J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
latenlazy said:
There probably wouldn’t be any severe political consequences for anyone, frankly. All planes anywhere are developed with very strict parameters defined and monitored by their clients. That’s the whole point of doing years of testing. If the J-20 falls short in real life use then that’s a doctrine problem with the proprietor, not a deliverance problem with the provider or engineering. If it’s a problem with how the PLAAF defined their design parameters, it’s also a learning experience for the PLAAF, not a punishable offense. Any good process design is defined around finding misjudgments early and rectifying them as you go so that they don’t accumulate. If China’s institutional practices on technological development were so draconian that they primarily focused on impressing principals and proprietors rather than well designed accountability mechanisms then they wouldn’t have come this far in the first place.
Click to expand...

To start apologies if I have ruffled any feathers, its NOT my intention to undermine the J-20 or Chengdu aviation, both of which I admire greatly and respect,,,...

So, I pray that I may add some clarity, the SU-35 is very good in the WVR context, with OVT, it offers a great deal of maneuverability even "post stall", and to be frank it would give the SU-57, F-22, and F-35 each one a "run for their money".. I believe the J-20 to be a very fine airplane, likely much more L/O than the SU-57,,, possibly even sharing parity or even superiority to the F-22 and F-35... we just don't know at this stage, and I'm completely fine with that..

as Mangiangrexue stated earlier,, tactics and strategy are important to everyone in this game, and flying against the J-20, everybody learns,, so I was just thinking out loud?? there's always the question of who or whom has the "mojo"..

I do however disagree with you latenlazy, even though I think we are often on the same page?? I believe engineering and design, as well as the manufacturer have primary control and responsibility to deliver an aircraft that hopefully will meet or exceed the customers expectations, after all, politicians on everybody's team require education when it comes to what is and is not economically and physically attainable.

so once we have determined there is a political will and desire, and the cash, then the rest is up to the design team/ manufacturer to deliver their best??
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
I believe engineering and design, as well as the manufacturer have primary control and responsibility to deliver an aircraft that hopefully will meet or exceed the customers expectations, after all, politicians on everybody's team require education when it comes to what is and is not economically and physically attainable. so once we have determined there is a political will and desire, and the cash, then the rest is up to the design team/ manufacturer to deliver their best??
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is obviously an onus on the manufacturer to deliver goods that meet and exceed the client's expectations, however, those expectations have to be agreed upon and static. For example, the jet must attain this speed, this altitude, rate of climb, turning rate, etc... and then the manufacturer will need to deliver an aircraft that meets or exceeds those requirements. In this case, Chengdu has already done that as the PLAAF expressed great satisfaction at its performance and said that J-20 has exceeded their expectations.

That said, the goal post needs to be static. Su-35 did not exist when J-20 was designed and the requirement for J-20 cannot be, "Easily beats Su-35/Russia's best dog-fighter at the time on a merge." Because this is not a stated goal, it cannot be failed and no one can be punished for it. After all, if you ordered a machine and I delivered one better than what you asked for, how can you blame me if a certain part of it did not exceed that of a new rival? The biggest "fallout" there could be if J-20 is outclassed by Su-35 in dog-fighting is that AVIC orders thrust vectoring/engine upgrades to proceed post haste, though I think they're already giving all they've got. They might even ask for some engines to be performance-enhanced at the expense of service life.

I agree that Su-35 is an extremely kinematically-optimized aircraft and there's no shame for any fighter to have trouble or even be beaten flying against it in dogfight, especially a 5th gen that undoubtedly made at least some aerodynamic sacrifices for stealth. We should also understand that, Su-35, at full performance, is overkill for representing MKI because MKI is about the same weight but with nearly 40kN less thrust and without the aerodynamic enhancements of the Su-35. Su-35 is notably superior to MKI in every performance parameter. MKI's canards do nothing to mitigate those deficiencies since Su-35 deliberately removed canards after testing proved them to be of no further benefit on the Su-37. So WVR training against Su-35 to prepare for MKI is like training against a marine to fight a school bully.

For the books, I think that unless performance is purposefully limited on the Su-35 to mimic MKI, the biggest danger of using Su-35 as OPFOR for MKI is overestimating the opponent which could be a big problem and result in a lot of missed opportunities (ie. going on the defense when unlike Su-35, which could still fight, MKI was cornered and vulnerable).
 
Last edited:
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
To start apologies if I have ruffled any feathers, its NOT my intention to undermine the J-20 or Chengdu aviation, both of which I admire greatly and respect,,,...

So, I pray that I may add some clarity, the SU-35 is very good in the WVR context, with OVT, it offers a great deal of maneuverability even "post stall", and to be frank it would give the SU-57, F-22, and F-35 each one a "run for their money".. I believe the J-20 to be a very fine airplane, likely much more L/O than the SU-57,,, possibly even sharing parity or even superiority to the F-22 and F-35... we just don't know at this stage, and I'm completely fine with that..

as Mangiangrexue stated earlier,, tactics and strategy are important to everyone in this game, and flying against the J-20, everybody learns,, so I was just thinking out loud?? there's always the question of who or whom has the "mojo"..
Click to expand...
No feathers ruffled. I wasn’t talking about how the J-20’s performance compares to other fighters. I was addressing whether there would be “political punishment” if it ended up not being as effective as the PLAAF might have desired. Specifically, the idea that there would be some kind of “political punishment” for “mistakes” sounds a lot like it draws from a cartoonish stereotype of how governance and management works in places like China.

I do however disagree with you latenlazy, even though I think we are often on the same page?? I believe engineering and design, as well as the manufacturer have primary control and responsibility to deliver an aircraft that hopefully will meet or exceed the customers expectations, after all, politicians on everybody's team require education when it comes to what is and is not economically and physically attainable.

so once we have determined there is a political will and desire, and the cash, then the rest is up to the design team/ manufacturer to deliver their best??
Click to expand...

I’m not saying engineers aren’t responsible for delivering what they’re asked to deliver, but they’re not responsible for setting the requirements of what they’re asked to build. That’s the client’s job. If the engineer builds everything to spec and it turns out what the client thought was sufficient wasn’t sufficient, that’s not a problem with the engineering. Engineers aren’t magic workers that can conjure perfect solutions to vague aspirational demands. If you tell your engineers to build the wrong things and they build it well that will be on you, not on them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top