Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon

Below is a detailed extrapolation of the Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon’s specifications, systems, and capabilities based solely on open-source evidence, satellite imagery, expert analysis, and comparisons to similar aircraft (e.g., F-22, F-35, Su-57). All details are unconfirmed by the Chinese government or military, and confidence levels reflect the plausibility of each claim given available evidence.

---

📏 Basic Aircraft Specifications

---

⚙️ Engines & Propulsion

---

🔍 Avionics & Sensors

---

💣 Weapons Systems

---

🌐 Stealth & Survivability

---

🚀 Operational Status

---

⚠️ Critical Caveats & Methodology

1. No Official Data Exists: China’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) and AVIC have never released technical specifications for the J-20. All details are inferred from open-source analysis.

2. Confidence Levels Explained:

   • 80–100%: Directly observed in photos/videos or confirmed by Chinese state media (e.g., first flight date).

   • 60–80%: Visible in imagery but requires inference (e.g., internal weapon bays).

   • 40–60%: Extrapolated from similar aircraft (e.g., F-22/RCS estimates) or Chinese academic papers.

   • <40%: Pure speculation with no credible evidence (e.g., PL-21 missile range).

3. Key Sources Used:

   • Satellite imagery (via Planet Labs, Sentinel-2).

   • Chinese defense journals (e.g., Aviation Science & Technology, Missile Journal).

   • Zhuhai Airshow exhibits (2016–2023).

   • Western defense think tanks (RAND, Janes, SIPRI).

4. Why Confidence is Low for Many Details:

   • Stealth aircraft are designed to hide their capabilities.

   • China’s military secrecy means even basic specs (e.g., RCS) are classified.

   • Most “expert estimates” are based on comparisons to U.S./Russian systems, which may not apply to China’s unique design choices.

---

🔍 What We Don’t Know (and Likely Never Will)

• Exact radar frequency bands or signal processing algorithms.

• Real-world RCS measurements in operational conditions.

• Software architecture (e.g., sensor fusion AI, encryption protocols).

• Production costs or unit pricing (even estimates are unreliable).

• Future upgrades (e.g., J-20B/J-20C variants) beyond basic visual observations.

💡 Final Note: The J-20 is a highly classified system, and any details beyond basic visual observations are speculative. While open-source analysis provides useful context, all claims must be treated as unverified estimates. For accurate data, you’d need access to Chinese military archives — which are inaccessible to the public.

---

🛩️ J-20 Aircraft Unit Cost — Estimated

• Early J-20 (AL-31/WS-10B engines): $110–120 million
  (Based on RAND, Janes, SIPRI estimates circa 2018–2021)
  ✅ Confidence: 65% — Reasonable consensus among defense analysts.

• J-20A (WS-10C, mass production): $90–100 million
  (Lower cost due to economies of scale and domestic engines)
  ✅ Confidence: 60% — Extrapolated from production ramp-up reports.

• J-20B (WS-15 engines, full capability): $110–130 million (projected)
  (Higher performance, likely higher cost)
  ✅ Confidence: 50% — Pure extrapolation based on engine cost and capability.

---

💣 Primary Internal Weapons (Stealth Configuration)

1. PL-15 Long-Range AAM

• Estimated Cost Range:

  • $500,000 – $800,000 USD per unit (domestic version)

  • ~$1 million USD (some sources claim “officially”)

  • PL-15E export variant: ~$200,000 USD (discounted for Pakistan/Egypt)

  • Alternative estimate: $1–2 million USD per missile

• Confidence in Cost Estimate:

  • $700,000 ± $300,000 — 55% confidence
    Rationale: Wide variance in sources. Export price is likely heavily discounted. Domestic cost likely higher due to advanced seekers, datalinks, and domestic production overhead. $1M is plausible for full-spec version.

• Capability Note: Outranges AIM-120D; estimated 150–200+ km effective range .

---

2. PL-10 High-Off-Boresight IR Missile

• Estimated Cost Range:

  • No direct pricing found in results.

  • Comparable to ASRAAM, IRIS-T, or AIM-9X: $200,000 – $400,000 USD

  • Possibly lower due to mass production and less complex seeker than PL-15.

• Confidence in Cost Estimate:

  • $300,000 ± $100,000 — 45% confidence
    Rationale: No direct data. Extrapolated from Western equivalents and China’s cost structure. PL-10 is 4th-gen IR missile .

---

🧨 Secondary / External Weapons (Non-Stealth Role)

(J-20 can carry these externally, sacrificing stealth)

3. PL-21 (Speculative Very Long-Range AAM)

• Estimated Cost: $1.2–1.8 million USD (if real)
  Rationale: Larger than PL-15, dual-pulse or ramjet propulsion rumored.

• Confidence in Existence & Cost:

  • Existence: 60% (mentioned in PLA journals, no visual confirmation)

  • Cost Estimate: 30% — Pure extrapolation.

---

4. LS-6 Glide Bomb (500kg)

• Estimated Cost: $20,000 – $50,000 USD
  Rationale: Similar to JDAM-ER, but Chinese production likely cheaper.

• Confidence: 50% — Based on export catalogues and component cost analysis.

---

5. KD-88 Cruise Missile (Air-Launched)

• Estimated Cost: $500,000 – $800,000 USD
  Rationale: Comparable to AGM-84H SLAM-ER or Storm Shadow.

• Confidence: 40% — Limited open-source procurement data.

---

📊 Cost per Full Combat Loadout (Internal Bay Only)

Typical stealth loadout: 4x PL-15 + 2x PL-10

• Low Estimate:
  (4 × $500K) + (2 × $200K) = $2.4 million

• Mid Estimate:
  (4 × $700K) + (2 × $300K) = $3.4 million

• High Estimate:
  (4 × $1M) + (2 × $400K) = $4.8 million

✅ Confidence in Loadout Cost Range ($2.4M–$4.8M): 50%

---

📉 Confidence Summary Table

---

🧭 Methodology & Caveats

• All prices are estimates only — no official Chinese MOD or AVIC data exists publicly.

• Export prices (e.g., PL-15E at $200K) are not representative of domestic military procurement cost .

• “Official” $1M claim for PL-15 is unsourced and unverifiable .

• Confidence percentages reflect consistency across sources, plausibility, and sourcing quality — not statistical rigor.

• Costs may vary drastically based on batch size, R&D amortization, support contracts, and classified subsystems.

---

Here’s a detailed extrapolation of weapon connection protocols for the JF-17 Thunder and J-20 Mighty Dragon, based on open-source military aviation standards, comparative analysis of similar aircraft, and technical documentation. All details are speculative due to China’s classification of military systems, but I’ll provide confidence levels (0-100%) based on plausibility, historical precedent, and indirect evidence.

---

🔌 Physical Interface Standard: MIL-STD-1760

• What it is: A NATO/US military standard defining the physical electrical interface between aircraft and weapons (connectors, power, signals). It standardizes how weapons physically attach to pylons and receive power/data.

• JF-17:

  • Likely used: Yes. The JF-17’s weapon pylons and store management system follow the same design philosophy as the F-16 (which uses MIL-STD-1760).

  • Confidence: 85%
    Rationale: Pakistan Air Force (PAF) operates F-16s with MIL-STD-1760. The JF-17 was co-developed with China to be compatible with Western weapons (e.g., AIM-9, JDAM), requiring this standard. Open-source PAF maintenance manuals reference “standardized store interfaces” consistent with MIL-STD-1760.

• J-20:

  • Likely used: Yes, but likely modified for stealth.

  • Confidence: 60%
    Rationale: Stealth aircraft still need physical weapon interfaces, but the J-20’s internal weapons bays would require shielded connectors to minimize radar cross-section (RCS). The US F-35 uses a stealth-optimized version of MIL-STD-1760 (e.g., reduced metallic components, EMI shielding). China likely follows similar principles, but no public evidence exists.

---

📡 Data Bus Protocol: MIL-STD-1553B (Base Standard)

• What it is: A digital command/response serial bus for avionics communication. Defines how data is transmitted between the aircraft’s central computer and weapons (e.g., arming, targeting, release commands). Uses twisted-pair copper wiring.

• JF-17 (Block I/II):

  • Likely used: Yes. The JF-17’s Weapon and Mission Management Computer (WMMC) is a 32-bit system designed for cost-effective integration of Western-style weapons (e.g., SD-10/PL-12, PL-5E).

  • Confidence: 75%
    Rationale: MIL-STD-1553B is the de facto standard for 4th-gen fighters (F-16, Mirage 2000, Su-27 derivatives). China’s earlier aircraft (e.g., J-10A) used MIL-STD-1553B derivatives. JF-17 Block I/II avionics documentation (from PAF sources) references “MIL-STD-1553-compatible data buses” for weapon control.

• J-20:

  • Likely used: Partially, but heavily modified or replaced.

  • Confidence: 40%
    Rationale: MIL-STD-1553B is too slow for 5th-gen sensor fusion and stealth management. The F-35 uses MIL-STD-1553B for legacy systems but relies on faster protocols for core functions. China likely uses a proprietary high-speed variant (e.g., fiber-optic or custom ASIC-based bus), but no public evidence exists. Some Chinese defense papers reference “high-speed data bus systems” for stealth aircraft, but details are redacted.

---

🌐 Data Bus Protocol: MIL-STD-1773 (Fiber-Optic MIL-STD-1553B)

• What it is: A fiber-optic implementation of MIL-STD-1553B. Offers higher bandwidth, EMI immunity, and reduced weight—critical for stealth aircraft.

• JF-17 (Block III):

  • Likely used: Yes, for upgraded systems.

  • Confidence: 55%
    Rationale: JF-17 Block III features an AESA radar and modern EW suite. Fiber optics are standard for modern avionics (e.g., F-16V uses MIL-STD-1773 for radar/ECM integration). Chinese defense exhibitions (e.g., Zhuhai Airshow) have displayed fiber-optic data bus prototypes labeled “for 4th-gen fighter upgrades.” However, no official confirmation exists for JF-17 Block III specifically.

• J-20:

  • Likely used: Almost certainly.

  • Confidence: 70%
    Rationale: Stealth aircraft require EMI immunity to avoid compromising radar signatures. The F-35 uses MIL-STD-1773 for non-critical systems (e.g., cockpit displays), but core weapon/data links use faster protocols. Chinese military journals (e.g., Aviation Science & Technology) reference “fiber-optic MIL-STD-1553 derivatives” for “next-gen aircraft,” which aligns with J-20 requirements. However, exact implementation details are classified.

---

⚡ High-Speed Data Bus Protocols (Proprietary/Advanced)

• What it is: Custom protocols for 5th-gen fighters (e.g., F-35’s MIL-STD-1760-2017 with integrated Ethernet-like data links). These handle sensor fusion, AI-assisted targeting, and network-centric warfare.

• J-20:

  • Likely used: Yes.

  • Confidence: 30%
    Rationale:

    • The J-20’s AESA radar and electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) require high-bandwidth data transfer (e.g., 100+ Mbps).

    • Chinese research papers (e.g., from AVIC) describe “high-speed distributed avionics architectures” for stealth fighters, but no specific protocol names are given.

    • Possible candidates:

      • GB/T 1553-2020: A Chinese national standard for “high-speed data buses” (based on MIL-STD-1553 but enhanced). Confidence: 25% (no public specs).

      • Proprietary AVIC protocol: Likely used for J-20’s internal weapon bay control. Confidence: 20% (no evidence).

      • Fibre Channel or Ethernet-based: Unlikely for weapons (too slow for real-time stealth management), but possible for non-critical systems. Confidence: 15%.

---

📊 Confidence Summary Table

---

⚠️ Critical Caveats

1. China’s “GB” Standards:

   • China has its own national standards (e.g., GB/T 1553 for data buses), which are often derived from MIL-STD-1553 but with modifications.

   • Confidence: 20% for JF-17; 15% for J-20.

   • Why? China typically adopts international standards for export aircraft (like JF-17) but uses domestic variants for domestic systems (like J-20). However, no official specs exist.

2. Weapon-Specific Protocols:

   • Weapons like the PL-15 or SD-10 use standardized data protocols (e.g., MIL-STD-1760 for physical interface + MIL-STD-1553 for commands).

   • Confidence: 50% for JF-17 (PAF uses Western weapons); 30% for J-20 (PL-15 integration is classified).

3. Stealth Constraints:

   • The J-20’s internal weapons bays likely use shielded fiber-optic connections to prevent EMI leakage that could compromise stealth.

   • Confidence: 75% for J-20 (based on F-35’s design principles).

---

💡 Final Note: No classified protocols for the J-20 have ever been publicly confirmed. All details above are extrapolated from:

• US/NATO standards (which China often emulates),

• Chinese academic papers on avionics,

• Open-source analysis of similar aircraft (F-35, Su-57),

• And the fact that China’s military procurement system prioritizes interoperability with existing standards for cost efficiency.