J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Most "official" sources claim it can cruise at least M1.2 for some range. Various groups have downplayed the significance and abilities of F-35 in an effort to make it seem like USAF and partner airforces have blundered. The material they spread included F-35 being unable to supercruise etc... Most of that stuff were debunked and refuted by official sources and F-35 pilots. I don't think they're lying and just trying to peddle their wares because all partner nations are still keen to get the fighter and they seem to be happy about it. Ignoring all that stuff, F-35 should still be able to supercruise with loads because low drag due to internal bays, most powerful turbonfan on a fighter with still decent thrust to weight, and aerodynamics designed by a company very familiar with supercruise, delivering a product that will become the backbone of many well-funded airforces.
So called pseudo-supercruise where it uses afterburner to boost the fighter into supersonic speeds may be how many other supercruise capable fighters will be doing it with a load. Surely it can get the plane into >M1 territory faster than waiting for the speeds to climb using just dry thrust.
ougoah: no, if you look at drag charts, if you can achieve supercruise of Mach 1.7 or environs, you can achieve supercruise without resorting to afterburners or a dive to break the mach barrier. Both of these are more energy-intensive than true supercruise; one assumes that you can bleed altitude, which takes time and fuel to obtain, to generate speed, and the other just requires you to have afterburners on until you can accelerate to a sustained speed.
But I agree with your point; the efficiency loss of pseudo-supercruise probably isn't as large as we think.
But I agree with your point; the efficiency loss of pseudo-supercruise probably isn't as large as we think.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Ever since it was disclosed that the F-35 will not be able to hit mach 2 and above without after burners. I don't get what people really understands regarding this so called "supercruise" Almost every single 3rd gen fighter and above can already hit Mach 1 without after burners already, F-35 can do 1.2 mach which technically falls into that specific category.
Honestly, why again posting a report most reliable China-watcher outrightly condemn as pure BS?
You are contradicting yourself???
How could an engine - from what all we know from RELIABLE sources - is not ready for the J-20 and you admit it, and a small part of your post thereafter you claim "there's a slight chance of mass deployment".
That makes no sense at all. Even more it makes no sense from all we know that the PLAAF will at first deploy a non-TVC-variant and later a version with TVC.
I slowly get the feeling you are indeed chasing unicorns and try to interpret each and everything into this belief, the WS-15 has to be already deployed. This theory is so much unlikely and includes so may ifs that I would downright refute it.
Why not taken the much more likely, the much more realistic and especially from reliable sources accepted theory, that the PLAAF is indeed testing several improved WS-10 variants on both the J-110, J-11/16 and J-20, it prepares an improved WS-10 to be operational on the next J-20 version and maybe already testes a TVC-nozzle design mated to a WS-10 on a J-10B.
This theory now includes no unrealistic item, it is doable and therefore IMO likely ... instead of looking in unreliable reports from unreliable sources, based on most likely wrongly interpret information, mixed with technical incompetence and IMO zero understanding of how the Chinese industry or the PLAAF works.
Deino
Ummm, read closely? Ready is an ambiguous term; i.e, it can mean a variety of things from "J-20s are already running WS-15 and they're just camouflaged to look like WS-10" to "the WS-15 has reached a maturity level to an extent that it can be planned for the J-20". I am qualifying it with "there is a chance of mass deployment" because the SCMP article is implying that the J-20A with WS-10B we've been hearing about has been canceled and will be replaced by a J-20B (or whatever designation) with a WS-15.
That, I don't believe, based on other rumors that the J-20A with some WS-10 engine is going into service.
TBH, you guys are starting to get embarrassing. You are attacking me in retaliation for attacks on your epistemology to the extent wherein you are claiming the J-10B with TVC has 14 petals instead of 15, when I've shown why TVC with 14 petals is undesirable for a stealth fighter, as well as how the perspective in the TVC picture is skewed if you assume there are 14 petals instead of 15.
As far as being unwilling to agree with your "consensus", well, simply because it's a consensus doesn't mean that it has to be believed. We even have Gongke101 claiming that "no news is good news" for the J-20; i.e, he's cautiously optimistic to the extent that initial WS-15 trials are believable.
I think the big problem with you guys is that you think there is a "right" and there is a "wrong", when, as I have explained before, you're working in intelligence analysis based on rumors and hearsay, that you insist are absolutely, air-tight, credible. They're not; every claim has a probability of being wrong, even if some claims have relatively small ones.
As for why the J-20 will likely test WS-15 without TVC, I have explained why, unless you want to get into a convoluted argument trying to claim that Russian TVC on the Su-30MKI does not have significant maintenance problems, and the TVC on the F-22 does not have maintenance problems to a lesser extent. It is possible, of course, that the Chinese will complete TVC integration into FCS with the WS-10, instead of the WS-15, but the TVC nozzle, given its lower reliability, represents another point of failure in testing and the WS-15 is best tested without TVC to begin with to avoid this risk.
That, I don't believe, based on other rumors that the J-20A with some WS-10 engine is going into service.
TBH, you guys are starting to get embarrassing. You are attacking me in retaliation for attacks on your epistemology to the extent wherein you are claiming the J-10B with TVC has 14 petals instead of 15, when I've shown why TVC with 14 petals is undesirable for a stealth fighter, as well as how the perspective in the TVC picture is skewed if you assume there are 14 petals instead of 15.
As far as being unwilling to agree with your "consensus", well, simply because it's a consensus doesn't mean that it has to be believed. We even have Gongke101 claiming that "no news is good news" for the J-20; i.e, he's cautiously optimistic to the extent that initial WS-15 trials are believable.
I think the big problem with you guys is that you think there is a "right" and there is a "wrong", when, as I have explained before, you're working in intelligence analysis based on rumors and hearsay, that you insist are absolutely, air-tight, credible. They're not; every claim has a probability of being wrong, even if some claims have relatively small ones.
As for why the J-20 will likely test WS-15 without TVC, I have explained why, unless you want to get into a convoluted argument trying to claim that Russian TVC on the Su-30MKI does not have significant maintenance problems, and the TVC on the F-22 does not have maintenance problems to a lesser extent. It is possible, of course, that the Chinese will complete TVC integration into FCS with the WS-10, instead of the WS-15, but the TVC nozzle, given its lower reliability, represents another point of failure in testing and the WS-15 is best tested without TVC to begin with to avoid this risk.
Long story short: Why the J-20 will likely induct non-TVC WS-15 first:
-non-TVC WS-15 is easier to test; less points of failure mean that a semi-reliable WS-15 can enter readiness before a TVC WS-15
-TVC requires integration with the FCS, and this has to be tested. Once again, non-TVC WS-15 can be certified before TVC WS-15.
-non-TVC has advantages over TVC in that it requires less maintenance work. Some missions may require TVC, others will not, and to run missions without TVC will be cheaper. Given the basic reliability issues associated with Chinese engines, with an order of magnitude difference compared to mature Western engines, maintenance hours may be at a premium.
Of course, please note that I am saying "likely". By likely, I am also asserting that there is a possibility that TVC WS-15 will be inducted first. As always, I say: wait and see.
-non-TVC WS-15 is easier to test; less points of failure mean that a semi-reliable WS-15 can enter readiness before a TVC WS-15
-TVC requires integration with the FCS, and this has to be tested. Once again, non-TVC WS-15 can be certified before TVC WS-15.
-non-TVC has advantages over TVC in that it requires less maintenance work. Some missions may require TVC, others will not, and to run missions without TVC will be cheaper. Given the basic reliability issues associated with Chinese engines, with an order of magnitude difference compared to mature Western engines, maintenance hours may be at a premium.
Of course, please note that I am saying "likely". By likely, I am also asserting that there is a possibility that TVC WS-15 will be inducted first. As always, I say: wait and see.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Regarding F-35, I read that it can maintain speeds of Mach 1.2 without afterburner only for a "150 mile sprint," and that initially afterburner must be used to reach that speed as others have mentioned already.
- Status