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

[Air Force Brat]

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?

Hey we'll trade our commie in chief for your commie in chief, but the first ladies have to stay with their original guys,,,,,, deal???? When I saw the new Chinese President sitting by Putin, I thought, now thats actually a contrast, Mr. Putin looks kinda put upon, the Chinese President seems happy, kindly, lets just pray that is so, these days will require great wisdom, and the kindness to be concerned for your people, and do what is in their best interest????? Anyway, back on topic, even though I was suggesting F-117s I was suggesting that until the WS-15 can be brought on line, I understand you're national pride, and you understand mine, NO REASON to APOLOGIZE, I know you love America, like I love China, doesn't mean we have to forget who we are and where we came from, at the same time you and I know we are brothers. Thats why I love you as a brother, I know that you are very kind and considerate, and respectfull...So as I see this latest warming in the Sino/Russian relationship, it is beneficial in the sense that from a hardware standpoint, its nice to have "friends", their is NO shame in bringing the J-20 up to speed with F-117s, or in buying a few Su-35s to have some Air Force capability, while you bring the J-15 and J-15s up to strenth. I believe developement of the WS-15 will swing into high gear as well. NK's belligerance is most def a destabilzing force in the region, it will increase anxiety, and it will remind people, that its good to have capability now, or in the near future, as opposed to 5-10 years out........

A point that to my knowledge no one has mentioned, is that with the Liaoning now available, (whatever they are working on is in the minor category, or the ship would go right back to the shipyard), theres NO reason that there couldn't be a 100 J-15s, now that it is available to do traps, and in that way the AirWings would be well along by the time the two indegenous carriers are ready, so my projection is that there will likely be between 24-100 J-15s, and if they had two Air Wings of 24, they could rotate between sea duty on the Liaoning and Naval base for the training. I am feeling a little more oriented this morning, and some of this stuff is beginning to JELL.

The Russians like our own Rahm Eman, "never let a crisis go to waste", will benefit from your Cashola, to finish building their own Su-35s, but more importantly to get the T-50 back on track, this will ultimately benefit both parties, but with every dealing with "wheeler dealers", "caveat, emptor"----let the buyer beware???? as I said, these are once again----exciting times. Brat

 

[Skywatcher]

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.

Point of order: the F-35 does have side bays.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Point of order: the F-35 does have side bays.

You sure about that? I would double check

 

[plawolf]

OT, but I wonder if the F35 and J31 designers missed a trick WRT side weapons bays. I wonder how feasible it would be to design the MLG to retract backwards, so when they are stowed, the wheels are at the back of the bay. That would open up a good amount of space towards the front of the bay.

This means that half of the side weapons bay could overlap with the MLG bay to save space. You would have one long narrow strip the length of the AIM9X that can open out with a missile strapped to it for firing similar to how the F35 plan to stow AMRAAMs in the main weapons bays.

 

[latenlazy]

OT, but I wonder if the F35 and J31 designers missed a trick WRT side weapons bays. I wonder how feasible it would be to design the MLG to retract backwards, so when they are stowed, the wheels are at the back of the bay. That would open up a good amount of space towards the front of the bay.

This means that half of the side weapons bay could overlap with the MLG bay to save space. You would have one long narrow strip the length of the AIM9X that can open out with a missile strapped to it for firing similar to how the F35 plan to stow AMRAAMs in the main weapons bays.

Even if you could create enough horizontal space, I'm somewhat doubtful that there's enough depth to fit a missile, include a launch mechanism, fit a workable inlet tunnel geometry, and not compromise fuel capacity all at once.

 

[MiG-29]

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.

I do not understand your question, could you be more expecific?


What i said about the sears-haack and Von Karman aerodynamics is stealth imposes constraints in cross section and shape.

If you see the Eurofighter you see it follows the Sears-haack and Von Karman shapes, also the Su-27 is a very good example of that shaping, in the Su-27 you can see it in the radome and tail sting very well how it follows the Sears-Haack and Von Karman Shapes.

This type of shape is much more limited in any stealth fighter, in fact on the F-35 these limits are very noticible, in the X-35 the limits were even more visible, for example X-35 had better stealth shaping but in F-35 pre-production versions it has worse stealth but better sears-haack shaping though, but still F-35 falls short in the ideal aerodynamic shape to the degree it is highly criticized as not even being a fighter.

My point was all stealth fighters sacrifice aerodynamics for the sake of stealth, they fix that like Panavia Tornado fixed its limited agility with ASRAAMS or F-22 did it with TVC nozzles,


Stealth aircraft are highly dependant upon advanced weaponry, avionics and engines to compensate for these loses.

Will the J-20 do the air superiority mission?
i guess so, but F-22 achieves its agility sacrificing external weapons payload, adding advanced weapons and avionics and of course TVC nozzles; PAKFA is the same, the T-50 is higly dependant upon the jet engine to be agile and have good performance.

F-35 is definitively a fighter, but it represents the fight between aerodynamics and stealth that can only be fixed with HMS and EOTS and the very advanced AIM-9X.

And basicly China will follow that trend too simply by the fact stealth limits performance.
.

 

[mkellytx]

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.

Technically speaking, they're vanes and not canards because they are a separate system from the flight controls. They are SMCS Vanes, Structural Mode Contorl System vanes which reduce wear and tear on the air frame's spine since it' so long. FWIW, I spent 6 yrs working the B-1...

 

[Air Force Brat]

I do not understand your question, could you be more expecific?


What i said about the sears-haack and Von Karman aerodynamics is stealth imposes constraints in cross section and shape.

If you see the Eurofighter you see it follows the Sears-haack and Von Karman shapes, also the Su-27 is a very good example of that shaping, in the Su-27 you can see it in the radome and tail sting very well how it follows the Sears-Haack and Von Karman Shapes.

This type of shape is much more limited in any stealth fighter, in fact on the F-35 these limits are very noticible, in the X-35 the limits were even more visible, for example X-35 had better stealth shaping but in F-35 pre-production versions it has worse stealth but better sears-haack shaping though, but still F-35 falls short in the ideal aerodynamic shape to the degree it is highly criticized as not even being a fighter.

My point was all stealth fighters sacrifice aerodynamics for the sake of stealth, they fix that like Panavia Tornado fixed its limited agility with ASRAAMS or F-22 did it with TVC nozzles,


Stealth aircraft are highly dependant upon advanced weaponry, avionics and engines to compensate for these loses.

Will the J-20 do the air superiority mission?
i guess so, but F-22 achieves its agility sacrificing external weapons payload, adding advanced weapons and avionics and of course TVC nozzles; PAKFA is the same, the T-50 is higly dependant upon the jet engine to be agile and have good performance.

F-35 is definitively a fighter, but it represents the fight between aerodynamics and stealth that can only be fixed with HMS and EOTS and the very advanced AIM-9X.

And basicly China will follow that trend too simply by the fact stealth limits performance.
.

Mig, this is a one of those generalized statements made by aerodynamic dullards, you base this whole thesis on the manifold and visual aerodynamic compromises made by the F-117, the F-117 is the first gen serious stealth aircraft, a Chimpanze could LOOK, you know, with your two eyeballs, at the Wobblin Goblin, (why do you think the pilots called it that??????), and tell that it WAS NOT A FIGHTER! There was not a single aerodynamic cue on that aircraft that said A2A, NADA, NONE!
NOW, the T-50, J-20, F-35-which has pulled 9.9 gs in testing, and the F-22 all have these attributes ......

1. Very large horizontal stabs or canards for massive PITCH control.............

2 A very large WING AREA, to increase lift......translates to very good turn rates,,,,,F-35A has the smallest wing

3 A very large Aileron/Elevon/Flaperon area......to increase roll rates

4. Very large Vertical Stab/Rudder or RudderVator, to manage yaw at very high A-o-A.....T-50s is smallest, but is
augemented by OVT, and is all flying as are the the ruddervators of the J-20

Now, ANY Fighter Pilot, and I do many ANY, could LOOK at any of these four aircraft, and tell you the laymen, that they have very high kinemetic potential, limited ONLY by available thrust, and weight, the F-35 is hampered, albeit slightly by weight, and a relatively small wing area in relation to the other three, of course neither the J-20 nor the F-35 are equipped with thrust vectoring, but they still are very outstanding aerodynamically.
For example, the lowest agility aircraft in this group of four had a design max AoA of 50, but was flown to 73 degrees angle of attack during testing at Edwards recently, that of course is the F-35A.....

If you continue to make the absolutely ridicoulous statement that these aircraft are hindered aerodynamically/kinemeticallly, (2 of this group are the most agile aircraft in the world......period) the other two are very very good, and will hold their own. All of these aircraft have basically very outstanding aerodynamics-----
----YOUR continued insistance that their stealth shaping is hurting their performance is totally unsubstantiated in light of their outstanding agility, if you are unable to wrap your mind around this, You are in the WRONG field of study.

ALL of these Aircraft are designed to be most aerodynamic and stealthy when storing weapons INTERNALLY- it is not a weakness-- it is by DESIGN.

You are the only guy on this thread who questions the A2A role of the J-20, lead Engineer says it is designed to go head to head with the F-22, you don't question the T-50 when the lead engineer states it is designed to compete with the F-22, and really Siege started the Aerodynamics thread for these types of discussions. Brat

 

[Engineer]

Technically speaking, they're vanes and not canards because they are a separate system from the flight controls. They are SMCS Vanes, Structural Mode Contorl System vanes which reduce wear and tear on the air frame's spine since it' so long. FWIW, I spent 6 yrs working the B-1...

Indeed. I would have called them strakes myself because they are so tiny.

 

[Engineer]

If you continue to make the absolutely ridicoulous statement that these aircraft are hindered aerodynamically/kinemeticallly, (2 of this group are the most agile aircraft in the world......period) the other two are very very good, and will hold their own. All of these aircraft have basically very outstanding aerodynamics-----

Exactly! Current stealth airframes are able to achieve higher AoA than non-stealth airframes with the same configuration. The F-22 in particular is able to fly faster without use of afterburners than any non-stealth aircraft. If there was an actual correlation between stealth and aerodynamic performances, it would be stealth enhances aerodynamics.