 27 July 2012 09: 26
    19
    Well ugly car. There is no design aesthetics and a sense of proportion in it.
    1. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 27 July 2012 09: 41
      11
      Quote: Steam Train

      Well ugly car. There is no design aesthetics and a sense of proportion in it.

      And by the way, the car is essentially not theirs. They just took the Soviet portotype (that is, got the technology) made copies, but there isn’t enough mind to finalize! But no matter what the Chinese are, their desire and desire can only be envied. In any case, if something goes wrong for a long time! THAT ONLY WHAT?
      1. Letun
        Letun 27 July 2012 11: 48
        +8
        Quote: Steam Train
        Well ugly car. There is no design aesthetics and a sense of proportion in it.

        This is because it is not ours. If we did, then they would admire modern aerodynamics, a seamless flashlight, etc. wink
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 27 July 2012 20: 25
          0
          But not a fact - the same T50 does not cause a desire to admire it, unlike the su-27.
          though ours.
      2. VAF
        VAF 27 July 2012 17: 14
        +7
        Quote: tronin.maxim
        But no matter what the Chinese are, their desire and desire can only be envied. In any case, if something goes wrong for a long time! THAT ONLY WHAT?


        Maxim, welcome, +! In terms of borrowing something, you’re right, and everyone knows that the Chinese are pros in this matter !!!

        But they are stubborn ... and go to their goal ... as for the last time, so I think they will do something !!!

        Here is an example:



        china-defense.com published a photo of a group of Chinese experts next to the prototype of the T-10K carrier-based fighter (Su-27K, Ukraine).

        The photo was allegedly taken in 1999, when the Chinese began to be actively interested in this aircraft, having plans to develop its own carrier-based J-15 fighter based on it.

        And here’s the result ..... but it’s been all but nothing ... from the time of the visit ... recourse











        China currently has four flight prototypes of the J-15, flight tests from the deck of the Varyag aircraft carrier, also purchased from Ukraine (1998), are expected in the near future.

        In the meantime, they are testing everything on their Thread ....

        1. lelikas
          lelikas 27 July 2012 20: 23
          0
          In my 12 years this is not very fast for copy paste.
          1. VAF
            VAF 27 July 2012 20: 56
            +2
            Quote: lelikas
            In my 12 years this is not very fast for copy paste.


            Well, here you are wrong, because twelve years ago they came just to see, but they have been flying for a long time, plus it's still a deck boat, and there are a lot of their own news for them, for the Chinese it was a completely new "business"! wink
            1. lelikas
              lelikas 27 July 2012 23: 28
              0
              Well, not twelve — by that time, the Chinese were releasing the J-11, in 2005 they bought T10k (and judging by the photo, they measured everything already at 99m), if you do not believe the officials, then in 2011 the J-15 appears.
              Anyway, for the country that produces iPhones before Apple, it was somehow suspiciously long. (I know that different things, I just brought them for speed comparison).
      3. Isr
        Isr 28 July 2012 09: 49
        +7
        A prototype is not a technology. Imagine that you bought a processor in a store. Do you have a prototype, can you recreate its production technology? No. It will have to be invented, puzzle over, how it was possible to reach the size of 20 nanometers, how to remove heat, how to observe cleanliness. They could copy the case, but this is not the main thing, there are engines, and avionics, and a locator. It was possible to copy an airplane from the times of the 2nd World War, and it was not easy.
    2. VAF
      VAF 27 July 2012 16: 57
      +4
      Quote: Steam Train
      Well ugly car. There is no design aesthetics and a sense of proportion in it.


      Zhenya. Hello, +! I agree, some kind of aerodynamic disgrace, but maybe this is still a concept ????

      that interse ... very healthy, in principle, if such a size and stay. then the red lines of reach can be quite real ... recourse

      Of course, as a fighter ... not an ale at all, but here's how a strike ..... a big question may arise!
      1. black_eagle
        black_eagle 27 July 2012 17: 04
        +3
        In general, I have a feeling that the car is not serial, but as it were a staged, flying laboratory, like the Su-47, there are a lot of jambs that would be used in a series, there, with a hammer and a chisel, hammer and hammer)))))))))
        1. VAF
          VAF 27 July 2012 18: 03
          +1
          Quote: black_eagle
          and so to say staged, flying laboratory


          I absolutely agree, dear, absolutely, +! drinks

          They put that. that they managed to "steal" and run in for compatibility, therefore it is tailored, as you correctly say, with a hammer and chisel ...

          But what’s the result ... they’re cunning ... infections ...



          photo of the unbundled solid-cast lamp of the cockpit of the American fighter F-22 Raptor and the Chinese J-20.
          One look at which suggests that both lights are made on the same structural principles, and have almost the same geometry.



          Well and so on ... there will not be enough space in the comment to list everything that the Chinese .... borrowed ...

          What can I say ... one glance is enough ... where we are, and where ... Chinese ....



          But here is to compare ours and theirs ?????? They don’t even have to think about it ... yet ... !!!

          1. black_eagle
            black_eagle 27 July 2012 18: 32
            +1
            Naturally, they’re tricky, since the Japanese managed to jump in terms of time, and all of Europe combined!))))) +
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 28 July 2012 22: 21
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            photo of the unbundled solid cast light of the cockpit of the American fighter F-22 Raptor and the Chinese J-20

            Apparently, the work of the Chinese intelligence officers was wasted as America’s last most perfect airplane with a binding
            if you enlarge the photo is clearly visible
    3. Rikoshet
      Rikoshet 27 July 2012 16: 57
      +1
      But they have it and hundreds will still stamp it, and for some, the launch of a ship or a dozen turntables a year is all the difference
  3. Ataturk
    Ataturk 27 July 2012 09: 26
    +5
    Quote: Tirpitz
    In the USSR, at first, too much was copied from American technology.


    the Chinese have a huge scale + stamped in huge quantities + Soviet designers themselves built a lot of things. And these copy and stamp everything.
    1. Letun
      Letun 27 July 2012 11: 52
      +6
      Well, how can I tell you, for example, the Tu-4 is an exact copy of the American B-29. Although the copy is high-quality, even the Americans themselves at that time admitted that they did not expect from the USSR that our enterprises would be able to tear off and start producing such a plane (really advanced at that time). repeat
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 27 July 2012 17: 50
        +1
        There, like the Chinese, there were problems with the resource of engines - 25 hours against 500 among Americans. Well, the weight is much more
    2. VAF
      VAF 27 July 2012 18: 38
      +5
      Quote: Ataturk
      And these copy and stamp everything.


      Greetings dear Omar, that's right, +! But the result is .... ???? recourse

      It is clear that it turns out like in a joke ... "everywhere there is ... but there is so much of it", but to this g ... you have to answer with something? To answer that is what, but again ... and if there is a lot of him, this g .... a lot ????

      So it’s time for us to swing and run to the fullest and give up all sorts of crap ..... okay, I won’t touch yours (not your Omar), but the Approved Rams Super-duper and Mistral with Lynxes, Centaurs, Finnish armored personnel carriers, etc. ....

      By the way, and here are the drones already in the fleet of the Chinese .. at all, but with us ????

  4. kPoJluK2008
    kPoJluK2008 27 July 2012 09: 34
    19
    The expert to put it mildly wrote the entire article from the lantern ...
    Did he dream of his calculations in a dream?
    Particularly pleased with a number of unreasonable statements, such as:
    "Without a doubt, the form of stealth is significantly better than on the Russian prototype T-50 PAK FA, and even more so than on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being launched."

    or
    “Any claim that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F / A-18E / F Super Hornet will be able to compete in aerial combat with the Chinese Chengdu, let alone penetrate the airspace defended by this fighter, would be simply absurd. F The -35 Joint Strike Fighter, along with the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, is aerodynamically and kinematically inferior to the presented J-XX / J-20, and its shape will be able to effectively neutralize the advantages of any sensors that successfully operate against the early Russian and Chinese versions of fighters. "


    And it generally killed))

    "The J-XX / J-20 can be used as an F-111 and Su-34 class strike aircraft if equipped with guided bombs such as Luoyang / CASC LT-3 Laser / Satellite Aided Inertially Guided Bomb, FT-1. FT-2, FT-3, FT-4, FT-5 and LS-6. "

    Right now I will go to the MiG-15, hang the KAB-500 and can use it "as a strike aircraft of the F-111 and Su-34 class"
    After all, the same thing, right?
    1. urzul
      urzul 27 July 2012 10: 14
      +8
      The J-XX / J-20 chassis was equipped with an X-band optimized gear edge technology based on the F-117A and F-22 design.

      For comparison, look at how the PAK FA chassis flaps are made, they do not have stiffeners like the Chinese (they will be exactly visible on the radar, since the stiffeners have a larger cross section)
      The situation is similar with the weapons compartment.
      1. Professor
        27 July 2012 11: 03
        +3
        For comparison, look at how the PAK FA chassis flaps are made, they do not have stiffeners like the Chinese (they just will be clearly visible on the radar, since the stiffeners have a larger cross section)

        With the casement, the landing gear is not critical, they are not opened above the enemy. But it’s interesting to look at the wings of bomb bombs.
        1. urzul
          urzul 27 July 2012 11: 11
          +1
          Photos are not clear in Chinese, they are secretive.
          1. urzul
            urzul 27 July 2012 11: 25
            +5
            Only a photo of the layout was found, but it can be seen from it that the wings of the weapons compartment are made in the same way as the chassis.
            Isn't a great rim right behind the jagged edge coming? But its thickness is solid.
            1. Pacifist
              Pacifist 27 July 2012 17: 19
              +2
              what is called "RZHUNIMAGU" laughing
              A serrated edge hung on a perpendicular stiffener ....
              you can shit "Technology of invisibility" ala China laughing laughing
  5. sapulid
    sapulid 27 July 2012 10: 07
    11
    Reading this article, I could not get rid of the obsessive thoughts about the lobbying nature of the article. The author obviously wants to resume production and increase the F-22 order.
    How can we draw conclusions about stealth without knowing the characteristics of the absorbing materials used in the ji-20? What kind of nozzles are we talking about, supposedly masking radiation, if there is no engine? Will the Chinese create it? Yes, but 3-4 years later, after launching our series. Just soprut necessary. Quality will be blocked by quantity. Sometimes, it acts ....
    The comparison with the F-111, this "duck for novice hunters", amused. I have always thought that a modern fighter should not have increased stability due to its ability to maneuver. If the Ji-20 really is, then, in the near future, you should not be afraid of him as a fighter.
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 27 July 2012 10: 40
      +1
      The same impression ... knocking out a taxpayer money ...
    2. Professor
      27 July 2012 10: 56
      +1
      The author of this article is Australian and she was also published in Australia, therefore there can be no talk of any lobbying. Moreover, Ph.D. Carlo Kopp is an internationally recognized expert in the field of aviation and hears his opinion. Google and see where, which and how many articles he published.
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 27 July 2012 10: 58
        +3
        That is why it can lobby ...
        1. Professor
          27 July 2012 11: 06
          -3
          Develop a thought. Australia buys F-22? what
          1. viruskvartirus
            viruskvartirus 27 July 2012 11: 13
            +3
            ) "The Australian government will refuse to buy American F-35s and put pressure on the US authorities to allow the Australian Air Force to purchase F-22 fighters. According to experts, this request is unlikely to be fulfilled, since the export of F-22s is prohibited by law."
            1. Professor
              27 July 2012 11: 16
              0
              That's it legislativelyand you're talking about lobbying ...
              1. viruskvartirus
                viruskvartirus 27 July 2012 11: 31
                +1
                Professor ... when that kind of money is on the line ... "for the sake of 100 percent profit, the capitalist will sell his own mother."
                1. Professor
                  27 July 2012 11: 35
                  0
                  The Communists taught us this, but in practice there are still national interests.
                2. Kyrgyz
                  Kyrgyz 27 July 2012 19: 51
                  0
                  Quote: viruskvartirus
                  . "For the sake of 100 percent profit, the capitalist will sell his own mother."

                  300% to be precise wink
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 27 July 2012 13: 04
        +1
        This peysatel advocates the sale of F-22 Australia and climbs out of the skin with the Chinese threat, many consider him a kind of trash Australian
        1. Professor
          27 July 2012 15: 53
          -1
          Already do not consider it work, enlighten us who are these many? Don’t share the link?
        2. Kyrgyz
          Kyrgyz 27 July 2012 19: 52
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          This peysatel advocates the sale of F-22 Australia and climbs the skin with the Chinese threat

          why Australia this car? it's a white elephant for her
        3. Professor
          29 July 2012 09: 58
          +2
          Who cares, a detailed analysis of the T-50 PAK FA pen of the same author.
          Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA
          1. andrey682006
            andrey682006 3 February 2014 11: 37
            0
            Does this article have a translation into Russian?
          2. andrey682006
            andrey682006 3 February 2014 11: 37
            0
            Does this article have a translation into Russian?
  6. urzul
    urzul 27 July 2012 10: 18
    +6
    Close-up photo of the wings

    A large photo from below on the PAK FA, all these jagged edges are clearly visible.
    1. Snow
      Snow 27 July 2012 20: 50
      +1
      why are there so many folds and notches on our PAK FA? This is probably bad for stealth! I guess I don’t understand something, but it would be easier to make just a straight flat belly! they didn’t take this path .. What is the reason?
      1. Passing
        Passing 27 July 2012 21: 08
        +2
        Any technique is a compromise. If you are talking about the "hole" between the engines, then everything is simple - we have the priority of the internal volume of the weapon bays (compared to the F22), so we moved the engines apart and placed two very large bays between them. Why not flush? It's also simple, the resistance determines the max. midship (cross-sectional area), as well as the area rule (smooth change in cross-sectional area along the length), therefore, if it is stupid to make it flush, it means killing all aerodynamics. Either the engines are nearby and everything is flush, but the weapon bays are small, or vice versa, there is no other way. Rather, you can certainly inflate the midsection, but then you need more powerful engines, and accordingly more fuel or less range.
        1. Snow
          Snow 27 July 2012 21: 57
          0
          clear! those. Was stealth not a key requirement for us? we gave it up a little in favor of reducing the "cross-section" of the aircraft in order to reduce the force of air resistance.
          I endlessly believe that our plane is excellent, it is likely that even the best, but still! Why do the Americans and the Chinese round off all the details of the airframe with smooth transitions? And we have air intakes as if separate from the airframe, and even with a radiator mesh, or something like that. This already does not affect the cross-sectional area
          1. Passing
            Passing 28 July 2012 05: 04
            +3
            With stealth, not everything is so obvious, for example, our plane will be able to carry much larger missiles on the internal suspension, say, anti-ship missiles, and the rest will be forced to carry anti-ship missiles on the external suspension, in which case the T-50 will be more inconspicuous.
            By smooth transitions did not quite understand what you mean, the gap between the air intake and the fuselage? F-22 also has it, serves to drain the boundary layer. In addition, you take into account from what angles the aircraft will be irradiated by the radar. If you look strictly from the side, then the cracks are covered by crests on the wing.
            Grid? In terms of blades visible in the air intake? Those. Is the air intake not S-shaped? It is believed that they will be covered with a radar blocker.
            In addition, our aircraft is not yet covered with a radio-absorbing coating, so it does not visually feel as smooth as the F-22. But the coverage on the T-50 will be 100%.
          2. Evrepid
            Evrepid 6 August 2012 20: 02
            0
            Surely so that there would be no surging and other unpleasant moments for the operation of the engines. I think so.
  7. Pacifist
    Pacifist 27 July 2012 10: 18
    +6
    A set of amateurish conclusions about comparing the incomparable ... some nonsense.
    All conclusions are sucked out of the finger. The airframe diagram and its main geometric characteristics indicate that this Chinese van der Wavelle will fly like a feathered iron. But its inconspicuousness, due to the use of PGO, can be completely forgotten. He on the radar, in the worst case for the opposite side, will blink like an emergency beacon.
    1. kotdavin4i
      kotdavin4i 27 July 2012 17: 08
      +3
      The "Feathered Iron" has already flown in history - the F-117. wink
      1. Pacifist
        Pacifist 27 July 2012 17: 24
        +3
        Yes, yes, ... how, I remember ... only it contained so many specific electronics designed solely for it to fly, that it was written off at the speed of a piggy screech, as soon as they realized that it was cheaper and safer to disassemble than to use. .. China has no such avionics and no one will sell it to them. So bird irons are proud ... they don’t fly without kicks request
        lol
    2. Passing
      Passing 27 July 2012 20: 14
      +2
      Quote: Pacifist
      Set of amateurish conclusions

      You are too categorical, probably from not knowing who the author of the article is.
  8. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 27 July 2012 10: 33
    +3
    "the front-mounted movable horizontal tail contributes to an increase in the effective scattering area (EPR) of the aircraft, and therefore is considered undesirable for fifth generation fighters (examples: the American F-22 Raptor and the Russian PAKFA)" indicates the lack of an engine of sufficient power ...
    1. urzul
      urzul 27 July 2012 10: 48
      +6
      conclusions

      Let's try to summarize the pros and cons of the triplane scheme and try
      to predict its appearance on the plane of the fifth or sixth generation.
      Pros:

      1. Approximately the same as the root wing influx.
      2. Additionally increases aerodynamic quality at supersonic.
      3. Improves wing flow at large angles of attack on subsonic
      speeds.
      4. Allows you to compensate for the chatter at extremely low altitudes.
      Cons:

      1. Increases drag.
      2. Improved aerodynamic performance does not compensate for the increase
      mass construction.
      3. Program management of PGO does not provide additional advantages in
      lift force.
      4. The use of PGO to control aircraft pitch at high angles of attack
      no sense using vector driven engines
      traction (UHT).

      5. The benefits of 2 and 3 are more effectively realized through adaptive
      wings.




      What we actually see on the PAK FA, I posted the photo above.
      1. Passing
        Passing 27 July 2012 20: 48
        +2
        Quote: urzul
        2. Additionally increases aerodynamic quality at supersonic.

        I have already fairly forgotten aerodynamics, but it seems that the duck circuit has no balancing loss in principle, and therefore, aerodynamic quality is always greater, not only in super sound.
        Quote: urzul
        1. Increases drag.

        It seems that on small angles of attack, on the contrary, less.
        IMHO, in a straight flight, the duck scheme is more effective, but vice versa during maneuvers. Those. The duck circuit is optimal for cruising (including supersonic), but impairs maneuverability.
        1. VAF
          VAF 27 July 2012 21: 00
          +2
          Quote: Passing by
          I've already forgotten aerodynamics pretty much


          Do not be modest, dear, you have not forgotten anything, but you have set everything out correctly! +++ drinks

          Andrey is a little mistaken request
  9. win
    win 27 July 2012 10: 42
    -6
    Straight Su 47, maybe a coincidence smile
    1. urzul
      urzul 27 July 2012 10: 52
      10
      I’m wondering from what angle only? except that the coloring.
  10. itr
    itr 27 July 2012 10: 51
    +3
    the word is invented a little noticeable. Immediately begs a little flying and a little shooting wink
    1. urzul
      urzul 27 July 2012 11: 02
      +4
      Because there are no invisible aircraft in nature, it is like the US Air Force TM and nothing more.
  11. pepelacxp
    pepelacxp 27 July 2012 11: 02
    +4
    the problem is that there will be 500 or maybe 600
    and PAK fa - 50 or 60 pieces
    1. urzul
      urzul 27 July 2012 11: 13
      +5
      The problem is that it is not known whether the Chinese will be what Chinese propaganda assures us all of. They have problems above the roof.
      But PACK FA why 50-60 pieces? we have that the end of the world was transferred from 2012 to 2020!?
      1. Sablezub
        Sablezub 27 July 2012 13: 31
        +3
        where are these numbers from 50-60 pieces? Aviation is the same kind of troops as any other, and therefore updating the fleet will be, and most likely quite large-scale, judging by the money allocated for rearmament ... this time ... second, the plane , even the most promising to become an airplane, if you put a low-skilled pilot on it ... the example suggests itself-Vietnam and Korea ... draw your own conclusions ... and judging by the photo, our bird is much more beautiful and the feeling that the plane made soundly, which can’t be said about the Chinese ... Russia needs to get ready to prepare extra class aces for our PAK FA and then worries about competitors will not be so worried
    2. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 27 July 2012 19: 57
      -1
      Quote: pepelacxp
      the problem is that there will be 500 or maybe 600a PAK fa - 50 or 60 pieces

      Each next generation is much more expensive than the previous one, so it is unlikely that there will be 500-600, if the states did not draw the planned volume for raptors, then this is even less likely for the Chinese. Of course, the Chinese and we will be cheaper but no more than two
      IMHO 200th generation machines in the USA 5 from the Chinese and 140 from Russia, possibly another 80 from the EU.
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak 27 July 2012 22: 07
        0
        Quote: Kyrgyz
        IMHO 200th generation 5th machine in the USA
        with small-scale F-35s now 220
    3. alex_molniya
      alex_molniya 27 February 2013 17: 19
      0
      yes, there’s no way it will be so, but they don’t have when there will be no poplar, and there are many more serious things about these airplanes !!!!))))
  12. Forget
    Forget 27 July 2012 11: 49
    +3
    after all, the Chinese are working, I really like that. The Kazakhs also decided to do AN 140, so nothing is heard .... but where the Tu 334 beautiful car could easily replace all outdated aircraft on domestic flights. Damn you want to go somewhere planes do not fly, take the train, and there is heat ..
    1. Concept1
      Concept1 29 July 2012 18: 52
      0
      The Kazakhs thought, but the Russians will do !!!!!!!!!!!
  13. Bugor
    Bugor 27 July 2012 11: 51
    +2
    Someone already mentioned ...
    Well, an airplane so ugly in appearance cannot be a real operating machine. After all, he is miserable outside, you see, and the PAK FA will probably be completed, and he will become handsome. Like our 160th ...
    And how do the Chinese make an airplane without engines ???
  14. cucun
    cucun 27 July 2012 11: 54
    +3
    From serious sources I know that the Chinese did not "fly" .... Ie. on tests gave depressing characteristics. The Chinese are certainly not recognized repeat

    True, not everything is smooth with ours, but they will definitely bring to mind a trace. year.
  15. MolGro
    MolGro 27 July 2012 13: 17
    +5
    for a moment 5 generations like
    1. Pacifist
      Pacifist 27 July 2012 17: 11
      +1
      To be honest, it looks even like him, like a cat looks like an acecelot ... it seems like the squad is the same, and the shape is about the same, but after meeting you understand that the scratched hands are one .... and 40 seams on erysipelas and ass, quite another.

      Compare the wing area and the configuration of the air intakes, etc. and understand that, alas, two completely different planes.
  16. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 27 July 2012 14: 21
    0
    ... the earth is full of rumors that this particular machine was the "ancestor" of the Chinese ... and amers are freaking out about this ... "Among some unnamed Western experts, there is an opinion that some technologies and general types of aircraft were transferred to China, although in fact, when creating their J-20, the Chinese used the blueprints of Project 1.46, quite legally purchased from the Sukhoi Design Bureau.
  17. warlok
    warlok 27 July 2012 14: 26
    +2
    The glider itself is only a quarter of a combat aircraft, avionics and weapons are very important, and with this, the Chinese are just bad ...!
  18. Panzer UA
    Panzer UA 27 July 2012 14: 36
    0
    A beautiful dog is still :)
    1. black_eagle
      black_eagle 27 July 2012 15: 31
      +2
      Sludge rare! Looks like a herring!))))
  19. Sars
    Sars 27 July 2012 15: 16
    +4
    Quote: Steam Train
    Well ugly car. There is no design aesthetics and a sense of proportion in it.

    Quote: Bugor
    Well, an airplane so ugly in appearance cannot be a real operating machine.

    Asians have their own idea of ​​beauty. They may like it.
  20. axmed05
    axmed05 27 July 2012 15: 32
    0
    I would in their place, this white spot next to the rear wheel would also be painted black.
  21. vostok-47
    vostok-47 27 July 2012 16: 28
    +1
    Does anyone remember the instant 1.44. The Chinese copied it, the last 9 years since 2000, they collected it from photographs. The Chinese have always done so and will do so, then they are Chinese .....
  22. de_monSher
    de_monSher 27 July 2012 17: 13
    0
    And for me, the Chinese were guided by the toy C&C Generals ... *) There is only one Chinese type of aircraft, it very much resembles 1.44 and this bandura ... *))
  23. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 27 July 2012 17: 13
    0
    An article with far-fetched findings. Like the arguments themselves, it is unknown where taken from, and for the most part, not true.
  24. df34edgf
    df34edgf 27 July 2012 18: 30
    -1
    The authorities of our country have done a lot, but this is already too much.
    I generally accidentally found him http://linkshrink.com/6jj
    Here is information about each of us, for example: relatives, friends, correspondence from social networks.
    And most importantly, it is accessible to everyone, I was really scared at first - you never know what moron there will climb
    Well, the truth is that you can remove yourself from the site.
  25. Pripyatchanin
    Pripyatchanin 27 July 2012 18: 36
    +3
    Here are the Chinese ... they started with copies of the MiGs and ended up with a 5th generation fighter.
    1. Evrepid
      Evrepid 22 August 2012 12: 20
      0
      their copy of the 29th does not fly ... and the 27th also without our engines ...
      Take it easy.

      once asked a question to an American engine engineer: "Why don't YOU buy a Russian engine and copy it?"

      The answer was: "There are a lot of additives in the alloys used in the production, with low contents of various substances with amounts of up to 0,3%, and the characteristics of the material differ greatly from them."

      Therefore, until our technology is sold to the Chinese, their technology will not be equal to ours ...
      And the Chinese think that through a large number of experiments they will be able to repeat the material.
  26. red 015
    red 015 27 July 2012 21: 46
    +1
    carbon copy works well for them
  27. Yuras222
    Yuras222 28 July 2012 13: 28
    0
    And I want the Chinese to get it and for the Pin'Dos to tremble in front of the Chinese plane and hysteria, so that he tore their F-22 and F-35 into the trash, and Japan with the Pin'Dos bases was defenseless against this plane. So that the Japs piss boiling water in front of China and forget about our islands at least for a while.
  28. Num Lock UA
    Num Lock UA 28 July 2012 14: 01
    +3
    I think that's enough to talk about the "carbon copy"
    because "in which case" it doesn't matter whether the technique or your own development will be copied. its availability, quantity, characteristics and training of personnel will be important
  29. karmin
    karmin 29 July 2012 01: 05
    0
    Quote: black_eagle
    Looks like a herring!))))

    Cool noticed! You can’t say better!
  30. st.michman
    st.michman 31 July 2012 21: 42
    0
    I can’t get rid of the cardboard feeling of this airplane. As if from a small model made and suspended on a rope for general secret viewing.
  31. alex_molniya
    alex_molniya 27 February 2013 17: 14
    0
    it seems to me that this is "something") came from the crossing of the Su-27 and F-22, just look at the picture yourself !!! and something from eurofighter !!!!)))))))))
  32. miller66
    miller66 4 October 2015 07: 27
    -1
    Carlo and Petruchio were told 10 times that the Russian project is complete and not even noname
    read on and don’t forget to brush off the noodles