J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[kwaigonegin]

"J20 was designed mainly for long range strike, OTH engagement."

"Let me rephrase then. J20's primarily role is not be involved in a knife fight where mirrors may potentially come in handy"

"Not in my books. knife fight to me is WVR with guns blazing and SRAAMs."


Where am I misrepresenting?

I'm not saying if a fighter carries some SRAAMs it's primary function is short range dog fighting. I am saying if a fighter has a *dedicated* SRAAM weapons bay then short range dog fighting is one of the functions the fighter was designed and intended for. You don't dedicate a part of an airframe to a specific kind of role unless you intend to use the airframe for that role (I am not saying that it's the *only* role the J-20 was intended for, but I am saying that WVR combat doesn't seem to be a trivial consideration given specific design choices). I don't think that's a very complicated or difficult point to grasp.

I am saying if a fighter has a *dedicated* SRAAM weapons bay then short range dog fighting is one of the functions the fighter was designed and intended for. You don't dedicate a part of an airframe to a specific kind of role unless you intend to use the airframe for that role

Function yes, intended for no and I respect your assertion even if I don't agree 100% with it.

Just like a Porsche, a Corvette or your fav super car of choice .. most if not all have trunks to carry groceries .. heck some even have back seats albeit for super tiny people HOWEVER I think most people do not use their Porsches and Corvettes ZO6s to go shopping at Sam's. Occasionally for sure but that's not what the designers of those cars 'intended' them to be.

 

[latenlazy]

I am saying if a fighter has a *dedicated* SRAAM weapons bay then short range dog fighting is one of the functions the fighter was designed and intended for. You don't dedicate a part of an airframe to a specific kind of role unless you intend to use the airframe for that role

Function yes, intended for no and I respect your assertion even if I don't agree 100% with it.

Just like a Porsche, a Corvette or your fav super car of choice .. most if not all have trunks to carry groceries .. heck some even have back seats albeit for super tiny people HOWEVER I think most people do not use their Porsches and Corvettes ZO6s to go shopping at Sam's. Occasionally for sure but that's not what the designers of those cars 'intended' them to be.

A sexy sports car is not the same as a military machine of war, I'm afraid. The design thinking behind those two are going to be different.

 

[vesicles]

I am saying if a fighter has a *dedicated* SRAAM weapons bay then short range dog fighting is one of the functions the fighter was designed and intended for. You don't dedicate a part of an airframe to a specific kind of role unless you intend to use the airframe for that role

Function yes, intended for no and I respect your assertion even if I don't agree 100% with it.

Just like a Porsche, a Corvette or your fav super car of choice .. most if not all have trunks to carry groceries .. heck some even have back seats albeit for super tiny people HOWEVER I think most people do not use their Porsches and Corvettes ZO6s to go shopping at Sam's. Occasionally for sure but that's not what the designers of those cars 'intended' them to be.

Supermaneuverability, which indicates "knife-fighting" as one of the primary missions, is one of the criteria of a classic 5th gen fighter. The design specs of the J-20 clearly include supermaneuverability as a must. Thus it is clear to me that the J-20 has been designed to do "knife-fighting". We have documents that clearly indicate that the J-20 was designed to do WVR. I don't understand why we keep arguing about this.

How effective the J-20 is in a knife fight is another matter. I Have my own opinion on this, which doesn't count much. But that is not what we are arguing and I don't think we should get into it now.

Don't judge a book by its cover. Just because the J-20 is big, it doesn't mean it can't maneuver. And it certainly doesn't mean that it has not been designed to knife fight.

I am a basketball fan. Traditionally, big players are not good ball handlers and can't shoot well from long distance. But the rules are changing. We are getting 7 footers who can handle the ball as well as a 6'3" point guard. And we are getting centers and power forwards acting as the go-to guys for 3-point shots.

 

[kwaigonegin]

A sexy sports car is not the same as a military machine of war, I'm afraid. The design thinking behind those two are going to be different.

I think we're going in circles. Let's move on... and to think all these started because I said you guys were overthinking the 'no mirror' argument.

 

[FORBIN]

Supermaneuverability, which indicates "knife-fighting" as one of the primary missions, is one of the criteria of a classic 5th gen fighter. The design specs of the J-20 clearly include supermaneuverability as a must. Thus it is clear to me that the J-20 has been designed to do "knife-fighting". We have documents that clearly indicate that the J-20 was designed to do WVR. I don't understand why we keep arguing about this.

How effective the J-20 is in a knife fight is another matter. I Have my own opinion on this, which doesn't count much. But that is not what we are arguing and I don't think we should get into it now.

Don't judge a book by its cover. Just because the J-20 is big, it doesn't mean it can't maneuver. And it certainly doesn't mean that it has not been designed to knife fight.

I am a basketball fan. Traditionally, big players are not good ball handlers and can't shoot well from long distance. But the rules are changing. We are getting 7 footers who can handle the ball as well as a 6'3" point guard. And we are getting centers and power forwards acting as the go-to guys for 3-point shots.

I like much sport also... but definitely much more parameters for A2A combat :=)

 

[latenlazy]

I think we're going in circles. Let's move on... and to think all these started because I said you guys were overthinking the 'no mirror' argument.

Hey don't look at me. I'm not fussing about the mirrors

 

[Quickie]

From satellite photos, the J-20 has a shorter length and wingspan than the flanker by about 1m or so.

Some media/reports gave the impression that the J-20 is a very large aircraft when in actual fact dimensionally it's smaller than the flanker with probably about the same empty weight.

Old analysis of the J-20 such as this greatly exagerated the size of the J-20 in comparison to the other stealth fighters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[vesicles]

I like much sport also... but definitely much more parameters for A2A combat :=)

My exact point. Many have used size alone to conclude that the J-20 is not suitable for dogfighting. And I was trying to use the basketball example to argue against that view.

 

[vesicles]

Nobody wants to get in a knife fight, I mean no normal human being or fighter pilot! The main reason the Chinese have NO interest in OVT, and the main reason the F-35 will NOT ever have OVT.

If you want to knife fight??? (stupid, and barbaric), you are going to get cut. They new philosophy of air to air combat is the stand-off, long range missile shot, and avoiding givning the bad guy the opportunity to take a "pot shot" at you!

Maneuverability remains a "desired quality" in an A2A fighter aircraft, but that's just in case things go South!

I think the 5th gen stealth fighters as equivalent to the Spec Ops guys.

Like the stealth fighters, Spec Ops uses the element of surprise and stealth as their biggest advantage. They come in, they attack and they get out, before their enemy even has a chance to pick up their weapons. That's why they are called modern-day ninjas. However, that does not mean they will shy away from a face-to-face fist fight or knife fight. I bet any Spec Ops guy will win a knife duel with anyone, no matter how fully prepared you are.

That's how I think of a 5th gen stealth fighter. They use stealth as their biggest advantage. However, they can throw it down with anyone if they have to.

 

[Blitzo]

I agree that the designers of her intended her to be a long range air superiority fighter that will take the fight far away from Chinese shores and that she is intended to meet the enemy head on .. literally ... which is why the emphasis on low frontal RCS and emphasis on BVR engagement or at least in the standoff regime. Her size and internal fuel implies not only long range but likely longer loiter time in anticipation of potential yet to be encountered threats.

Her principal weapon is also PL15/21 not PL 10.

With all that being said even the smartest designers in the world have made mistakes. Take the F4. They thought a gun was unnecessary and relied strictly on standoff missiles then Vietnam came and the MiG 19s etc ate her for breakfast then they put a gun there and USN started Top Gun.
Even with advances in avionics etc until a war actually breaks out it is impossible to tell.

Err, you still haven't really answered my question -- "(do you agree then) that the lack of mirrors on F-22 means that is also similarly not intended for "knife fights"?"

Just yes/no.