J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[TK3600]

It isn’t so much that it has no value as that it won’t add enough to justify the additional complexity for the time being. It will certainly be featured on J-35 and Sixth gen. But for J-20 it may not be ready in time to meet a certain deadline set by CMC.

It is just cope at this point. He clearly said J-20 has no plan to install it, and the future of combat don't need it either. He implied TVC was already tested, so tech barrier is unlikely. Therefore no TVC on J-20 is on purpose, and will not change.

The talk is also about air combat in general. It is strongly implied J-35 will not have it either. Unless somehow shenyang people made a different conclusion, but I doubt that.

This means only time we may see TVC on Chinese fighter jet is for exports, whose requirements and tactic may differ from PLA.

 

[Maikeru]

It is just cope at this point. He clearly said J-20 has no plan to install it, and the future of combat don't need it either. He implied TVC was already tested, so tech barrier is unlikely. Therefore no TVC on J-20 is on purpose, and will not change.

The talk is also about air combat in general. It is strongly implied J-35 will not have it either. Unless somehow shenyang people made a different conclusion, but I doubt that.

This means only time we may see TVC on Chinese fighter jet is for exports, whose requirements and tactic may differ from PLA.

Might come back for the 6th gen to make up for lack of vertical control surfaces.

TVC not only adds significant acquisition and maintenance costs, it also reduces thrust and increases weight. With some years experience of operating Su35 under its belt, PLAAF probably decided that the TVC juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. And IMO they're probably right. WVR combat is not where air to air fights are heading and, even if they were, most of the attacking capability TVC gives you is already provided by HMS and HOBS IRAAMS.

PS: would love to see translated subtitles for that video, perhaps some kind person here could give us edited highlights?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

TVC is not just for bragging. It allows the fighter to quickly point its nose at an off boresight direction. Which means IR missile sensors on the fighter can lock onto a target that would have otherwise not been able to be engaged.

LOAL and HOBS made all that obsolete. The missile manoeuvres, not the fighter.

 

[TK3600]

Might come back for the 6th gen to make up for lack of vertical control surfaces.

TVC not only adds significant acquisition and maintenance costs, it also reduces thrust and increases weight. With some years experience of operating Su35 under its belt, PLAAF probably decided that the TVC juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. And IMO they're probably right. WVR combat is not where air to air fights are heading and, even if they were, most of the attacking capability TVC gives you is already provided by HMS and HOBS IRAAMS.

PS: would love to see translated subtitles for that video, perhaps some kind person here could give us edited highlights?

I agree. 6th generation may very well change things. We just don't know enough to make an assumption yet. I doubt anyone does.

I also want to clarify that no TVC don't mean agility totally is meaningless. Look at J-20, it is very very manoeuvrable without TVC, so clearly it was designed with great agility in mind. Sacrifice many other parameters for a moderate increase in turning don't make any sense.

 

[gelgoog]

LOAL and HOBS made all that obsolete. The missile manoeuvres, not the fighter.

The Soviets came up with the first widely manufactured HOBS missile, the R-73 Archer. And yet the Russians, as the successors to the Soviets, still considered it important enough to add TVC to a fighter which didn't have it. Despite having IR missiles with even better HOBS capability than the Soviets.

I agree. 6th generation may very well change things. We just don't know enough to make an assumption yet. I doubt anyone does.

I also want to clarify that no TVC don't mean agility totally is meaningless. Look at J-20, it is very very manoeuvrable without TVC, so clearly it was designed with great agility in mind. Sacrifice many other parameters for a moderate increase in turning don't make any sense.

The J-20 has canards, so it should have much better agility than for example the F-35. It should also be competitive against the F-22 in terms of agility, even if the F-22 should have the edge because it has TVC. Not that this matters much, given that the F-22 is likely on the way out, it was manufactured in small numbers, and like half the F-22 airplanes won't even be upgraded.

I don't have any issue with the lack of TVC in the J-20 since this is just a design decision. The designers looked at it from an engineering standpoint and decided against putting it in. When the J-20 was designed Chinese TVC was not mature, and like was said here, TVC adds maintenance issues, cost issues, and weight issues.

 

[TK3600]

I don't have any issue with the lack of TVC in the J-20 since this is just a design decision. The designers looked at it from an engineering standpoint and decided against putting it in. When the J-20 was designed Chinese TVC was not mature, and like was said here, TVC adds maintenance issues, cost issues, and weight issues.

My point is maturity is not the problem. Chief said with great certainty that J-20 will not need TVC in future. TVC's maintnence issue, weight, thrust reduction will not change over time, it is structural. Maturity is not an issue.

He also said with great certainty that future air to air combat will deemphasize what TVC provides, and more so as time go on. This means PLA tactics and requirement will not change to favor TVC in future.

The only factor left to change is air frame. If the air frame of 6th generation changed in a way TVC is needed to compensate something, then TVC may see a use. But we don't know that. Nobody does.

 

[latenlazy]

Might come back for the 6th gen to make up for lack of vertical control surfaces.

TVC not only adds significant acquisition and maintenance costs, it also reduces thrust and increases weight. With some years experience of operating Su35 under its belt, PLAAF probably decided that the TVC juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. And IMO they're probably right. WVR combat is not where air to air fights are heading and, even if they were, most of the attacking capability TVC gives you is already provided by HMS and HOBS IRAAMS.

PS: would love to see translated subtitles for that video, perhaps some kind person here could give us edited highlights?

Increasingly seems like the future of air combat maneuverability is going to emphasize defensive over offensive maneuverability, so better sustained energy preservation and management over faster instantaneous vector changes.

 

[Gloire_bb]

WVR combat is not where air to air fights are heading and, even if they were, most of the attacking capability TVC gives you is already provided by HMS and HOBS IRAAMS.

Always was a bit curious about this approach.

One literally has to choose one - either 'stealth proliferation is inefficient', or 'WVR will die'.
The whole point of stealth technology is the reduction of detection/acquisition range for both platforms and weapons; the desired result of the whole investment is the decrease of combat ranges to more decisive ones(i.e. the shorter - the better).

LOAL and HOBS made all that obsolete.

LOAL/HOBS penalize the missile in both the available energy (it's forced to perform sharp maneuvers when it's supposed to accelerate - and they really have 1-2 seconds of that acceleration in the first place) and proper acquisition (lock on rail is reliable both in fact and in the target: heatseekers are notorious for FF). Photos of iris-t which failed to acquire simple, straight-flying targets when launched from a stationary, stable ground platform shall serve as a warning here.

A lot of people assume that LOAL/HOBS is a point'n'click adventure equalizing f-16 with 777. Fact is it's either used in conjunction with maneuver, or is more of a desperate defensive firing solution.

The Soviets came up with the first widely manufactured HOBS missile, the R-73 Archer. And yet the Russians, as the successors to the Soviets, still considered it important enough to add TVC to a fighter which didn't have it. Despite having IR missiles with even better HOBS capability than the Soviets.

Best to skip this one.
There is a frequent assumption (based mostly on 1990s mutual state of technology) that Soviets/Russians are some sort of WVR maniacs. Ironically, the opposite was always much closer to truth.

 

[TK3600]

Always was a bit curious about this approach.

One literally has to choose one - either 'stealth proliferation is inefficient', or 'WVR will die'.
The whole point of stealth technology is the reduction of detection/acquisition range for both platforms and weapons; the desired result of the whole investment is the decrease of combat ranges to more decisive ones(i.e. the shorter - the better).


LOAL/HOBS penalize the missile in both the available energy (it's forced to perform sharp maneuvers when it's supposed to accelerate - and they really have 1-2 seconds of that acceleration in the first place) and proper acquisition (lock on rail is reliable both in fact and in the target: heatseekers are notorious for FF). Photos of iris-t which failed to acquire simple, straight-flying targets when launched from a stationary, stable ground platform shall serve as a warning here.

A lot of people assume that LOAL/HOBS is a point'n'click adventure equalizing f-16 with 777. Fact is it's either used in conjunction with maneuver, or is more of a desperate defensive firing solution.

Stealth proliferation is inefficient for roles outside air to air combat.

For air to air combat however stealth is mandatory. Chief specifically said that.

"Stealth vs non stealth for air to air combat is like a different league."

"We tried to develop new tactics for 4.5 gen aircrafts to counter 5th gen, like wolf pack tactics, but none worked"

 

[Gloire_bb]

Stealth proliferation is inefficient for roles outside air to air combat.

For air to air combat however stealth is mandatory. Chief specifically said that.

"Stealth vs non stealth for air to air combat is like a different league."

"We tried to develop new tactics for 4.5 gen aircrafts to counter 5th gen, like wolf pack tactics, but none worked"

Exactly. Now instead of bullying, we try to match two successful 5th gen platforms with significantly reduced detection range against each other, relying on single "hunters" in LPI modes(cut detection range again) to provide datalinked S/A for the group. And yes, since we're talking two succesful stealth aircraft - signature control measures are here, so acquisition is harder even when detection is here, both radar- and ir decoys are more effective, etc.

That alone drastically increases chances of WVR - because the moment one side does anything wrongly (and keeping tracks of stealth planes doing all the usual terrain stuff is hard), WVR is already at hand.

If stealth didn't exist - yes, WVR probably would've eventually become relatively ... marginal. But stealth is here.