J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[ZeEa5KPul]

This reminds me of a Chengdu

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that might have something to do with the resigned nose. The patent is on a new nose cone shape that reduces drag in both subsonic and supersonic regimes. From mach 1.2 to mach 2, a drag reduction of around 10% can be achieved. Although the tip of the new nose design has a greater cross-sectional area that increases initial resistance, a more refined transition/curvature from the tip to the aft results in a net reduction in drag.

Is it 10% drag reduction in just the nose or the entire airframe? Because it's mental if it's the latter.

 

[taxiya]

Is it 10% drag reduction in just the nose or the entire airframe? Because it's mental if it's the latter.

It is implied to be ONLY of the nose. In the summary section, it listed the criteria of the comparison "same lenth and base area" of comparable nose, see yellow highlight.

 

[sequ]

Well, 10% reduction in drag (of the nose) from Mach 1.2-2 is basically the supercruise regime of the J-20A. Great achievement for such a small change.

+ the hump behind the cockpit that reduces trans-sonic drag--> Sleek J-20A

 

[by78]

Is it 10% drag reduction in just the nose or the entire airframe? Because it's mental if it's the latter.

It's only the nose.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

I agree. I have said before and will say it again that China deserves to have the largest and most powerful military in the world by any measure. I am definitely not arguing that the Chinese military should reduce its procurement; I want them to increase it as they see fit. But the statement I am arguing against is that since the enemy has 3,500 aircraft, we need at least 3,500 to match them.

1. How was this 3,500 number calculated? Does it include a ton of Indian MiG-21?
2. We need not strain to match just a superficial number, but build what we can afford and can intelligently incorporate into our strategy.
3. Saying that we need X to match X is to imply that the PLA cannot win by strategy or superior technology, which I strongly disagree with. Our commanders are better and our technology is already competitive with the best in the world, world-beating in some cases and still growing like a young calf. We will win by strategy and technology... and dominate by number. We don't need the latter, but will have it anyway because it is what we deserve.

US has 2700 4th gen or better fighters in Active service across all services. Japan Korea Taiwan and Australia combined has more than 1000 in active service.

This is just active, US also has 1000+ 4th gen fighters in storage or National guard duty.

One might argue about logistics and how US can deploy all these fighters and so on. But if they have it, they can bring it before a fight. US is already prepositioning weapons and planes. So, this is the maximum limit they can bring.

Also, I never said China cannot win if they don't match these numbers. But its hard to be certain. That means even for US, they have strong confidence they can still win, which will make them bold and eager to fight China.

But if China had this many planes, combined with its missile arsenal they would have made any kind of US confidence to win to be completely seem unrealistic. That would deter US involvement in Chinese part of the world. Essentially kicking US out of the picture.

Strength is best way to ensure peace. China right now, does not have that. So, they are vulnerable.

 

[Blitzo]

US has 2700 4th gen or better fighters in Active service across all services. Japan Korea Taiwan and Australia combined has more than 1000 in active service.

This is just active, US also has 1000+ 4th gen fighters in storage or National guard duty.

One might argue about logistics and how US can deploy all these fighters and so on. But if they have it, they can bring it before a fight. US is already prepositioning weapons and planes. So, this is the maximum limit they can bring.

Also, I never said China cannot win if they don't match these numbers. But its hard to be certain. That means even for US, they have strong confidence they can still win, which will make them bold and eager to fight China.

But if China had this many planes, combined with its missile arsenal they would have made any kind of US confidence to win to be completely seem unrealistic. That would deter US involvement in Chinese part of the world. Essentially kicking US out of the picture.

Strength is best way to ensure peace. China right now, does not have that. So, they are vulnerable.

This strand of discussion is about strategic procurement needs and air force deployment capabilities, is far beyond J-20 related discussions (J-20 procurement speculation would be relevant to the thread), so I advise people to stop this chain of discussion or to move it to a different thread if they want to talk about this.

Further posts on the matter will be deleted.

 

[Blitzo]

Back on topic now...

Does anyone have the original video and/or other video stills of this image of a J-20 simulator/cockpit? I ask because this is probably the best quality image that actually depicts the entirety of what J-20's actual cockpit likely looks like, and I was wondering if the original image stills and/or video has any other frames where contrast could be done to check other details.

Specifically, in J-20's cockpit obviously we all know that it has a large panoramic display with touch screen capability, but the more interesting parts is how they seem to retain a decent amount of buttons.
There are some physical buttons/pads on the upfront control display as part of the HUD, and there is also a lower central display with buttons all around it, and it also seems like the main panoramic display has buttons on the left and right sides of the display.

I make those observations, because it seems combination of having buttons with a large central touch screen display is a good decision, from what some pilots that have flown the F-35 have remarked, namely that the presence of physical buttons allow for easier access to certain key functions that are routinely used, as well as being easier to access to key functions in situations where you need to act quickly and responsively without flicking to a different "page" on the touch screen.

(Not too dissimilar to how some contemporary cars take things too far by placing too many key/routine functions of a car into the touch screen, making it difficult to access them while driving)

 

[siegecrossbow]

Back on topic now...

Does anyone have the original video and/or other video stills of this image of a J-20 simulator/cockpit? I ask because this is probably the best quality image that actually depicts the entirety of what J-20's actual cockpit likely looks like, and I was wondering if the original image stills and/or video has any other frames where contrast could be done to check other details.

Specifically, in J-20's cockpit obviously we all know that it has a large panoramic display with touch screen capability, but the more interesting parts is how they seem to retain a decent amount of buttons.
There are some physical buttons/pads on the upfront control display as part of the HUD, and there is also a lower central display with buttons all around it, and it also seems like the main panoramic display has buttons on the left and right sides of the display.

I make those observations, because it seems combination of having buttons with a large central touch screen display is a good decision, from what some pilots that have flown the F-35 have remarked, namely that the presence of physical buttons allow for easier access to certain key functions that are routinely used, as well as being easier to access to key functions in situations where you need to act quickly and responsively without flicking to a different "page" on the touch screen.

(Not too dissimilar to how some contemporary cars take things too far by placing too many key/routine functions of a car into the touch screen, making it difficult to access them while driving)

Should be this one.

The touch screen on F-35 does not use the same capacitive touch screen we see in smartphones and tablets. It uses a more traditional “laser grid” system to detect where the finger is placed and is clunkier to use than modern consumer touch screen.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Should be this one.

The touch screen on F-35 does not use the same capacitive touch screen we see in smartphones and tablets. It uses a more traditional “laser grid” system to detect where the finger is placed and is clunkier to use than modern consumer touch screen.

Modern consumer touch screen don't recognize my fingers touching the screen 3 time out of 5. Just imagining trying to use a touch screen in a fighter plane while flying in a combat situation look pretty hard to me.

 

[Blitzo]

Should be this one.

Thanks...

jeez the video is 40 minutes long rofl

The touch screen on F-35 does not use the same capacitive touch screen we see in smartphones and tablets. It uses a more traditional “laser grid” system to detect where the finger is placed and is clunkier to use than modern consumer touch screen.

The touch screen technology of the F-35's main display is certainly different, however from what I've read, the issue is somewhat broadly attributed to touch screens in general, where you don't have an ability to easily access key functions in a "heads up manner" like you do with buttons, due to the need to know specifically where to press on the screen (or even worse, to have to go into a different "page" to find it)