Huitong website,claim that J-16 may be fitted with AESA radar.which is likely.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Huitong website,claim that J-16 may be fitted with AESA radar.which is likely.
Quickie
Colonel
It should be that the J-20 does not have to fly with TVC because its benefits are questionable because of its canard delta design.
Even the British designers don’t agree to the use of TVC in the early Typhoon design.
From Wikipedia,
“the simultaneous West German requirement for a new fighter had led by 1979 to the development of the TKF-90 concept.[10][11] This was a cranked delta wing design with forward canard controls and artificial stability. Although the British Aerospace designers rejected some of its advanced features such as vectoring engine nozzles and vented trailing-edge controls, they agreed with the overall configuration.”
Last edited:
I didn't say that was not likely. I am saying that your post on the translation of the banner is wrong. Plus... is Huitong the authority in Chinese aviation and airforce? I normally take words of forumers and bloggers with a pinch of salt and waited for the official announcement. Although in this case, I would expect (and hope) that J-16 would be fitted with AESA.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I've seen Huitong miss on some but he mentioned that the J-20 prototype was built in Oct before it was seen first in Dec.
As you may have read through countless other sources the Eurofighter pilots did things that were outside the boundaries of the exercises to obtain those shots. Things like jumping F-22s AFTER the order to "knock it off" was given or when F-22s were heading back to base. And as we all know the F-22's were detuned to make stealth less of an advantage because F-22 would have killed those Eurofighters long before they got within visual range to even get into dogfighting positions.
In other words you are admitting that J-20 when carrying out these maneuvers using its canards deflected at maximum angles is in the end game desperately fighting for its life. Right?
Bottom line it seems that all these people claiming that TVC is not a factor to reckoned with are talking sour grapes because they do not possess TVG on their aircraft.
One point I would like to bring up is how do these people know about the limitations of TVC anyway when they do not fight and train against aircraft equipped with TVC every day?
And it would make sense to me that F-22 held back during these exercises to not reveal fully the complete bag of tricks F-22 possesses. Common sense says they would.
Thrust vectoring is built into the flight control system, so it works automatically in response to commands from the pilot. When the pilot turns the aircraft, the nozzle moves in the desired direction along with the elevator, rudder and aileron control surfaces. That degree of integration is at least a generation ahead of the Eurofighter and anything else that is flying today.
Remember the key word is integration
Engineer
Major
This is not about stealth, but maneuverability. Obviously, the F-22 carried corner reflectors to make the aircraft easier to spot to facilitate WVR exercises, but that has nothing to do with maneuverability. This also isn't about which aircraft is better. It is about how aircraft without TVC can evenly match with aircraft that have TVC.
Nope.
By the way, an aircraft having to resort to TVC in the end game would be in a desperate fight for its life.
USAF doesn't retrofit older aircraft with TVC even though US is perfectly capable of doing so, as demonstrated by F-16 MATV and F-18 HARV. Countries operating Eurofighters don't opt to install TVN even though Eurojet offers one that can fit onto existing engines. Actions are louder than words, and the fact that some of the best air forces in the world reject TVC on their front line aircraft trumps the marketing gimmicks repeated by random kids on a forum. That's the bottom line.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
Look what you write is pure fantasy, to start let us see the
compare the wing loading of F-22 and Eurofighter what do you find?
yes you find that F-22 has higher wing loading, despite it has a huge wing actually has worse wing loading than Eurofighter.
I know in your fantasies you expect J-20 to be as light as Eurofighter but
how much does F-16 and F-35 weight at empty weight?
answer is simple F-16 weighs 9 tonnes, F-35 weighs 13 tonnes.
I know you think J-20 has similar numbers to Eurofighter, but not J-20 is at least 5.5 meters bigger than Eurofighter and at least it weighs 9 tonnes more at empty weight.
compare the Thrust to weight ratio of F-22 and Eurofighter what do you find?
well you find that F-22 is in the class of F-15, that actually Eurofighter has higher thrust to weight ratio.
So then why F-22 having the numbers of F-15 is much better than F-15 in maneouvrability, do you want to know the answer?
TVC nozzles and internal weapons bays, yes that is the answer, internal weapons bay that reduce drag and TVC nozzles increase turn rates.
I know you are thinking your self how come an Eurofighter can match a F-22 in agility, give it fight and in dogfights beat it.
the answer lies in two factors,
Eurofighter has in a very low wing loading configuration a wing loading of 330 kilograms square meters, while F-22 something in the range of 400kg over square meters.
Eurofighter supercruises, so in a light configuration has relatively low drag even carrying external stores and weapons.
So why J-20 can not compare to Eurofighter?
The answer lies in two factors thrust to weight ratio and cross section.
F-22 is heavier than F-15 at empty weight F-15 weighs 13 tonnes while F-22 19 tonnes.
F-35 weighs 13 tonnes F-16 9 tonnes
all stealth aircraft are heavier than the generation before due to larger cross sections.
Why? first they use S ducts this increases weight, second internal weapons bays increase volume and weight.
now, stealth shaping always increases drag yes i know you think J-20 is more aerodynamic than Eurofighter, but not Eurofighter has a bullet shaped forebody like Su-27 or any missile or ICBM.
However Eurofighter and Su-27 have a disadvantage external weapons increase drag too, So J-11 or Eurofighter increase drag a lot fully loaded.
That is the reason Su-30MKI has thrust vectoring
So answer to your statement does J-20 need TVC nozzles? answer yes it does.
Because the need to carry large weapons bays, add S ducts increases weight on J-20, plus its large faceted cross section increase drag.
So to answer you why Eurofighter can compete with F-22 in agility, the answer is at expense of weapons carriage, a light loaded Eurofighter can compete with F-22 in agility but only in a very light configuration otherwise it will not be able to compete.
However F-22 is not inferior to Eurofighter but that is thanks to TVC nozzles without it the F-22 is not better than F-16 or F-15, but with helmet mounted sights more or less both are even in dogfights.
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
you are saying the truth, TVC nozzles is always an asset, it fixes disadvantages of stealth, increases the ability to carry more weight and load, increases STOL, turn rate, decreases drag, increases thrust and range
so to put it in context a J-11 or J-20 with TVC nozzles makes them better fighters
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Oh boohoo! The naughty Euros cheated! I mean that is the only conceivable way how a top-of-the-line canard delta design could possibly outperform a conventional layout design in WVR combat despite all the inherent agility advantages the canard delta offers compared to a conventional layout.
Substitute 'TVC' with 'canards' and this statement would just as accurately apply to the USAF wrt their well documented distrust of canards would it not?
So, either the American are also sucking sour grapes regarding canards, or maybe you could give the people designing these fighters and making these decisions, you know, the guys with PhDs in engineering and aerodynamics and who are world leaders in terms of their knowledge and expertise, the slightest bit of respect and common curtsey and not assume that they are complete morons.
The Chinese have displayed a working TVC nozzle over 10 years ago when Jiang Ze Min was still calling the shots, and in the intervening years, the Russians have been desperate to sell TVC engines to China, even jumping the gun on several occasions to report sales that never occurred.
If you were a betting man, what odds would you give that the Russians did not provide a full set of comprehensive technical specifications to the Chinese? It is even very likely that a few sample engines were supplied. With that kind of information, it would have been relatively straight forward for the Chinese to plug the numbers into their computer modeling to see just how much of an improvement TVC would have made to their designs. If the improvements were suitably big to justify the increased weight cost and reduced MTBO, then the Chinese would have bought engines with TVC nozzles from the Russians.
But since the Chinese refused to take the Russians up on their offer even though they are still buying regular AL31FNs from Russia, it would seem that the only reasonable explanation for the PLA's lack of TVC is because they are either not interested in TVC as a concept because TVC would add comparatively little to their canard delta designs, or not impressed by Russian TVC technology, and did not think the performance improvements justified all the costs of adding TVC.
Based on Dr Song's paper which suggested the use of TVC on the J20, it would seem that CAC at least is leaning towards the second reason, especially since they are still on best of terms with Russia and would be able to import TVC equipped Russian engines at a whim.
That is not an example of sour grapes, it is an example of not being a wide-eyed idiot who is so easily impressed by air show stunts.
That's just TVC being integrated into the FBW system. The only thing new is the fact that there is a TVC nozzle, the basic underlining principle is precisely the same as any modern FBW aircraft where the computer automatically directs all control surfaces to their optimal positioning to achieve the movement the pilot desires. If the Europeans wanted to put TVC on the Rafale/Typhoon or if CAC put TVC on the J10, the existing FBW software would be able to do exactly what you suggested, all you need to do is tell the computer where to point the nozzle to perform a certain maneuver.
The only thing that level of integration is a generation ahead of is the first makeshift attempts the Russians made with TVC where they had a switch that manually activated it. Even the latest Su35 would have the kind of integrated TVC FBW you are bragging about.
Lets just say that Fighter pilots are a competitive lot and don't like to lose
The difference between a canard system and a TVC system is that in a tight turn the canards are generating drag as they deflect to tighten a turn while the TVC as it is designed on the F22 is continuously using thrust to tighten that turn. Two different answers to the same question
The key point that I continue to hammer away at is the the TVC is an integral part of the total flight control system. It is that feature that makes it unique. Software and hardware work together to allow the pilot to carry out smooth seemly impossible maneuvers. I know you have seen F-22s performing back-flips and falling leaf maneuvers at air shows.
Take a look at the F-22 for yourself.
Now watch the Eurofighter at Paris last year
You be the judge!
- Status