MwRYum
Major
So how does a simple promotion got spinned out of proportion?
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
Because of a lack of clear information at the beginning, that was jumped on board the typical anti China Chinese language press who like to use every and any possibility of any rumour to try and spin it our outright fabricate a story to directly or indirectly make China look bad.
Of course, we can't control what China chooses to release to the public, and we also cannot control how the anti China press want to spin and fabricate story based on vague initial information -- but what we can do is use common sense and skepticism to look at the source of the stories and judge for ourselves.
That's why when sinosoldier posted that "rumour" I asked for clarification and context because it just didn't pass the smell test.
[QUOTE="Inst, post: 420720, member: 145"
The counter to CUDA and similar micromissiles is long-range WVR; they're light enough to avoid being intercepted efficiently (CUDA seems to expect 2 missiles per AAM), and with the right kinematics (which the J-20 has and the F-35 lacks) you can put their aircraft into NEZ before you yourself are in NEZ. [/QUOTE]
All fun gents, but you've made a number of "assumptions" the most egregious being the assumption that the J-20 is kinematically superior to the F-35??
the J-20 is heavier, longer, operating with an engine which has no TVC, the F-35A has been to 9.9 Gs, that takes an extremely rapid pitch transition to achieve...... are you reading me here????
that is test data on AF-02, which was initially flown to 73 degrees positive angle of attack, and later flown to 105 degrees positive angle of attack.
both of those numbers are in Raptor country, and they are very high performance numbers, and by extrapolation A++ kinematically, although its likely the Raptor will honestly pull more Gs.
You have no such hard data on the J-20, and while I am certain it will offer very rapid pitch transitions, I rather doubt that it is superior to the F-35. It seems you have been "misinformed" by all the numb nog naysayers?? If I were to apply the same template to the J-20 that you have applied to the F-35, simply because the same numb nog naysayers are underestimating the J-20, then I would be similarly "misinformed"?
Instead I relied on the Eng to "educate me" on the J-20, and came away with a much better understanding of this fine airplanes performance.
The counter to CUDA and similar micromissiles is long-range WVR; they're light enough to avoid being intercepted efficiently (CUDA seems to expect 2 missiles per AAM), and with the right kinematics (which the J-20 has and the F-35 lacks) you can put their aircraft into NEZ before you yourself are in NEZ. [/QUOTE]
All fun gents, but you've made a number of "assumptions" the most egregious being the assumption that the J-20 is kinematically superior to the F-35??
the J-20 is heavier, longer, operating with an engine which has no TVC, the F-35A has been to 9.9 Gs, that takes an extremely rapid pitch transition to achieve...... are you reading me here????
that is test data on AF-02, which was initially flown to 73 degrees positive angle of attack, and later flown to 105 degrees positive angle of attack.
both of those numbers are in Raptor country, and they are very high performance numbers, and by extrapolation A++ kinematically, although its likely the Raptor will honestly pull more Gs.
You have no such hard data on the J-20, and while I am certain it will offer very rapid pitch transitions, I rather doubt that it is superior to the F-35. It seems you have been "misinformed" by all the numb nog naysayers?? If I were to apply the same template to the J-20 that you have applied to the F-35, simply because the same numb nog naysayers are underestimating the J-20, then I would be similarly "misinformed"?
Instead I relied on the Eng to "educate me" on the J-20, and came away with a much better understanding of this fine airplanes performance.
Last batch... The first image shows off the HUD nicely.
Yep, as well as those fairings under the LERX, which in the top and bottom pictures is very close to the trailing edge of the canards. No doubt the J-20 has all the bells and whistles aerodynamically, the ventral fins are prominent and proof positive that this is a very stable solid platform.
As well I would remind all that this tells us that the J-20 is NOT "unstable" as many were likely to demand, but has what all fighters strive for and that is "relaxed stability", and in these nice little video jiffs, have shown us just how nicely the J-20 handles these slow speed maneuvers, no bad manners and very tractable in the slow speed heavy maneuvering regime, just as Dr Song intended.
This airplane is intended to be very fast, but it is also designed to be a very safe airplane at speed, remember the Raptor is capable of very heavy maneuvering in the "Super Sonic" speed regime, while the highly vaunted MIG-25 was not, I'm not sure the MIG-31 is a lot better, but I'm sure they tried to "rectify" that.
My point is that even "super sonic" a true fighter needs the stability to be "maneuvered", and the J-20 should deliver very well in the high speed regime, and like a 4 fletched arrow, those ruddervators and ventral fins acting in concert solve many of those high speed anomalies such as "mach tuck".
With these high res photos maybe it's time again to bring up the age old question of where is the gun. Definately doesn't seem to be shoulder mounted f-22 style, at least in this particular batch, as the top of the airplane is just too smooth. Another possibility I was thinking of was somewhere on the bottom of the wing root where there's that blister, but that could be obstructed by the canard.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Pretty sure that's the landing-gear fairing.
- Status