J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Engineer]

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

Your chart means nothing. Here is the reality: TVC is bad for begin draggy. Here is a video of a USAF pilot discussing TVC and how it can easily be beaten:

TVC was trendy back in the 80's and 90's. Russia is still stuck in that stage technologically, whereas everyone has moved on. All your promotion of TVC does is illustrate Russian backwardness.

 

[Engineer]

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.

I wouldn't be so quick to assert top Chinese pilots never flew the Su-35 or 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.

Su-35 is just a modified Su-27, meaning there are evolutionary changes but no revolutionary changes. The fact that China expands J-20 production instead of cancelling it for Su-35 clearly says J-20 is superior.

 

[Engineer]

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.

Actually, the article is based on nothing. The article claims to quote Deino, but Deino already points out the article has misquoted him. All the article did is made up some pathetic excuses to justify why the J-20 should not be a fighter. Just because a piece of fiction satisfies your fantasy, that doesn't make the work true.

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

American and Russian views don't matter, just like yours don't. What matters is how PLAAF looks at the J-20. PLAAF views the J-20 as a fighter, uses the J-20 as a fighter, then J-20 is a fighter.

 

[ougoah]

There are definite advantages for TVC. I would say Russians pursuing it back in the 80s and 90s was a wise move. China may even (if not already) benefit from those Russian efforts. Certainly worthy of closer investigation and developing this technology may yield better results in the future when new materials etc can overcome the challenges of excessive weight, wear, sacrificing some thrust... just some of the drawbacks we're aware of. Fighters today have gone to the edge of human ability. In many cases, the thrusts produced and g forces are already too much. The smarter move for China and Russia is to try and match the US in drone and UCAVs. Unmanned and remotely controlled fighters offers so much potential. Both countries do have some pretty advanced drone programs though they lag the US a little.

Is WS-15 set to get TVC options? Is it really necessary for the loss of thrust and increased weight and maintenance problems? I mean J-20 doesn't even have a gun installed in current models. They don't want to be using such a high end and expensive fighter for these things. There are plenty of capable WVR fighters in PLAAF. VLO is reserved for taking out strategic targets and matching US and Japanese F-35 and F-22s. Why bother with TVC when you just want to take long and medium range shots. Maybe have two PL-10s in case things get close. Develop TVC and learn from Russian tech (if not done already) by all means, but does J-20 really need or even want to have it? Supercruise is far more useful. Agility and manuevrability beyond a certain point is close to useless most of the time.

 

[Engineer]

That said, it's somewhat disappointing to realize the J-20 is limited in wing area (73m^2 vs 78m^2 on the comparably-sized F-22); it strongly suggests it will be closer to the interceptor side of the fighter-interceptor combo.

Well, wing area isn't the most important in modern day flight-dynamics. Also, the larger the wing, the larger the drag.

Modern day flight-dynamics of fighter has huge emphasis on manipulation of vortices. The strength of these vortices increases as the angle-of-attack increases, and the angle-of-attack increases when the desire for more lift increases. The exterior of a modern fighter is shaped such that just the right amount of lift is delivered for a particular flight profile. The end effect is adjustable lift like found on F-14, but without weight penalty from swing-wing mechanisms.

So, gauging manoeuvrability of modern fighters based on wing-area is a completely wrong approach.

 

[Deino]

I do research and I mentor students and postdocs. If one of my postdocs tries to make any conclusion based on his/her "eyeballing" some of their images, I would tell them to stop talking and show me actual data! You have no right to say anything without any actual data to support you. By data, I mean actual numbers. It's difficult to come by, but that does not mean people can simply make random eyeballing conclusions. You shouldn't make any conclusions if there is no sufficient data.

All this "eyeballing" is equivalent to the claims made by those alien visitation theorists. They make conclusions based on what they "see" in the sky...

Exactly my point ... arguments "I think", "I have the feeling" or even like by my most favourite opponent "I am simply questioning the identity of the flanker behind the J-20, and the statement that it's wingspan is 14.7m.
Why are you, or anybody else, so sure it's 14.7m?" You cannot argue.

And as so often - esp. a certain US politician demonstrated more than clearly - nowadays its more important to transport "feelings" rather than arguments. Fact's are for nerds only ... what counts is the feeling that the J-20 cannot - it simply cannot - be a fighter, that's all.

Deino

 

[manqiangrexue]

nicest picture i have ever seen, basically this put into shame all those who said J-20 was 20 meters, J-20 was like always i suspected around 21 meters, what a good laugh i have now, all those who said western analysts were wrong are put to shame haha

LOL Never. Western "analysts" laughably put this aircraft at 75 feet, or at least as large as the Aardvark. And to be honest, finding the length of the aircraft is just about the easiest task there is as far as deciphering foreign classified information goes. Even if it's near 21m, which is 68.XX feet, that means they were off by over 6 feet LOL. Shameful to call yourself a military analyst; if you don't know, you don't know but don't give a figure and miss the ballpark completely. Being this wrong is basically like a doctor swearing someone only coughs like that when he is fatally infected with Ebola and it turned out he was choking on a potato. There's your Western "analyst" (no offense to Deino).

 

[Inst]

Lada lada lada. We know quite well that the J-20 has been reported to have subsonic maneuverability mostly on par with Chinese 3/4th gens like the J-11 and J-10. Moreover, stop insisting that the J-20 isn't designed for TVC, since we know that the WS-15 will come out with TVC nozzles. It's intended to be serviceable with canards alone, but it's not really maneuverable without TVC additions.

 

[Deino]

Another attempt ... (left my previous try)

... problem is, the J-16 is a bit distorted and the J-20's radome-tip is not exactly visible.

 

[jobjed]

Use SDF's reply function. It's literally one click.

...we know that the WS-15 will come out with TVC nozzles. It's intended to be serviceable with canards alone, but it's not really maneuverable without TVC additions.

We.. uhh... do not know that, especially considering the WS-15 hasn't even been unveiled. We also don't have any information on its prospective performance with TVC, much less be able to make a judgement of its performance. We only know its pilots consider its supersonic manoeuvrability in its current form unmatched.