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

[Air Force Brat]

Well while B-1 has the canards, I do agree with Engineer that it's just people's stupidity and refusal to believe the J-20 is a fighter. A bomber of the size of J-20 is really not too much of any real uses, and anyone who understands what the Chinese military needs will know that it's a waste of money to develop a "bomber" like that.

I'm just glad folks are admitting it is similar in configuration to Mig 1.44, rather humorus, although obvious, it would also make sense that the J-20 may end up with 117s, but that is subject to lots of factors, there are so many things in apparent flux right now in China, my special AFB China-mometer is spinning wildly, I would say that the North K situation is making even a nominal read dificult, as is the recent warming of Sino/Russian partnership???? for the first time since I have joined Sino Defense, I must confess this is an electro magnetic anamoly!

I have suspected all along that 2003 is getting some new powerplants, I would be very pleasantly surprised if they are F-117s, that would also be a possible explanation for the aft fuselage rework???? I am concerned that the Ws-10s may be limiting supercruise, but I am almost hesitant to suggest such a thing, interesting days for us all?????Brat

 

[MiG-29]

I'm just glad folks are admitting it is similar in configuration to Mig 1.44, rather humorus, although obvious, it would also make sense that the J-20 may end up with 117s, but that is subject to lots of factors, there are so many things in apparent flux right now in China, my special AFB China-mometer is spinning wildly, I would say that the North K situation is making even a nominal read dificult, as is the recent warming of Sino/Russian partnership???? for the first time since I have joined Sino Defense, I must confess this is an electro magnetic anamoly!

I have suspected all along that 2003 is getting some new powerplants, I would be very pleasantly surprised if they are F-117s, that would also be a possible explanation for the aft fuselage rework???? I am concerned that the Ws-10s may be limiting supercruise, but I am almost hesitant to suggest such a thing, interesting days for us all?????Brat

Let me give you a small reflextion.


MiG-25 and F-15 look alike, in fact are the same concept, however one is a high speed interceptor and the other a heavy weight air superiority, in fact both are almost the same size with the MiG-25 being heavier than the F-15 though, however not very different than F-14 in weight which supposedly was also an agile fighter.

Having a canard is not absolute proof of being a air superiority, example Su-34, it is a bomber, agile but limited to lower Gs than a Su-27, in fact the use of the canard in Su-34 was because the jet is heavier, its nose is heavier and the canard also like in B-1B dampens the flight roughness.


This type of generalization are simply dull ways of analysing jets.

Detaills tell you more.


Howeer J-20 is obviously going to do fighter roles, because all new fighters are multirole.

Simply because aircraft are very expensive, a T-50 costs around 100 million dollars a piece, the Russian air forces expect it to do from bomber roles to fighter roles and also recce and other roles.

F-35 is also multirole, expected to do multirole.

J-20 is going to be multirole, the same doing fighter role.

Su-34 in fact uses AA-12s for BVR combat and AA-11 for WVR combat, the jet is multirole, but is more a bomber than a fighter.

The airframe of J-20 has being optimized for multirole.

If you read about the Sears-Haack and von Karman aerodynamics and the contradictory faceting stealth requirements set to the aiframe, you can see more things why MiG-1.44 has some details making it different.

With this i am not saying is a bomber, of course not, not even an interceptor, i am saying the Jet is multirole and thanks to a mixture of different solutions and compromises the jet will do all, fighter. interceptor, bomber, recce.


The PLAAF like the USAF and VVS or Luftwaffe, will operate less types in 2020, and will leave some older aircraft as a complement due to the limits of airframe of their top aircraft types.


PAKFA will do bomber roles, but older Su-34s or MiG-29s will complement the jet in the same way F-15s and F-16 will do it for F-35s and F-22 by 2020.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Let me give you a small reflextion.


MiG-25 and F-15 look alike, in fact are the same concept, however one is a high speed interceptor and the other a heavy weight air superiority, in fact both are almost the same size with the MiG-25 being heavier than the F-15 though, however not very different than F-14 in weight which supposedly was also an agile fighter.

Having a canard is not absolute proof of being a air superiority, example Su-34, it is a bomber, agile but limited to lower Gs than a Su-27, in fact the use of the canard in Su-34 was because the jet is heavier, its nose is heavier and the canard also like in B-1B dampens the flight roughness.


This type of generalization are simply dull ways of analysing jets.

Detaills tell you more.


Howeer J-20 is obviously going to do fighter roles, because all new fighters are multirole.

Gee Mig, thanks for giving me the small reflection, save the large reflection for the Eng, now yes, your ways of analysing aircrafts are dull, especially your generalizations that all fighters are bombers, and all bombers are fighters, and the J-20 is obviously going to do fighter roles, because it has canards like a B-1 bomber, and now dear brother if you would be so kind as to spare us the large reflection. I guess your whole point was the F-15 is a copy of the Mig-25, I was musing that the Mig 1.44 and J-20 share a similar planform, and that because some folks were reportedly shopping the Mig 1.44 to the Chinese secretly after the Mig 1.44 was abandoned in Russia,,,,,,and if it makes you feel better, let me just say, Wow, you're exactly right the F-15 is a copy of the Mig-25....... feel better??

 

[Engineer]

Well while B-1 has the canards, I do agree with Engineer that it's just people's stupidity and refusal to believe the J-20 is a fighter. A bomber of the size of J-20 is really not too much of any real uses, and anyone who understands what the Chinese military needs will know that it's a waste of money to develop a "bomber" like that.

While the B-1 has canard, it also has a tailplane serving as the actual pitch control surface. In addition, the size of the canard on the B-1 is tiny in comparison to the wing. The Su-34 is similar in these regards. So when people bring up these aircraft to put down the J-20, they are actually debunking their own arguments by highlighting the design differences between a bomber and an air-superiority fighter.

It is basic flight dynamics knowledge that canard enhances maneuverability. That's why canard is found on Su-33 and Su-34. That's also why canard is added to the Tu-144. From the very first day that pictures of J-20 are revealed, the existence and size of J-20's canard already told us that the aircraft is intended to be very maneuverable. Recent pictures of the J-20 carrying SRAAM only serves to further confirm this observation.

 

[MiG-29]

Gee Mig, thanks for giving me the small reflection, save the large reflection for the Eng, now yes, your ways of analysing aircrafts are dull, especially your generalizations that all fighters are bombers, and all bombers are fighters, and the J-20 is obviously going to do fighter roles, because it has canards like a B-1 bomber, and now dear brother if you would be so kind as to spare us the large reflection. I guess your whole point was the F-15 is a copy of the Mig-25, I was musing that the Mig 1.44 and J-20 share a similar planform, and that because some folks were reportedly shopping the Mig 1.44 to the Chinese secretly after the Mig 1.44 was abandoned in Russia,,,,,,and if it makes you feel better, let me just say, Wow, you're exactly right the F-15 is a copy of the Mig-25....... feel better??

Brat

Do not be defensive, sorry if you felt offended, i never meant F-15 is a copy of MiG-25, in fact i have never said that.


I just pointed the fact the F-15 and MiG-25 look alike at first glance, however their airfoils are different, if we say MiG-1.44 is a fighter and J-20 is a fighter just by looks to be honest is a dull comparasion.

MiG-25 had a very thin wing, that detail made the jet entirely in a different role, F-15 has conical camber, in 1967 when the US and NATO intelligence saw the MiG-25 they thought it was a dogfighter, but without seeing the MiG-25 has a different type of airfoil, its structure is weaker allowing just for a mere 4Gs.


Same is with the comparasion going on here, people says it is a ir superiorty it has canards, as a synonim, Canard=air superiority, however Su-34 has canards, but is a bomber with secondary air combat capacity, in fact a detail, Su-33, Su-34 and Su-35 had different roles and capacities and all of these three share the same configuration

The assumption is most likely it will be multirole, why? simply because of price.


How much do you think J-20 will cost? it will be very likely in the 100 million mark if cheap, a piece.
It might reach 120 to 130 million in 2016.


Jets are becoming ultra expensive, with so many contradictory requierements.
Low drag requieres Sears-Hack and Von Karman shapes like those of earlier fighters, but stealth imposes faceting.

just by that consider these aircraft have contradictory requirements.


These requieres more sophistication in avionics, weaponry, engines, that also impact weight and thus they need to find solutions to more contradictory conditions.

just to give you a detail MiG-25 weighs as much as F-22, in order to upset that they need very powerul engines, see that MiG-25 is a stone, it can not be an agile fighter due to weight and wing design.


Will J-20 do the fighter role? i guess yes it will, modern avionics, weapons, powerplants will help it


But not becuase it shares some traits with MiG-1.44 means they are the same type.

MiG-1.44 never had the same requierements, in fact J-20 is more modern since faceting was part of the design process, MiG-1.44 skipped faceting, for that they said it used Plasma stealth

When in 1999 it was revealed, many said it is not even 5th generation, it looked like a huge Eurofighter type, not a F-22 type.

 

[Player99]

I'm just glad folks are admitting it is similar in configuration to Mig 1.44, rather humorus, although obvious, it would also make sense that the J-20 may end up with 117s, but that is subject to lots of factors, there are so many things in apparent flux right now in China, my special AFB China-mometer is spinning wildly, I would say that the North K situation is making even a nominal read dificult, as is the recent warming of Sino/Russian partnership???? for the first time since I have joined Sino Defense, I must confess this is an electro magnetic anamoly!

I have suspected all along that 2003 is getting some new powerplants, I would be very pleasantly surprised if they are F-117s, that would also be a possible explanation for the aft fuselage rework???? I am concerned that the Ws-10s may be limiting supercruise, but I am almost hesitant to suggest such a thing, interesting days for us all?????Brat

Not being a snob or something, Brat, but I would be not very happy if we find 117s on the J-20 even in the initial production (if they are to be only on one of the prototypes for test purposes, that'd be OK). For we here in China are all eagerly waiting to proudly see WS-15 come of age... And I'm not really a nationalistic person...

 

[Quickie]

While the B-1 has canard, it also has a tailplane serving as the actual pitch control surface. In addition, the size of the canard on the B-1 is tiny in comparison to the wing. The Su-34 is similar in these regards. So when people bring up these aircraft to put down the J-20, they are actually debunking their own arguments by highlighting the design differences between a bomber and an air-superiority fighter.

It is basic flight dynamics knowledge that canard enhances maneuverability. That's why canard is found on Su-33 and Su-34. That's also why canard is added to the Tu-144. From the very first day that pictures of J-20 are revealed, the existence and size of J-20's canard already told us that the aircraft is intended to be very maneuverable. Recent pictures of the J-20 carrying SRAAM only serves to further confirm this observation.

That's exactly correct. I've been trying to point this out before in response to a certain person here but to no avail.

The canards of the B-1 (nevermind if it's too tiny to be counted), Su-33 and Su-34 have a very different function compared to the canards of the J-20. These 3 aircraft have tail horizontal stabilizers for pitch control whereas the the J-20 (and other aircraft of similar configuration) is without any tail horizontal stabilizers and rely on its canards for pitch control.

And then there is the question of these other aircraft having fixed canards (sometimes with elevators at its edge for pitch control) which can't be compared directly with all moving canards for the reason that having fixed canards in itself would affect very differently a large part of the overall aircraft aerodynamics when compared with the case of all moving canards.

 

[airsuperiority]

While the B-1 has canard, it also has a tailplane serving as the actual pitch control surface. In addition, the size of the canard on the B-1 is tiny in comparison to the wing. The Su-34 is similar in these regards. So when people bring up these aircraft to put down the J-20, they are actually debunking their own arguments by highlighting the design differences between a bomber and an air-superiority fighter.

It is basic flight dynamics knowledge that canard enhances maneuverability. That's why canard is found on Su-33 and Su-34. That's also why canard is added to the Tu-144. From the very first day that pictures of J-20 are revealed, the existence and size of J-20's canard already told us that the aircraft is intended to be very maneuverable. Recent pictures of the J-20 carrying SRAAM only serves to further confirm this observation.

Agreed. Canards are used as see fit, like all things. Some designs need canards or other components, while some don't. What's most sad about all those nay-sayers is that ALL evidence points to J-20 being a fighter, and they have pretty much, every day since day 1 of J-20's exposures to public, to correct their thoughts. From length of takeoff to attachments of dummy PL-10 to realizing there are side weapon bays, those are all features that are found in a 5th generation fighter like the F-22. This thus should indicate the J-20 is a fighter jet. Furthermore, what kind of bomber has only one pilot? How redundant is it to invest in R&D of a bomber and create side weapons bays for it?

 

[siegecrossbow]

How redundant is it to invest in R&D of a bomber and create side weapons bays for it?

I don't think any one addressed this point yet and I was about to bring it up myself before I saw your post. Kudos for bringing it up!

Although many fighter bombers and dedicated interceptors, as Mig-29 pointed out before, could carry infrared short-range missiles, we have to keep in mind that they weren't stealthy and didn't need to carry weapons internally (with the exception of F-111, which had a dedicated bomb-bay). Mounting dogfight missiles for self-defense is as easy as putting them on existing pylons. Fifth-gen. fighters with a greater emphasis on strike, like the F-35 and J-31, don't have side-bays and make do by putting them in the belly-bays because adding the side-bays take space and add weight.

 

[Player99]

Well, I was hoping April Fools' Day would bring forth some sensational news. But nothing... except here in China it's been talked on the radio and perhaps on TV, too, about that 110 (a bit like 911 in the States) all over the country has received, like last year, thousands of false call for help. That is very bad, but somehow people just keep doing it... which, somehow, doesn't sound very typical of a repressed people by a ruthless commie regime, huh?