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

[latenlazy]

There are different type of maneuverability. The most versatile and effective type of maneuverability in air combat is energy maneuverability. Energy maneuverability requires the ability to in moving to and from combat, and having high thrust to weight ratio in combat. This in turn puts a premium on engine performance.

Here china has been and remains behind.

In the 1950s, Chinese favored agility with its fleet of mig 15, 17 and 19 in confrontations with American pilots in Korea and with American trained pilots over Taiwan strait. Agility is different from maneuverability. Agility is the ability of an aircraft to rapidly change its heading. Maneuverability is the ability of an aircraft to rapidly move between different altitudes and locations in the battlefield. And agile aircraft might turn in a very small circle. And maneuverable aircraft might turn in a big circle, but it can complete the circle in less time than an agile aircraft. And agile aircraft might break left and then break right in a split second. And maneuverable aircraft might not go from the one to the other as quickly, but can cover more distance to the left or right more quickly once it has braked. An agile aircraft might pull out of dive and enter a climb very quickly. But an maneuverable aircraft can gain or lose altitude much more quickly.

By the late 1960s, fighter designers have done comprehensive studies of all the air-air combat victories ever recorded. They came to a startling conclusion, which is between two situationally aware pilots maneuverability trumps agility every time. An skilled and alert pilot in an agile aircraft can only some times avoid getting shot down, but always has little chance of shooting down a skilled and alert pilot in an maneuverable aircraft. A skilled pilot in an maneuverable aircraft on the other hand, can usually shoot down a skilled pilot in a agile aircraft. Furthermore a pilot in a maneuverable aircraft is much more likely to catch a pilot in a agile aircraft unaware than the other way around. Being caught unaware by the opponent who is gunning for you turned out to be responsible for more than half of all losses in combat between fighters.

So all fighters designed since 1970s has emphasized maneuverability over agility of the sort the Chinese PLAAF had believed to be critical during air battles over Taiwan straits in the 1950s.

I wonder if agility makes a comeback if stealth makes getting a lock hard. Certainly it would matter more in a gun fight than an exchange of missiles.

I also wonder if improved missiles makes maneuverability less important than agility. You may not be able to out turn modern missiles but you may be able shake then with a quick roll or some very quick instantaneous turn.

 

[chuck731]

If we use your definition of agility as quick nose-pointing ability and maneuverability as the ability for an aircraft to circle behind an opponent, the case with China is quite opposite to what you have claimed. Take the J-10 as an example, China could have import thrust vectoring engines from Russia to improve the aircraft's agility. Instead, China is content with not having thrust-vectoring even with the J-10B. For the J-20, Song Wencong's paper emphasizes lift rather than quick noise-pointing ability, and lift is what gives an aircraft good maneuverability.

I said all fighters designed after 1970 favored energy maneuverability over agility. That would include the j-10.

 

[chuck731]

I wonder if agility makes a comeback if stealth makes getting a lock hard. Certainly it would matter more in a gun fight than an exchange of missiles.

I also wonder if improved missiles makes maneuverability less important than agility. You may not be able to out turn modern missiles but you may be able shake then with a quick roll or some very quick instantaneous turn.

Energy maneuverability is much more useful to shaking off missiles than agility.

Agility merely mean you can initiate maneuvers more quickly. It doesn't mean your maneuvers can be accomplished more quickly. Modern missiles don't want for reaction time. You can't take them by surprise by initiating unexpected maneuvers quickly. What you need to do is to be able to accomplish a maneuver that would put you outside the missile seeker's field of view. Initiate that quickly, and you might be slightly ahead. Accomplish that quickly and you get a new lease on life.

 

[no_name]

Would it be ironic if J-20 turns out to be just as good multirole as air superiority fighter?

Like a F-15 with stealth.

 

[kyanges]

Would it be ironic if J-20 turns out to be just as good multirole as air superiority fighter?

Like a F-15 with stealth.

I just want to see it at least match the F-22 in missile load first. I just feel like it would be a crying shame to be larger than the F-22, yet pack fewer missiles.


On a separate note, I want to thank everyone who talked about the canard cutout. Really helped me think about it in some ways I didn't before.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Wow what happened here in the last 24 hours? I'm confused as hell what is allowed and not allowed in here.

 

[xiabonan]

I just want to see it at least match the F-22 in missile load first. I just feel like it would be a crying shame to be larger than the F-22, yet pack fewer missiles.


On a separate note, I want to thank everyone who talked about the canard cutout. Really helped me think about it in some ways I didn't before.

Problem is, how do you know that J20 can only carry 4? I don't recall any of those photos. Plus, photos of themain weapon bay cut out is available, why not compare the length of it with that of the F22 first, before making any judgement? Also, I believe there are more than one configuration and more than one missile available, so if we don't know all of those, why feel 'ashamed' just based on assumptions?

 

[chuck731]

Would it be ironic if J-20 turns out to be just as good multirole as air superiority fighter?

Like a F-15 with stealth.

Modern heavy fighters, by virtue of enormous power to weight ratio, could naturally carry a lot of ordinance. The availability of stand off weapons means the fighter needn't fly nap of the earth to evade air defence and can attack ground targets from a long range away and from altitude where fighters normally operate.

So this means yes, j-20 will be able to form the basis of a formidable strike bomber.

 

[kyanges]

Problem is, how do you know that J20 can only carry 4? I don't recall any of those photos. Plus, photos of themain weapon bay cut out is available, why not compare the length of it with that of the F22 first, before making any judgement? Also, I believe there are more than one configuration and more than one missile available, so if we don't know all of those, why feel 'ashamed' just based on assumptions?

My point was I wanted to see how the J-20 was outfitted for air to air before considering other roles.

 

[xiabonan]

Modern heavy fighters, by virtue of enormous power to weight ratio, could naturally carry a lot of ordinance. The availability of stand off weapons means the fighter needn't fly nap of the earth to evade air defence and can attack ground targets from a long range away and from altitude where fighters normally operate.

So this means yes, j-20 will be able to form the basis of a formidable strike bomber.

I seriously laughed to myself upon seeing the phrase 'strike bomber'

And then I went to check my calender. Oh turns out it's really 2014, not 2011