J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brumby

Brumby

Major
If I am not mistaken all "dog fights" are at sub sonic level and the notion of supersonic maneuvering is really not relevant to the topic of maneuverability. The objective measures of maneuverability is sustained and instantaneous turn rate. The less measurable are ability to recover airspeed and responsiveness at slow speed. Being better or worst is rather meaningless when the comparative measure is unknown.

Given that the J-20 supposedly has similar agility to the J-10, does anybody know what is the sustained and instantaneous turn rate of the J-10? . .
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Brumby said:
If I am not mistaken all "dog fights" are at sub sonic level and the notion of supersonic maneuvering is really not relevant to the topic of maneuverability. The objective measures of maneuverability is sustained and instantaneous turn rate. The less measurable are ability to recover airspeed and responsiveness at slow speed. Being better or worst is rather meaningless when the comparative measure is unknown.

Given that the J-20 supposedly has similar agility to the J-10, does anybody know what is the sustained and instantaneous turn rate of the J-10? . .
Click to expand...

In a dogfight, losing speed is usually a death sentence. No-one does airshow tricks in a real battle, it’s about zooming past and locking on before the other plane locks on, and making fast turns to escape enemy lock on. Supersonic-high subsonic performance is the most important metric for dogfighting.

There’s no official stat on the J-10s exact turn rate, but plenty of videos showing impressive performances.

I think by the next major air show (Or even August 1 if we’re lucky) we might see a J-20 being publicly pushed to it’s limits, like the J-10s have been in Zhuhai last year.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
Interesting this claim.

What link, analysis supports that there is a new generation of kinetically superior missiles ?

I mean, the computer capacity increased a lot in the past decades, but the missile material, fuel and control surfaces doesn't improved a lot .

And HMD, HOBS existing since the 70s, so that can not be a reason to justify inferior flight characteristic.
Click to expand...

HMD and HOBS from 70s cannot compare with their abilities today. Missile fuel have improved. Motors have improved. Fuel management has improved. How then did everyone double the range of their medium missiles with more or less the same dimensions and weight? Not to mention improved seekers and guidance, making dodging modern missiles harder than the ones from the 70s. I saying it shouldn't be a priority to design that level of agility and maneuver ability into a fighter these days. As well as j20 and f35 performs in most kinematic respects, the emphasis is clearly on electronic and software improvements over fourth gen and combined with all aspect vlo.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Because of the Low observable aspects of fifth generation fighters even with out those some degree of turn and maneuver is still needed.
Star bursts and Cobra maneuver are for air shows.
Barrel rolls, Sharp banks, Immelmann turn Split S, Dives and zoom climbs are all established air combat maneuvers.
The pest place to kill an enemy fighter is still the six O’clock. The fastest way to find ones self in that bad spot of a enemy on their 6 is to over shoot. Speed is important but position is more so.
Super maneuverability is a nice to have but not an absolute need. The Russians love love to emphasize it. Yet there have been cases lots of cases where in a Seemingly inferior maneuvering machine has killed the more nimble one.
Third Generation fighters were based around interceptor craft with high speed and climbing but lack luster turn to favor the air to air missile.
Fourth gen fighters came about when speed of fighters has more or less equalized and maneuvering was pushed as a factor.
Russians pushed extreme maneuverability
Western fighters favored “Good enough”.
J20 doesn’t seem to match the Russian Air Ballet but may instead follow the “good enough” mindset.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Actually US, Russian, and Chinese high-end fighters have trended towards increased maneuverability. The F-22 has 2D TVC, the Su-57 has 3D TVC and lots of moveable surfaces, the J-20 has canards and will have 3D TVC in the future.
It is the F-35 which is the exception in this regard yet people still defend this choice. Which to me is baffling.
It was nothing more than a cost-cutting exercise.
It is proposed that the maneuverability reduction will be more than compensated by the improved pilot interface which would speed up target acquisition and the newer missiles combined with the helmet would increase the volume of space you can actually target. Fine. But, you can add those features to the other more maneuverable fighters too, I doubt the Chinese will make a medium fighter without TVC like the US chose to do for economic reasons. In addition there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that modern AI might be more efficient at detecting targets than any human operator, regardless if he has that helmet or not, the AI basically can analyze targets in all aspect. A human is limited because of binocular vision. The AI can basically detect targets much like a fly with compound eyes, in fact, that is kind of what AESA is, a multiple sensor array. It just operates in the microwave instead of visible or near-visible spectrum. But that leads us to another question, which is if the pilot should have something akin to a dead-man's switch which turns control over to AI in war combat situations to reduce the latency. Last but not least, there is one major omission people forget but we have heard Chinese engineers mention, which is that the maneuverability increases your chances of escape even if stealth fails. No amount of sensor trickery counters that.
In the end this might prove to be the crucial part.

I also wonder if the time advantage of the helmet in the F-35 is all it is cracked up to be. Because of the fact that weapons are supposed to be carried internally you will have more lag until the missile actually starts on its way to the target compared with shooting off a rail. The J-20 has the side doors and exposed missile sensor for the close range IR missiles but the F-35 does not. This may also be a critical problem with the F-35 and an advantage of the J-20.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
TVC isn’t what makes a fighter a better Turning machine that’s the aerodynamic control surfaces.
What it does it allow a faster reorientation of the nose of the fighter or rocket. Missiles and rockets use TVC.
With the advent of high off boresight missiles the need to absolutely lock in is less critical. As the missile and fighter are talking and allow lock on after launch. And using the missiles TVC to complete the maneuvering. That said people I think over estimate how Agile TVC makes the fighter ( remember fighters like Mig29 were doing Cobra before TVC) and under estimate fighter that lack it.
J20 as we have seen thus far seems to lack that ability necessitating the ability to deploy a missile into the air stream for the seaker to gain a lock before launch.
Post thrust stall maneuvers are also over estimated in there ability to break a lock on.
 
Hyperwarp

Hyperwarp

Captain
The comment about engines and radars is buried in the last line of the paragraph (Attached below). It is a very vague sentence. What do they mean by radar diffculties? Is it about raw performance or does it relate things like LPI and other advanced features?? Regarding the engines, well that that is nothing new.

By the way, what the heck do they mean by " although production is unlikely to begin until at least 2019." o_Oo_Oo_O

Are they suggesting the FC-31 is going into production? :eek::confused:

ExZ7iVV.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top