J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[Inst]

The F-35 does not sport TVC for two reasons. First, it's not compatible with the F-35B's lift-fan system, so the entire aircraft line ditched it. Second, the F-35 is not designed as a maneuverable fighter; it relies on its stealth, EODAS, and subsystems to stay alive and get the job done. So it wouldn't benefit from TVC anyways, similarly as to how you wouldn't get much use from a TVC B-2.

 

[superdog]

I need some help understanding why the USAF and USN F-35's don't have TVC any more. The F-22 is such a success. It's still the benchmark for what a 5th gen fighter should be like. One would think they would want to emulate the F-22 design as much as possible. Yet, they decided not to include the TVC in two of the 3 variants of the F-35.

One would expect that they would want to keep the TVC in all 3 variants, just from the standpoint of simplifying the design. And simplifying design and maintenence was a big factor in deciding to use a single frame for all missions. Yet, they designed a completely different engine for B. This seems to defeat the purpose of using the same airframe for all variants.

There must be some kind of penalty associated with the TVC that they specifically design different engines for different variants.

The fact that only the F-35B has the TVC actually suggests that they simply had no choice because of what the USMC wants and were "forced" to put the TVC in...

If you also look at the missions in different branches, you will see an intriguing trend. The USAF and USN F-35's, which will most likely face off with opponent fighters in A2A combats and need to be maneuverable, don't have TVC. The USMC F-35, which will be the least likely to engage in A2A fights, got a TVC. So what is the purpose of the TVC? Most likely not maneuverability?

Another question. Can the F-35B actually use its TVC in fight, or just during take off and landing?

As far as I konw, I don't think the F-35B's 3BSM nozzle can help its maneuverability in any way outside landing and take off stages. If anything it significantly hampers the F-35B's combat maneuverability due to the increases weight and lowered G limits.

In that sense one may say the none of the F-35 uses TVC.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... we are again so far OFF from the J-20 !!

You are comparing already systems, equipment, aerodynamic configurations and operational options ... that are in no way any longer related to the J-20.
Even more this repeated bringing-back old issues that have long, long been settled is neither fruitful nor helpful, since none of us have any hard proof what systems the J-20 uses and how they compare against any other systems. In fact this is a Quartets (card game) level comparison and it's annoying !

As such ... IMO it is enough !

Deino

 

[Inst]

Just to check, b747 isn't mig, right?

 

[Blitzo]

Just to check, b747 isn't mig, right?

Honestly, I've been thinking that for a while now as well.

 

[latenlazy]

Honestly, I've been thinking that for a while now as well.

Me too.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think he said more aerodynamic, not more maneuverable than the F-22.

and here we have the first cogent thought in several posts??? the J-20 is designed to be aerodynamically "cleaner" than the F-22, so that it might supercruise with engines putting out less total thrust.

The J-20 is NOT more maneuverable than the F-22, but pound of thrust for pound of thrust it is quite possible that it would be faster.

the J-20 was designed to be a peer to the F-22, in order to achieve that design goal they chose to incorporate what they considered to be superior aerodynamic performance.

Higher thrust with OVT, combined with "mass centralization" give the F-22 a higher "pitch rate"

When we see the J-20 putting pilots to "sleep" due to high pitch rates and Heavy G, then we will talk ?

The bottom line is that designers have moved away from "super maneuverability" as the emphasis in "fighter town" has shifted to the long range "BVR KILL". period!

 

[siegecrossbow]

The Russian experience with canards was with a retrofit, as opposed to a specialized design. It did not offer enough advantages and the Su-35 is canardless, utilizing TVC instead. With the J-10, J-20, and the Eurocanards, the aircraft were designed to maximize canard advantages and so thus are different from the Russian experience with the Su-30 and Su-33. Naturally, the Russians then moved to LEVCONs, but the LEVCON has trade-offs vs conventional canards. Likewise, LEVCONs have trade-offs compared to LERXes and chines.

I don't think the Su-30 and Su-33 used canards as primary control surfaces like J-10, J-20, and the Eurocanards did since they retained their horizontal stabilizers.

 

[Richard Santos]

I don't think the Su-30 and Su-33 used canards as primary control surfaces like J-10, J-20, and the Eurocanards did since they retained their horizontal stabilizers.

Su-30 and su-33 used canard primarily to reduce trim drag. Both aircraft were more nose heavy than the original su-27. If uncompensated both aircraft would need to trim their elevators while in flight for the new weight balance and experience significant performance penalties from trim drag. The reason Su-35 doesn't use canards is not TVC, it's because the design restored the original weight balance of su-27.

 

[kurutoga]

The problem with all these comparisons is it is on paper. Your best weapons are always more than just military. They are also PR tools. I assume if you read Chinese news or English news only, you will always end up with a one-sided view. That is what the media does.

In reality J-20 is too new. It is still developing. F-22 vs J-20 will fuel some interesting discussions but there is no way to compare them objectively. I'd rather focus on one or the other, not the comparison, or you end up wasting a lot of time.