J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Blitzo]

Well, I have nothing to add. But this means J-20 will indeed be used for ground attack role.

Not at all.

We know YF-23 was intended to have a place for a chin mounted EOIRST and under the ATF programme it was first and foremost an air superiority fighter.

Similarly the original F-14, was mounted with a chin EOIRST as well, well before any strike capability was installed upon it, and it of course was the US Navy's primary air superiority fighter as well.



For stealth fighters, the chin is imo one of the more logical places to put a stealthy/faceted EOIRST, because the shape of the radome and nose bulkhead means there is less space on the dorsal aspect of the nose for a more full length EOIRST facet unless one wants to have it encroach on the canopy a little like the SU57.

Furthermore, given most stealth fighters will likely spend most of their combat air patrol life at high altitudes, it makes sense to have an EOIRST that is able to look "forward and down" to track targets that are flying below it or at the same altitude as it.

 

[kurutoga]

The PLAAF promotion video in HD. Some screenshots were posted here before

A lot of J-20.

At 0:22, is it WU-14?

 

[Blitzo]

The PLAAF promotion video in HD. Some screenshots were posted here before

A lot of J-20.

At 0:22, is it WU-14?

Looks like it's just a SAM.

What makes you think it could remotely be WU-14/DF-ZF?

 

[kurutoga]

Looks like it's just a SAM.

What makes you think it could remotely be WU-14/DF-ZF?

Two seconds after the SAM, it looks like a DF-ZF shell, or maybe just a regular satellite.

 

[Blitzo]

Two seconds after the SAM, it looks like a DF-ZF shell, or maybe just a regular satellite.

I recommend watching some videos of S-300 and HQ-9 missile firings, and then look at how rockets (i.e.: space rockets) and ballistic missiles are launched and compare them to the missile being fired at 22 sec. It is clearly a SAM.


And yes, two seconds after the SAM, it's just a regular satellite.


This is a video with a load of awkward slightly sped up, quick cuts between various shots. There is little to no relationship between most of the shots, few of them are "chronological".

The first minute or so is literally a case of drowning the viewer in various air force related clips, like:
"STEALTH FIGHTER -- TAKING OFF -- IN THE AIR -- BOMBER FLYING -- COCKPIT -- OVER SEA -- Y-20 -- FLANKERS -- SAM FIRING -- SATELLITE -- EARTH OBSERVATION -- MORE STEALTH FIGHTER TAXIING -- MORE TAXIING -- DRAMATIC CLOUD SHOT -- CLOSE UP OF A PLANE -- PARADE TIME"

 

[Deino]

@b787 STOP these off-topic postings. You really don't get it?

Deino

 

[Jura The idiot]

Did you block the individual he quoted so you can't see the quote? He definitely wasn't addressing you.

I see; it is possible. I will stop. Thanks

it could be a glitch, or
latenlazy
had an issue while quoting LOL I'm saying this because of:

yesterday I got quoted and once I click on "11:09 AM" post, it shows
(it's #1014 latenlazy, Yesterday at 11:09 AM):

I disagree. It is a better practice to choose planes with the SAME amount of distortion. In this case, choosing the left-most J-20 for comparison is correct.

Not with perspective distortion.

which refers to
Engineer

(yesterday I of course let it be, and now I'm just trying to be helpful)

 

[Deino]

Guys can You please leave out this OT duscussion and most if all relpying to b787's endkess off-topic posts.

It is annoying.

 

[Jura The idiot]

now noticed in Twitter:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Cela donne, très approximativement, une idée sur la différence de taille entre un J-16 et un J-20. Image via 东星斑.

Translated from French by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Very roughly, it gives an idea of the difference in size between a J-16 and one J-20. Image via 东星斑.

 

[ougoah]

I think it's obvious that the Airbus fighter will be a medium sized one like the Eurofighter or the F-35.

The EJ-2000 family is still easily decades ahead of everything that isn't American in that size class. So another developement stage with already tested TVC would be an excellent choice for such a type of aircraft.
The Chinese plain lack a domestic engine option for that type of aircraft. Seeing the J-31 with the RD-93 engines is a joke.

There wasn't really an option for anything smaller than the J-20 for China despite the fact that the J-20 with the AL-31 engines is still ridicoulus underpowered (a situation which will not get fixed by the first WS-15 engines) but the gap is at least smaller than it would habe been with the RD-93.

It may seem like EJ-200 is "decades ahead" of other non American engines but Europeans have not built a high thrust turbofan in the class of Al-31/ F110 and above so they don't even have the option for heavier higher thrust engine. China has access to AL-31 modern variants and WS-10 in that class along with WS-15 in future. J-20 will not be considerably heavier than flankers so WS-15 will provide it with amazing power to weight assuming it is not a super heavy fighter (we have official word that it is ridiculously light beyond what we can believe within reason). So it is safe to assume it is not going to be underpowered even with WS-10 variants. However WS-15 is definitely more ideal. Even if the J-20 was powered by RD-93s or WS-13s, it represents such an advantage over 4th gen fighters because the aim is to avoid WVR. They haven't even bothered putting a gun on the fighter. WS-15 would be an absolute bonus for supercruising while WS-10 will do for most tasks against every nation's airforce except USAF.