J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[latenlazy]

Well it is more of my opinion, not saying it is photoshoped. I could be wrong, but if you look at the new pic's lighting and material texture, overall consistency, and lack of details at the same time, as well as the vignette added during post processing are all indicators this is not from an actual photo. vignette from the lens is usually in round shape. Adding vignette to a render can increase realism but adding digital vignette to an actual photo has not been popular among military pictures

To argue it the other way, it could just be a photo that was taken with low exposure and ISO that had to be edited, with aggressive noise reduction, but one wonders what kind of lighting conditions you'd need for a plane to meet that scenario.

 

[kurutoga]

To argue it the other way, it could just be a photo that was taken with low exposure and ISO that had to be edited, with aggressive noise reduction, but one wonders what kind of lighting conditions you'd need for a plane to meet that scenario.

Agreed. If they had to super aggressively smoothing out some details to hide things, they may very well achieve that effect. Then these photos could be taken by a camera that was planted inside the airport intentionally and is triggered based on some sort of proximity sensor so we can get pictures of the same exact angle.

 

[kurutoga]

I really don't know why anyone assume this to be a CG..? They are similar by coincidence but different enough to see that they are two images.

If someone builds the model then it is not hard to do. The surface and lighting are both very similar to a regular CG. Even the old photo had gone through local contrast adjustments to show the underbelly details.

 

[Deino]

But I really don't think that this Chinese version if Airliners.net allows CG !? As such IMO it is more likely a unique coincidence than 2 CGs.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Are you sure about being WS-10-powered? It does not have the number '2021'.

There is a tell-tale gap between the engine nozzle and the fuselage of the plane that I've come to associate with the WS-10 engine .

 

[dingyibvs]

Hmmm... they look very similar... What would be the odds that, on two separate occasions, two distinct and highly dynamic (fast-moving) objects could be photographed at exact same angle and every single part of the two planes is at the exact same position?

They're not exactly the same. Look at the position of the R back wheel vs. the L nozzle. The yellow primer bird's picture is taken slightly more from the left, which is also reflected in the position of the L nozzle relative to the L ventral fins, or the L intake bump which is less visible on the yellow primer bird.

 

[Inst]

I'm wondering if a TVC-ed J-20 would be as maneuverable as the PAK-FA or F-22, though. As far as we know, TVC isn't baked into the J-20's design, and the PAK-FA has certain advantages (purer lifting body, airframe designed to maximize TVC advantages). The J-20, unfortunately, seems to have relatively mediocre sustained turn rates of between 20 and 24 degrees per second.

 

[Figaro]

I'm wondering if a TVC-ed J-20 would be as maneuverable as the PAK-FA or F-22, though. As far as we know, TVC isn't baked into the J-20's design, and the PAK-FA has certain advantages (purer lifting body, airframe designed to maximize TVC advantages). The J-20, unfortunately, seems to have relatively mediocre sustained turn rates of between 20 and 24 degrees per second.

And how do we get the data? I haven't seen the J-20 running full circles ... so how do we calculate its sustained turn rate? I got 36 for one instantaneous turn but nothing conclusive for sustained ... you have to remember super-maneuverability was one of the 4S's outlined for the fifth generation fighter program. One reason that CAC won over SAC was due to the former's better AOA ... the J-20's aerodynamic layout is optimized for subsonic/transonic maneuverability

There's a long turn of about 18 degrees per second, actually. I seem to
recall seeing a newer J-20 maneuverability video that suggests 24 degree per second turns. If you assume current engines are 142 kN, then an upgraded engine at 180 kN would put it to 27 degrees per second.

I really don't see how you can arrive at such a conclusion ... . Please tell me why a 180kN super engine (on par with the F-135) will only boost its turn rate by 3 degrees? What is your logic behind this pseudo science?

 

[Inst]

There's a long turn of about 18 degrees per second, actually. I seem to recall seeing a newer J-20 maneuverability video that suggests 24 degree per second turns. If you assume current engines are 142 kN, then an upgraded engine at 180 kN would put it to 27 degrees per second.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm wondering if a TVC-ed J-20 would be as maneuverable as the PAK-FA or F-22, though. As far as we know, TVC isn't baked into the J-20's design, and the PAK-FA has certain advantages (purer lifting body, airframe designed to maximize TVC advantages). The J-20, unfortunately, seems to have relatively mediocre sustained turn rates of between 20 and 24 degrees per second.

Are you thinking with or without WS-15?

Tbh even if J-20 is not as maneuverable as Su-57 or even F-22, the degree of "not as" will be important, and even then, I think merely having competitive kinematics will be enough given where the future of aerial warfare is trending towards.


Networking, sensors, sensor integration, RCS and overall signal reduction, range and endurance, production run and unit cost (i.e.: number of 5th generation fighters one can sortie up in the air at a time) is going to be far more important than super maneuverability.


That is why I'm increasingly becoming a believer that the F-35 will be the most capable air superiority system in the world -- each individual fighter might not be as maneuvrable or fast as an F-22, but much more of them will be built with much more of them able to be put in the air at any one time, with a much more well planned and thought out networking capability with more integrated sensors.

For 5th generation fighters, I think the importance of kinematics should be now less to emphasize close quarters knife fighting at the expense of other things (like speed or range/endurance), but it should be to enable things like speed and range/endurance and maneuvrability to allow the platform to exploit a networked, system of systems approach to aerial warfare that will mostly take place in the beyond visual range domain with relatively rare within visual range combat.

Designing an aircraft for dogfighting will still be a big part of the requirements of a fighter in the foreseeable future, but it will be less at the expense of the other domains, and will be more designed to achieve a "good enough" capability in case such an unlikely scenario emerges, to give the aircraft a fighting chance, which even then might not be as important as almost all future aircraft will have HOBS WVR ImIR missiles anyhow.