J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Figaro]

I think the J-20 as it stands is similar to the Panavia Tornado.

There was a long range interceptor version for patrolling the GIUK gap in the Atlantic ocean against Soviet bombers.

But there were also Electronic Warfare and low-level strike versions.

The J-20 was neither designed to be a strike or interceptor in the first place ... why would it be similar to the Tornado? Even without the WS-15, the J-20 will still fulfill its aerial superiority role quite adequately

 

[siegecrossbow]

The J-20 was neither designed to be a strike or interceptor in the first place ... why would it be similar to the Tornado? Even without the WS-15, the J-20 will still fulfill its aerial superiority role quite adequately

A more accurate comparison would probably be Mirage-2000 or F-14 before it was reengined.

 

[b787]

The J-20 was neither designed to be a strike or interceptor in the first place ... why would it be similar to the Tornado? Even without the WS-15, the J-20 will still fulfill its aerial superiority role quite adequately

The answer is very easy if you know the distance the main wing has with the jet engine nozzles, on a fighter like Gripen, the main wing is farther form the nozzles, thus the supersonic center of lift moves much less aft and its wing its farther ahead of the main center of gravity, this tells you the J-20 needs to compensate that with big canards that increased drag, also in fighters like F-22 the TVC nozzles reduces drag at supersonic speeds, since the J-20 lacks them and the wing is pretty aft, the jet can not be so agile even at supersonic speeds add the aircraft has the main weapons bay ahead of the center of gravity, compared to a Typhoon the weapons are pretty ahead, the Typhoon for example has semi recessed weapons and these are farther aft, this releases a lot of pressure on the lift required fully loaded, it is not that the Chinese did not know that, but they were forced to designed like that due to stealth requirements and less advanced engine technology.
Add the type of inlet and you can see pretty much it flies in the region of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.4 at supercruise with very good engines, as it stand now its cruising speed is subsonic, with high short burst of supersonic speed with afterburner.

The aircraft obviously is designed to achieve its max supersonic speed around Mach 1.8.

That is why the article does not rate so high the J-20 as our colleges do here

 

[AndrewS]

The J-20 was neither designed to be a strike or interceptor in the first place ... why would it be similar to the Tornado? Even without the WS-15, the J-20 will still fulfill its aerial superiority role quite adequately

Without the WS-15 with its higher thrust and low-observability, the J-20 would struggle to fulfill an aerial superiority role and dogfight. Particularly against other stealth fighters.

So if we look at the J-20 operating deep in the Western Pacific, it is a similar situation to the Tornado ADV operating in the Atlantic Ocean during the Cold War. There are a bunch of lessons there for China.

Then of course, there is going after high value assets directly located within the First Island Chain. And it would be foolish for the J-20 to get close enough to have to dogfight.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Without the WS-15 with its higher thrust and low-observability, the J-20 would struggle to fulfill an aerial superiority role and dogfight. Particularly against other stealth fighters.

So if we look at the J-20 operating deep in the Western Pacific, it is a similar situation to the Tornado ADV operating in the Atlantic Ocean during the Cold War. There are a bunch of lessons there for China.

Then of course, there is going after high value assets directly located within the First Island Chain. And it would be foolish for the J-20 to get close enough to have to dogfight.

Read my post on F-14 and Mirage-2000. Thrust to weight is important but not everything. Moreover, we have a J-20 pilot directly stating on more than one occasion that the J-20 maneuvers better than any 4th gen fighter he has flown. I don't think he has the need to lie to everybody about this if the J-20 we're a complete turkey.

 

[b787]

Read my post on F-14 and Mirage-2000. Thrust to weight is important but not everything. Moreover, we have a J-20 pilot directly stating on more than one occasion that the J-20 maneuvers better than any 4th gen fighter he has flown. I don't think he has the need to lie to everybody about this if the J-20 we're a complete turkey.

he did not fly Su-35, Rafale or Eurofighter, plus there is something called propaganda, no air force will say we build a bad aircraft specially to its enemies .

If you think F-22 flew better without TVC nozzles, well it did not, hard to believe with lower thrust to weight ratio and a stated need for WS-15 at 16-18 tonnes thrust yield; any serious analysis will not say it flies so well specially since thrust is needed for sustained turn rate, less thrust lower sustained turn rate.

Further more it has never shown to be able to perform post stall a good indicator of AoA handling and roll rate

 

[latenlazy]

he did not fly Su-35, Rafale or Eurofighter, plus there is something called propaganda, no air force will say we build a bad aircraft specially to its enemies .

Have you flown any fighters in your life? If not, why should we take your word over the word of the pilot? Have you ever designed a fighter before? If not why should we take your word over the designer's?

If you want to understand why they say that you have to understand the size of the machine it self, consider the size of the weapons bays, if you just look at the main landing gear to the inlet lip you will notice the F-22 has a shorter size weapons bays, also it is no mystery the J-20 by having a longer nose to nozzle section it will be able to carry more fuel.
By weapons bays and fuel tanks you can easily guess with economical engines will have longer range and very likely bigger weapons inside the bays.


The J-20 then can be easily considered more of an interceptor interdictor fighter.

From the nozzle to nose section you can see they are packing more volume than F-22, without TVC nozzles and a 1.4 TWR at combat it is unlikely it will be a match to F-22, thus it it will operate over the sea operation with lower TWR then it is more or less like an F-35.

You have to consider the thrust it has now, not what it might have in 10 years.

The weight is not 15 tonnes as a poster suggested it will not make sense for the following reason, Su-27 will operate at 24 tonnes and its Al-31s will give it enough TWR to be in the 1:1.27 ratio, if the J-20 is so light then it will not need WS-15.

J-20 at least weight 29-30 tonnes at normal take off weight and a Max weight of 36 tonnes, thus to get a fighter type TWR it will need at least engines in the region of 15-17 tonnes like Su-57 and F-22.

WS-15 even you think the lowest thrust should be 15 tonnes and that will be a decent 1:1.1 TWR at normal take off

More or less like Su-57, thus it will explain you easily why they bought Su-35.


If in the future it has engines in the range of 15-17 tonnes it will become very likely a pure fighter, but as for now it has the numbers of an interceptor and an interdictor.

You basic argument is that you reject any facts that don't fit with your preconceptions and substitute information from sources who might know more than you with your own conjectures.

 

[b787]

Have you flown any fighters in your life?

let as say the Su-27/J-11 can not compare to Su-35 the purchase of Su-35 by China says all, Su-27 can not beat a Rafale.


Rafale is said to have a more than 30deg/s instantaneous turn rate and at least a 24 deg/sec sustained and if you do not believe in WVR combat Rafale was not beaten even by F-22


But of course you are a fan.

 

[latenlazy]

let as say the Su-27/J-11 can not compare to Su-35 the purchase of Su-35 by China says all, Su-27 can not beat a Rafale.

Rafale is said to have a more than 30deg/s instantaneous turn rate and at least a 24 deg/sec sustained


But of course you are a fan, defender of the grail

And you're Monty Python's black knight. You didn't answer the question. Have you ever flown a fighter before?

The Rafale is said to have more than 30 deg/s ITR at what speed and altitude? A kite can have a 30 deg/s turn rate at a low speed and altitude. If your interest is in comparing the Rafale with the J-20, do you know what the J-20's ITR is in the same flight conditions? That statement means nothing without context, and that you think it means anything is very telling about your understanding of flight.

 

[b787]

You didn't answer the question. Have you ever flown a fighter before?

i will say this, you are no pilot, not even a fighter one, you are just cheer leading an aircraft, the article is based upon basic aerodynamics and design constraints, if you do not like the article no need to argue it, but if you think every one has to cheer leading the J-20 as the greatest thing after butter, well be my guest, the article was not written by me, but goes along the lines i think, not in the line you think.