The Typhoon is a much shorter plane with, has a smaller length to span ratio, and and most importantly, it doesn't have a large LO fuselage with an internal weapon bay. The pilots can make all the claims they want, the plane is not as capable as a flanker in airshows. I'll refer to the airshows rather than some claims made by biased entities, such as the officer in question and yourself.
Ask anything Thread (Air Force)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
If PLAAF is considered biased then I don’t know who to trust… If Airshow is the only basis then you can argue that J-10 doesn’t fly as well as JF-17 when we both know that is not the case.
Well this is the defence industry, so of course they are going to be biased towards their own product. I expect nothing less. Also comparing the J-20 to a non-thrust vectored Flanker isn't exactly a high bar.
Besides an actual dogfight between two planes, airshows are the only basis for determining how agile an aircraft is. Airshows are the perfect place to flex that muscle, not only for entertainment, but for marketing and prestige. Anything else would be speculation and he said-she said. If the JF-17 puts on a better show than the J-10 then I'll simply assume the JF-17 is better in the maneuvering department, it is smaller and lighter afterall, but then so what? The J-10 is larger, can go farther, can carry more armament, better armament, has better electronics, larger radar, goes faster etc. All these planes nowadays are BVR queens anyways, launch the missile and rtb.
That's a bit short sighted. The J-20 isn't for export and so already does not have an incentive to show off at air shows. You could claim that the J-20 wants to show off and cannot but what's presented is not an argument for this being the case.
Based on what we've seen the J-20 do in terms of roll rate and sustained turn rate from videos, it performs very similarly to your Flanker and F-15. This is already assuming that what's shown is its best performance. This probably isn't the case because it's more likely for the PLAAF to rather protect the performance parameters (at subsonic airshow speeds) of the J-20 rather than flex it... for what reason? We know that CAC has no say in airshow performance and they're also not allowed to sell the J-20.
We've seen J-20 pull some crazy manoeuvres that we have not seen Flankers or Raptors do either - a high alpha, vertical barrel roll.
The rest - roll, climb, instantaneous and sustained turn... they all are among the best fourth gens.
Not only does J-20 appear to match the best fourth gen and 5th gen performance in subsonic speeds, we know it's designed for supersonic turning - long arm canard, low aspect ratio extremely long aircraft with relatively narrow wing width to fuselage length.
The best supersonic performers were touted in the 2000s as EF2000 Typhoon and F-22. J-20 combines the Typhoon's long arm canard and has even more conducive aspect ratio with further slanted back rudders, with the F-22's push. WS-15 would give the J-20 likely even higher thrust to weight than the Raptor. The J-20 is claimed by semi-official sources to weigh in the same ballpark as the Raptor but WS-15 exceeds the F-119, to say nothing about the Raptor's diminished thrust from having square nozzles and TVC.
We know WS-15 has been equipped on J-20 for about a year now and all the batches of J-20 produced since the early 2024 have been with WS-15. They don't show things off until it's relatively dated or the next gen is ready. We'll see plenty more videos of J-20 being pushed after J-50 and J-36 begin LRIP into PLAAF.
Based on what we've seen the J-20 do in terms of roll rate and sustained turn rate from videos, it performs very similarly to your Flanker and F-15. This is already assuming that what's shown is its best performance. This probably isn't the case because it's more likely for the PLAAF to rather protect the performance parameters (at subsonic airshow speeds) of the J-20 rather than flex it... for what reason? We know that CAC has no say in airshow performance and they're also not allowed to sell the J-20.
We've seen J-20 pull some crazy manoeuvres that we have not seen Flankers or Raptors do either - a high alpha, vertical barrel roll.
The rest - roll, climb, instantaneous and sustained turn... they all are among the best fourth gens.
Not only does J-20 appear to match the best fourth gen and 5th gen performance in subsonic speeds, we know it's designed for supersonic turning - long arm canard, low aspect ratio extremely long aircraft with relatively narrow wing width to fuselage length.
The best supersonic performers were touted in the 2000s as EF2000 Typhoon and F-22. J-20 combines the Typhoon's long arm canard and has even more conducive aspect ratio with further slanted back rudders, with the F-22's push. WS-15 would give the J-20 likely even higher thrust to weight than the Raptor. The J-20 is claimed by semi-official sources to weigh in the same ballpark as the Raptor but WS-15 exceeds the F-119, to say nothing about the Raptor's diminished thrust from having square nozzles and TVC.
We know WS-15 has been equipped on J-20 for about a year now and all the batches of J-20 produced since the early 2024 have been with WS-15. They don't show things off until it's relatively dated or the next gen is ready. We'll see plenty more videos of J-20 being pushed after J-50 and J-36 begin LRIP into PLAAF.
Last edited:
Clearly you feel offended by the truth and would rather resort to personal attacks and Sponge Bob, because you ran out of material and can't simply agree to disagree. Moving on.
@siegecrossbow Maybe do your job and prevent personal attacks instead of liking them? Is this what you people call a "professional "OSINT"" forum? What a joke.
I don’t agree with his personal attacks but I do agree with the technical points. They’ve been repeated ad nauseum for over a decade and people are probably sick of debating it at this point.
If the PLA were to claim that the J-20 is vastly superior in every imaginable way in stealth and sensor and what not to any other fifth gen in the world, that would be a case of bias. But claims of performance comparisons with aircraft they actually operate is not and claiming so is decidedly a form of cherry picking.
Last edited:
Wow! I would have thought the close couple canards would have given the J-10A a slight edge in ITR and AoA authority. Thank you!
@Alfa_Particle got way too off topic with that tantrum by the end. Let's just get back on topic rather than trading insults.
do you guys know the empty masses of j-11, j-15, j-16, hopefully with sources? I know wikipedia has numbers but I'm not really inclined to trust them lol