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

[Engineer]

Well that data already is available

see
Figure 9-15. Role rate performance, showing the effect of thrust vectoring. (Courtesy of LMAS)

in fact see

The F-22 is the most recent airplane to require high angle of attack capability. Charles Wilson from Lockheed Martin gave a talk at Virginia Tech in November of 1996. He left a copy of the charts he used in his discussion of the high angle of attack development effort. He showed the effect of the LE flap schedule on the lateral/directional characteristics and the nose down pitching moment across the angle of attack range including the effect of thrust vectoring. Finally, he included the maximum roll rate as a function of angle of attack, also showing the benefit of thrust vectoring, and in comparison with the F-15. Copies of selected viewgraphs from his presentation are shown here in Figures 9-12 through 9-15. A related paper on the F-22 is by Clark and Bernens.1

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The charts show F-22 without TVC nozzles is even inferior to the F-16

yes you said TVC nozzles do not help STR which is also false

The figure you are referring to in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

shows roll rate, which has nothing to do with turn rate. I know you like to use pitch, roll, yaw and turn rates interchangeably to misrepresent, but that isn't going to alter how all these terms refer to separate parameters.

The aircraft can keep on rolling and its flight direction will remain the same. So, your data does not support your claim about thrust vectoring providing lift to increase turn rate. In fact, when we look at the sustained turn-rate of the two aircraft, F-16's value is only at 21.5 degrees per second which is clearly inferior to F-22's value of 28 degrees per second.

 

[Deino]

guys please not this again. i'm sick to death with this stuff. thought leaving sinodefenceforum for a year would improve but its still the same so much off topic nonsense.

I think I have nothing more to add !!! We - or should I say the usual suspects - are once again completele off-topic.

Therefore please return to the J-20 even if there's currently not much to tell ....

Deino

 

[Inst]

My point of view is that the J-20 or J-20A will not have TVC or EODAS installed, but it is possible or even likely that J-20B and J-20C future upgrades will have TVC nozzles and EODAS on the aircraft, alongside a possible fin-less configuration for increased stealth and maneuverability.

As I've said before, the F-35 project is a big warning to all the other aerospace projects out there; you do one thing first, then you do an upgraded version of it, instead of designing it for all systems and putting everything together in one tranche, which will be inevitably delayed until the point that your airframe is no longer technologically advanced compared to the competitors.

The Chinese are likely to be smart enough to understand the limitations of their R&D system and the difficulty of attempting a moon-shot stealth fighter project. Better to get a stealth aircraft with AESA, canards, and a decent engine up in the air, then upgrade the aircraft as time goes on to newer and more modern configurations instead of being stuck in development hell.

 

[Blitzo]

My point of view is that the J-20 or J-20A will not have TVC or EODAS installed, but it is possible or even likely that J-20B and J-20C future upgrades will have TVC nozzles and EODAS on the aircraft, alongside a possible fin-less configuration for increased stealth and maneuverability.

As I've said before, the F-35 project is a big warning to all the other aerospace projects out there; you do one thing first, then you do an upgraded version of it, instead of designing it for all systems and putting everything together in one tranche, which will be inevitably delayed until the point that your airframe is no longer technologically advanced compared to the competitors.

The Chinese are likely to be smart enough to understand the limitations of their R&D system and the difficulty of attempting a moon-shot stealth fighter project. Better to get a stealth aircraft with AESA, canards, and a decent engine up in the air, then upgrade the aircraft as time goes on to newer and more modern configurations instead of being stuck in development hell.

So basically the basis of your argument against EODAS is your own opinion, ignoring a few reliable anecdotes that the plane will feature some sort of passive detection system, and ignoring various apertures along the airframe which very much seem to resemble similar windows on other aircraft?

And how exactly is the prospect of the first iteration of J-20 featuring TVC and an EODAS like system a valid comparison to the F-35? The main reasons for F-35's delay and overruns is because they're making three different planes out of one airframe, if J-20 was a programme designed as a VSTOL and CATOBAR fighter as well, then you'd make a fair point.

Further, passive detection systems aren't exactly revolutionary and a twenty first century development that chinese aerospace industries have no experience with. There isn't some discrete category between "EODAS" and more standard IRST and MAWS on existing aircraft, it's a continuum. Maybe the J-20's DAS-like system won't be as capable as the F-35s, or maybe it won't be as orientated towards the ground surveillance and attack role, but there's nothing against why the aircraft wouldn't feature some form of passive detection.

 

[vesicles]

guys please not this again. i'm sick to death with this stuff. thought leaving sinodefenceforum for a year would improve but its still the same so much off topic nonsense.

What kind of "stuff" are you referring to? If you are talking about the EODAS/engine/TVC stuff that some fellow members are debating heatedly, I would have to beg to differ. I am no expert in physics/engineering at all, that's why my head spins whenever I see posts like that. Too technical for me. HOWEVER, that does not mean this kind of stuff should not be discussed. Not at all!! on the contrary, we should have more members who have the expertise to discuss this kind of stuff so that we, or should I say "people like me", can learn. As a matter of fact, I have learned a great deal of "stuff" ever since Mig-29 and Engineer started discussing TVC, among other stuff. Although I don't have the knowledge to know who is right, at least now I know that TVC is not absolutely the gold standard and that it has advantages and disadvantages. And more importantly, I now see both sides of the story. Isn't this why we join forums like this? To learn more and to find out both sides of the story?

I have to admit that, like I said above, my head spins whenever I see Engineer and Mig-29 go at it again. And most of the time, I can't even finish their posts because it's too technical for me. However, I feel that even if I can only finish 1/3 of the material in their posts, I am learning a great deal! This is actually one of the main reasons that I joined this forum. Yes, the photos are cool to watch, but the actual technical stuff is what actually matters. We should feel fortunate that we have so many experts in various fields on this forum, providing valuable knowledge. If I simply want to see some photos, I can Google it and see beautiful pics on "Google Image". And Let's make no mistake about it, ALL you get would be photos. No head-spinning technical stuff and no heated discussion of any kind...

And I don't think these discussions are off-topic at all. They are discussing crucial components of J-20. And this is a J-20 thread. So in my opinion, their discussion is on-topic.

 

[Air Force Brat]

What kind of "stuff" are you referring to? If you are talking about the EODAS/engine/TVC stuff that some fellow members are debating heatedly, I would have to beg to differ. I am no expert in physics/engineering at all, that's why my head spins whenever I see posts like that. Too technical for me. HOWEVER, that does not mean this kind of stuff should not be discussed. Not at all!! on the contrary, we should have more members who have the expertise to discuss this kind of stuff so that we, or should I say "people like me", can learn. As a matter of fact, I have learned a great deal of "stuff" ever since Mig-29 and Engineer started discussing TVC, among other stuff. Although I don't have the knowledge to know who is right, at least now I know that TVC is not absolutely the gold standard and that it has advantages and disadvantages. And more importantly, I now see both sides of the story. Isn't this why we join forums like this? To learn more and to find out both sides of the story?

I have to admit that, like I said above, my head spins whenever I see Engineer and Mig-29 go at it again. And most of the time, I can't even finish their posts because it's too technical for me. However, I feel that even if I can only finish 1/3 of the material in their posts, I am learning a great deal! This is actually one of the main reasons that I joined this forum. Yes, the photos are cool to watch, but the actual technical stuff is what actually matters. We should feel fortunate that we have so many experts in various fields on this forum, providing valuable knowledge. If I simply want to see some photos, I can Google it and see beautiful pics on "Google Image". And Let's make no mistake about it, ALL you get would be photos. No head-spinning technical stuff and no heated discussion of any kind...

And I don't think these discussions are off-topic at all. They are discussing crucial components of J-20. And this is a J-20 thread. So in my opinion, their discussion is on-topic.

Very well stated sir, add my Amen to your statement, and thank you for articulating that. Brat

 

[kyanges]

What kind of "stuff" are you referring to? If you are talking about the EODAS/engine/TVC stuff that some fellow members are debating heatedly, I would have to beg to differ. I am no expert in physics/engineering at all, that's why my head spins whenever I see posts like that. Too technical for me. HOWEVER, that does not mean this kind of stuff should not be discussed. Not at all!! on the contrary, we should have more members who have the expertise to discuss this kind of stuff so that we, or should I say "people like me", can learn. As a matter of fact, I have learned a great deal of "stuff" ever since Mig-29 and Engineer started discussing TVC, among other stuff. Although I don't have the knowledge to know who is right, at least now I know that TVC is not absolutely the gold standard and that it has advantages and disadvantages. And more importantly, I now see both sides of the story. Isn't this why we join forums like this? To learn more and to find out both sides of the story?

I have to admit that, like I said above, my head spins whenever I see Engineer and Mig-29 go at it again. And most of the time, I can't even finish their posts because it's too technical for me. However, I feel that even if I can only finish 1/3 of the material in their posts, I am learning a great deal! This is actually one of the main reasons that I joined this forum. Yes, the photos are cool to watch, but the actual technical stuff is what actually matters. We should feel fortunate that we have so many experts in various fields on this forum, providing valuable knowledge. If I simply want to see some photos, I can Google it and see beautiful pics on "Google Image". And Let's make no mistake about it, ALL you get would be photos. No head-spinning technical stuff and no heated discussion of any kind...

And I don't think these discussions are off-topic at all. They are discussing crucial components of J-20. And this is a J-20 thread. So in my opinion, their discussion is on-topic.

They were arguing about TVC on the F-22 vs the F-15. TVC may be a J-20 component in the future, but it isn't now, and again, they weren't even arguing about TVC on the J-20, but on the F-22 vs the F-15. That's the "stuff" he's referring to.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[hardware]

do J-20 carry gun?

 

[Air Force Brat]

do J-20 carry gun?

I'm rather certain it will, probably some internal cannon as its intended mission is A2A. Brat

 

[delft]

I was thinking about the claim mentioned recently in this thread that F-22 is able to achieve 6 g at a formidable altitude. I think J-20 might be able to do the same if the thrust of the engines can be increased. Two ways to do that were used in piston engines during WWII: injecting a nitrogen oxide or a mixture of water and methanol to improve take off performance and, for fighters, increase power during combat at high altitude. The second was often used in early turbojet and turboprop engine to improve take off performance (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). J-20 might have adapted engines and carry enough water methanol mixture to achieve the higher thrust during a few minutes. Compare that with using TVC with its added weight and reduced thrust which for a US engine is less of a problem than for a Chine engine at this point in the development.