J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[latenlazy]

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.

And you're not a fighter pilot either! Guess who is? The pilot of the J-20 who you're dismissing, as if you know any better than the pilot who actually flew the plane. By your logic all the claims by pilots of the Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-22 are just propaganda nonsense too, because fighter pilots don't know anything about the fighters they're flying

If the article was based on aerodynamics and design constraints, where is the CFD modeling? Where are the dimensional measurements? Where are the turn rate diagrams at different altitudes and speeds? The article didn't even get the wing area of the J-20 right. We have satellite images! You would think that if the article were so technically based it would employ some actual math and physics, instead of googled commentary from people who judge everything by eyeballing and speculation.

Accusing others of being cheerleaders when you have no answers to their logical reasoning really boosts one's credibility doesn't it? If you want to question my motives, why don't you question your own first? Calling others fanboys won't change the fact that you magically invent figures out of thin air and push them as fact. I'm no "fanboy", but even I if I were, there are much worse things to be in a debate. If it's possible that someone distorts reality because they're "fanboys" it's also possible that someone distorts reality because they're haters or deniers. If you want to play this game that sword cuts both ways. Yano what the arbiter of this game is? The merits of your logical reasoning, *which you continuously sidestep and deflect*.

 

[b787]

And you're not a fighter pilot either! Guess who is? The pilot of the J-20 who you're dismissing, as if you know any better than the pilot who actually flew the plane. By your logic all the claims by pilots of the Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-22 are just propaganda nonsense too, because fighter pilots don't know anything about the fighters they're flying

If the article was based on aerodynamics and design constraints, where is the CFD modeling? Where are the dimensional measurements? Where are the turn rate diagrams at different altitudes and speeds? The article didn't even get the wing area of the J-20 right. We have satellite images! You would think that if the article were so technically based it would employ some actual math and physics, instead of googled commentary from people who judge everything by eyeballing and speculation.

Accusing others of being cheerleaders when you have no answers to their logical reasoning really boosts one's credibility doesn't it? If you want to question my motives, why don't you question your own first? Calling others fanboys won't change the fact that you magically invent figures out of thin air and push them as fact. I'm no "fanboy", but even I if I were, there are much worse things to be in a debate.

You are a pilot wow, the J-20pilot flew a Rafale; do you know what F-22 has flown against Eurofighter and Rafale and Su-30MKI against Eurofighter? those pilots know more than your Chinese pilots, of course you think China bought Su-35 by charity, about modelling why do not you give a good reading to aerodynamics books, it will take your non sense out, Rafale in aerodynamics is better than J-20, J-20 is only better in overall stealth treatment.

A good clue, Rafale is so good thanks to very low wing loading and relatively high TWR, Su-27 is known to have higher wing loading

No need to say more to a fan who thinks he can ask people if you are a pilot when you are not even one

 

[manqiangrexue]

Here's a b787 parody:

It's very simple to see Su-57 is not a competitive fighter at all. Firstly, it tries to have a forward control surface but it can't afford the cost or weight of canards so it uses movable lerxes, which are much smaller and thus less effective, reducing its maneuverability. Then, due to crude Russian manufacturing, it probably weighs about 32 tons empty and if the Russians say it doesn't that's because it's impossible. So it probably goes into battle with fuel and munitions, total about 48 tons, causing it to have an extremely poor TWR and unusable maneuverability. Also, with all the rivets poking out and both engine compressor heads fully exposed through the intakes, its RCS is probably about 23m^2. Of course the Russians don't say that cus that's propaganda. Next, it has big, fat wings, which increase surface area drag so it maxes out at about mach 0.7. Internal bays are big enough to fit about two #2 pencils assuming they're shaved down to about mid point so it's got no missile capacity. It's not that the Russians don't know these problems; they know, of course, but they can't fix it because of stealth shaping constraints and because they're working with a daily budget of less than what it costs to take 6 small Asian girls to MacDonald's. Oh, and because of that, it probably doesn't have a working radar or RAM either. By the way, here's a pic of 4 airplanes: who's fat? Am I fat? No, you're fat, fatty fat fat. I'm thin; you're fat. He's fatter, fatty fat. And before I get slaughtered by logic, let me just say I have had 9 children by 7 different women whom I call my Su-27, MiG-29, Rafale, Typhoon, etc...She flies really well (wink). Here's a pic of one; look at it real quick before I lose her too...aaannnndd she's gone thus my avatar went back to being an airplane. PS. I have no background at all in professional aircraft development or piloting but I'm absolutely qualified to judge cutting edge classified military designs and if you think I'm not, that's because you're a fanboy.

 

[latenlazy]

You are a pilot wow, the J-20pilot flew a Rafale; do you know what F-22 has flown against Eurofighter and Rafale and Su-30MKI against Eurofighter? those pilots more more than your Chinese pilots, of course you think China bought Su-35 by charity, about modelling why do not you give a good reading to aerodynamics books, it will take your non sense out, Rafale in aerodynamics is better than J-20, J-20 is only better in overall stealth treatment.

No need to say more to a fan who thinks he can ask people if you are a pilot when you are not even one

Stop deflecting. You aren't a fighter pilot. Using your own standards you are as unqualified as I am to determine how truthful the J-20 pilots claims are. Also, using your logic Rafale, Eurofighter, and F-22 pilots wouldn't know what they were talking about if they made claims about the J-20's performance either, since they have never flown against a J-20! I have not seen any of those pilots make claims about the J-20's performance though, so it doesn't seem like they entertain such foolishness.

I *have* read up on aerodynamics, which is a lot more than I can say about you. Anyone with even an *inkling* of proper understanding about the subject would first ask *at what speed and altitude* anytime they see a turn rate figure. Without that data claims about turn rates *are meaningless*. You don't seem to have that comprehension. Maybe the person who needs to examine their nonsense isn't me here.

Calling others fanboys won't change that every time someone puts some logical scrutiny to your claims you fall to name calling instead of answering the argument with logic, reasoning, and evidence. Is this because you know you don't have any basis for your claims but you want people to believe you anyways? That doesn't make you right. It just makes you self delusional.

 

[b787]

Stop deflecting. You aren't a fighter pilot. Using your own standards you are as unqualified as I am to determine how truthful the J-20 pilots claims are. Also, using your logic Rafale, Eurofighter, and F-22 pilots wouldn't know what they were talking about if they made claims about the J-20's performance either, since they have never flown against a J-20 either! I have not seen any of those pilots make claims about the J-20's performance though, so it doesn't seem like they entertain such foolishness.

I *have* read up on aerodynamics, which is a lot more than I can say about you. Anyone with even an *inkling* of proper understanding about the subject would first ask *at what speed and altitude* anytime they see a turn rate figure. Without that data claims about turn rates *are meaningless*. You don't seem to have that comprehension. Maybe the person who needs to examine their nonsense isn't me here.

You will not change the Russian or American view, they rate the J-20 as less maneuverable in the case of Russia, the American analysis also rate it as an interceptor interdictor, no much amount you try to hide the fact you are a fan will change what most western or Russia writers say, the article quoted reflects that thinking, only here fans over rate J-20, you are one, no body blames you, you are Chinese, but outside your Sinodefence club, people view it in a different way

 

[siegecrossbow]

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.

That's not latenlazy's argument at all. I think you are overreading his words.

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that the J-20 pilot is lying due to propaganda reasons. Why not make claims about something less visible and harder to refute (like sensor or radar which, admittedly, they also claimed to be excellent). Why make outlandish claims about an obvious weakness? After all, we never see J-8, JH-7, or even J-11B (before taihang engine performance stabilized) pilots making similar claims regarding maneuverability but instead claims of better avionics or weapons.

 

[manqiangrexue]

You will not change the Russian or American view, they rate the J-20 as less maneuverable in the case of Russia, the American analysis also rate as an interceptor interdictor, no much amount you try to hide the fact you are a fan will change what most western or Russia writers say, the article quoted reflects that thinking, only here fans over rate J-20, you are one, no body blames you, you are Chinese, but outside your Sinodefence club, people view it in a different way

By purposefully misquoting their own sources like Deino and then deleting his comment when the source himself shows up to correct them. I've never seen a more obvious case of sweeping your problems under the rug. That's the quality of the people who say J-20 has poor maneuverability.

 

[latenlazy]

You will not change the Russian or American view, they rate the J-20 as less maneuverable in the case of Russia, the American analysis also rate as an interceptor interdictor, no much amount you try to hide the fact you are a fan will change what most western or Russia writers say, the article quoted reflect that thinking, only here fans over rate J-20, you are one, no body blames you you are Chinese, but outside your Sinodefence club, people view it in a different way

The American and Russian view will always been right! They've never been surprised or wrong before!

I'm *American*, btw. Contrary to what you think I don't insist that the J-20 is probably a capable fighter because I'm a cheerleader for China, but because I see a lot of very strong evidence that it is, and I am concerned that my own country is *underestimating* a rival power, which it has been prone to do quite repeatedly. The American security establishment has been wrong about many things many times before *precisely* because they have a bad habit of drawing conclusions before they have the facts, which is what you do a lot here. That most people outside our PLA watching community seem to think otherwise about the J-20 is not a strong reason to think they're right. Crowds can be and often are wrong. The *sole* determinant of whether something is true or accurate is the factual basis which defines that something, not the views and beliefs of other people. Before you insist that American or Russian commentators must be right, you should be scrutinizing the basis by which they reach their conclusions. If you take a claim without questioning how it was arrived at you are gullible. If you reject a claim for no other reason than it does not fit what you want to believe then you are blind.

 

[b787]

That's not latenlazy's argument at all. I think you are overreading his words.

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that the J-20 pilot is lying due to propaganda reasons. Why not make claims about something less visible and harder to refute (like sensor or radar which, admittedly, they also claimed to be excellent). Why make outlandish claims about an obvious weakness? After all, we never see J-8, JH-7, or even J-11B (before taihang engine performance stabilized) pilots making similar claims regarding maneuverability but instead claims of better avionics or weapons.

J-20 could have a better Instantaneous turn rate than a regular J-11 loaded in the same weapons load configuration i admit that, but without a higher thrust to weight ratio is very unlikely it has better turn rate because of the lower thrust to weight ratio and delta wing.
However J-11 does not epitomize the best Flanker variant, against a Su-35, J-20 could win thanks to stealth, that is also very possible, but in WVR it is very unlikely unless it has much better avionics that jam the radar and stealth that allows a first look first kill, but Su-35 very likely is as competitive a Rafale.

However Su-35 due to is internal structure, wing size and aerodynamic configuration has reached a point where it has limits well defined, however the Thrust issue on J-20 will lower a lot its sustained turn rate, and its aerodynamic configuration highly compromised by stealth can not achieve the best configuration that aircraft like J-10 or Rafale achieved.

To give you a clue Rafale flies so well that originally tested a twin vertical tail version, but it was considered it does not need them, when it flew against the F-22 it showed to be a superb machine.

But it is in part due to a very large wing in proportion to the size and weight of its frame.

J-20 has a smaller wing in proportion to F-22 and Rafale

 

[latenlazy]

J-20 could have a better Instantaneous turn rate than a regular J-11 loaded in the same weapons load configuration i admit that, but without a higher thrust to weight ratio is very unlikely it has better turn rate because of the lower thrust to weight ratio and delta wing.
However J-11 does not epitomize the best Flanker variant, against a Su-35, J-20 could win thanks to stealth, that is also very possible, but in WVR it is very unlikely unless it has much better avionics that jam the radar and stealth that allows a first look first kill, but Su-35 very likely is as competitive a Rafale.

However Su-35 due to is internal structure, wing size and aerodynamic configuration has reached a point where it has limits well defined, however the Thrust issue on J-20 will lower a lot its sustained turn rate, and its aerodynamic configuration highly compromised by stealth can not achieve the best configuration that aircraft like J-10 or Rafale achieved.

To give you a clue Rafale flies so well that originally tested a twin vertical tail version, but it was considered it does not need them, when it flew against the F-22 it showed to be a superb machine.

But it is in part due to a very large wing in proportion to the size and weight of its frame.

J-20 has a smaller wing in proportion to F-22 and Rafale

You don't know the J-20's weight, lift curve, or drag curve to be making *any* of those claims on sound reasoning. You're making pure speculations based on presumptions that you refuse to examine critically.