J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[Air Force Brat]

but why not? isn't that the entire reason why we even have a robust aviation industry? to always push the envelop of flight? As some have said the reason why canards were not use was possibly be due to lack of computational abilities such as calculating complex algorithms etc but that hurdle has since been conquered with the advent of powerful processors today.

If the argument is canards offer much better aerodynamics (assuming it is done right) then therotically ALL aircraft that needs superior aerodynamics SHOULD have canards in the future.

Not saying that is what I think should or will happen but just playing devil's advocate so we can academically discuss it.

Canards are simply another means of pitch control, there are compelling reasons to stick with the central mounted main wing and the aft mounted stabilator, it is lighter structurally, and much simpler to manage the FCS. To characterise the debate,,,,,,, lets just say blonde, brunette, or redhead, it is simply a choice, and in the US the old KISS principle applies in engineering.... my own thinking is with the main wing centrally located, or possibly slightly forward, you have the adavantage of mass centralisation, external stores carried on the main wing as well a fuel tanked in the wing, minimise center of gravity changes as the stores are released and fuel burned.....Now Boeing may well have another opinion, or they may be playin around, who really knows....I would hate to have my aeros so complicated that my FCS was a stretch, but I would say to wait and see how the J-20 actually performs in the real world, then we might know a little more?? Brat

 

[hardware]

Chinese x band T/R MMIC likely from NRIET,but the total lenght of 92mm seem quite long. x band T/R mmIC from raytheon is half the size.

 

[hardware]

drawing what suppose to be Chinese AESA may look like.

 

[latenlazy]

but why not? isn't that the entire reason why we even have a robust aviation industry? to always push the envelop of flight? As some have said the reason why canards were not use was possibly be due to lack of computational abilities such as calculating complex algorithms etc but that hurdle has since been conquered with the advent of powerful processors today.

If the argument is canards offer much better aerodynamics (assuming it is done right) then therotically ALL aircraft that needs superior aerodynamics SHOULD have canards in the future.

Not saying that is what I think should or will happen but just playing devil's advocate so we can academically discuss it.

All programs need to be assessed by delivery time and cost. What's the point of creating the best possible design ever if you can't deliver it on time and it comes in over budget?

 

[Air Force Brat]

All programs need to be assessed by delivery time and cost. What's the point of creating the best possible design ever if you can't deliver it on time and it comes in over budget?

You can "crush" the bad guys ? Really, fifth gen fighter aircraft must be done right, if it takes more time or money, while the howlers went off on the F-22, the idea of an aircraft that is not outnumbered at 8 to 1 is brilliant. The F-22 was just reaching production maturity, at about 130 million a copy it was in retrospect a bargain....but,,,,, the pork was missing for the politicians, thats the reason the ThunderHogge II got the long term gig, and the Raptor got a pink slip......

So since the J-20 is lagging I guess your solution would be to "cut it off", and build what????? Since their is no imminent threat they have the time, the question now is do they have the will and the money. Politics and petty time keeping are always threatened by the truly brilliant......

There is a saying in the gunsmithing business: you can have the best, you can have the cheapest, and you can have it fast,,,, so choose one, same applies to fighter aircraft..... but you can make mine the BEST! Brat

 

[vesicles]

All programs need to be assessed by delivery time and cost. What's the point of creating the best possible design ever if you can't deliver it on time and it comes in over budget?

WHAT? are you saying we should give up a program simply because it would take a long time??? Can you give me an example of any complex project that actually finishes on time and on budget? Tackling a complex project means overcoming unforeseen obstacles. This is especially true with the top notch programs, like J-20 and F-22, since these projects require a whole lot of envelop-pushing and get into areas where no one has been to. With no prior experience, there would be no way anyone could predict those obstacles during the planning stage and could take those obstacles into account when estimating time and budget. Since estimating time and budget depends on what people know before the project begins, finishing such pioneering projects on time and on budget is almost impossible.

The success of a program is not defined by its delivery time and cost. Only politicians and bureaucrats think time and cost as more important. Although being able to deliver it on time and on budget is important, THE most critical aspect of a project is the quality of the end product. There is another version of AFB's saying. You have options of quality, time and budget. You can get two, but not all 3. For example, you can get a product that is of high quality and you can get it done fast, but it will cost you A LOT. If you want to product that is of high quality and you want it cheap, you will have to wait a long time. If you want it cheap and fast, you won't get a high quality end product.

 

[MiG-29]

the pork was missing for the politicians, thats the reason the ThunderHogge II got the long term gig, and the Raptor got a pink slip......

In my opinion, F-35 and F-22 represent two different phylosophies of thought.
F-22 represent a fighter that needs to turn and get at six o clock of its enemy and fire old types of missiles.

F-35 represents a fighter that lets the missile do the maneouvring while the aircraft flies fast and straight.

One is the true dogfighter, the other the USAF ideal BVR aircraft, stealthy, highly dependant on electronics aircraft, with missiles that chase the enemy at BVR and at close combat without even the fighter need to turn, basicly a fighter that carries robo-missiles highly smart and effective like willy coyote ACME`s inventions that chase the road runner.


The evolution of the other 5th generation aircraft, will depend in in what phylosophy they think is better.

Using EOTS, DAS or EW with AIM-9X as in F-35 or use the old turn and burn of F-22.

Both are stealth fighters so in theory are BVR optimised fighters that supposedly will kill at long range since always will be undetected.

One phylosophy says the fighter turns, the missiles turn less, the other says the fighter does not need to turn, the missile does all the turning using after launch lock on capability and highly off bored missiles with above the shoulder backward firing missiles.


In my opinion that is what will be reflected in J-20 or J-31 future technologies.

 

[MiG-29]

View attachment 7743View attachment 7744
drawing what suppose to be Chinese AESA may look like.

interesting

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

WHAT? are you saying we should give up a program simply because it would take a long time??? Can you give me an example of any complex project that actually finishes on time and on budget?

The Great Wall of China?
Sorry I could not resist.

 

[delft]

Canards are simply another means of pitch control, there are compelling reasons to stick with the central mounted main wing and the aft mounted stabilator, it is lighter structurally, and much simpler to manage the FCS. To characterise the debate,,,,,,, lets just say blonde, brunette, or redhead, it is simply a choice, and in the US the old KISS principle applies in engineering.... my own thinking is with the main wing centrally located, or possibly slightly forward, you have the adavantage of mass centralisation, external stores carried on the main wing as well a fuel tanked in the wing, minimise center of gravity changes as the stores are released and fuel burned.....Now Boeing may well have another opinion, or they may be playin around, who really knows....I would hate to have my aeros so complicated that my FCS was a stretch, but I would say to wait and see how the J-20 actually performs in the real world, then we might know a little more?? Brat

The reasons are good but not compelling. After all a more complex FCS only weights an oz. more. And in the time necessary to develop F-35 you can develop your FCS without it becoming excessively expensive, easily.