J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Nevermore]

Has it ever demonstrated its high velocity maneuverability? If we're talking about nose-pointing, then I believe it doesn't have a notable sustained turn rate, nor minimum turning radius, at least compared to the raptor's from what was shown. Hopefully the upcoming changchun airshow proves me wrong.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The maneuverability shown in this video is passable, I guess. It's from last year's Zhuhai Airshow. Take a look.

 

[latenlazy]

Has it ever demonstrated its high velocity maneuverability? If we're talking about nose-pointing, then I believe it doesn't have a notable sustained turn rate, nor minimum turning radius, at least compared to the raptor's from what was shown. Hopefully the upcoming changchun airshow proves me wrong.

You are trying to judge combat speed performance with low speed low altitude airshow displays. This is not a serious analytical exercise. Airshow displays are meant to please crowds not to show combat performance in real combat scenarios. If it soothes your insecurity any Yankee once said early in the J-20’s induction that the J-20 is the best gun fighter even though it doesn’t have a gun. Take that as you will.

 

[Mearex]

but in general post stall maneuvers aren’t useful in modern dogfighting, even putting aside BVR engagements. Post stall is a last ditch move and if you don’t land your kill after executing a post stall maneuver you’re basically dead (as the Indian Air Force found out with their Su-30MKIs).

When did I ever say that post stall maneuvers are useful in "modern dogfighting"?

Even if you’re not overanalyzing and these are actual issues in the flight display why does that matter? At airshow speeds combat aircraft are dead anyways.

Again, I meant to say that I don't think it was a deliberate maneuver.

Low energy envelopes are where you go to die, so low speed low altitude performance is actually pretty unimportant?

Again, when did I say it was important? All I wanted was to have a discussion about the kinematic performance of this airframe, regardless of whether or not it's relevant for modern air combat, as that's a separate discussion. Then, as I exactly expected, people jumped in talking about the relevance of said kinematic performances

 

[latenlazy]

When did I ever say that post stall maneuvers are useful in "modern dogfighting"?

If they aren’t then why do they matter to you? You’re the one griping about it.

Again, I meant to say that I don't think it was a deliberate maneuver.

Whether it was or wasn’t, it shows post stall nose control authority.

Again, when did I say it was important? All I wanted was to have a discussion about the kinematic performance of this airframe, regardless of whether or not it's relevant for modern air combat, as that's a separate discussion. Then, as I exactly expected, people jumped in talking about the relevance of said kinematic performances

If you want to have a discussion about the kinematic performance of the airframe then I invite you to read the original design paper, which is archived somewhere on this site, first. Maybe start there and ask some questions after reading it rather than get worked up from an uninformed position. Attitude is not substance. You could do with less of the former and more of the latter.

 

[Blitzo]

When did I ever say that post stall maneuvers are useful in "modern dogfighting"?

Again, I meant to say that I don't think it was a deliberate maneuver.

Again, when did I say it was important? All I wanted was to have a discussion about the kinematic performance of this airframe, regardless of whether or not it's relevant for modern air combat, as that's a separate discussion. Then, as I exactly expected, people jumped in talking about the relevance of said kinematic performances

This is what you wrote in a previous post:

and what happens when a raptor shows up?

I was saying that I don't think the tumble climb was an intentional maneuver that demonstrates control authority at high AOA, but the study you quoted is interesting, and suggests that maybe it was indeed intentional.

Literally no one talked about dogfighting except you. I hate how whenever the J-20's maneuverability is called out, and rightfully so because it's simply not nearly as maneuverable as the F-22 and Su-57, everyone gets insecure and starts talking about how dogfighting isn't useful anymore to try and defend it. You realize that maneuverability isn't just used in dogfighting right?

and what happens when a raptor shows up?

You don't get to have it both ways.

You want to talk about kinematic performance and maneuverability, fine.
However, you have also flagged it directly in an earlier post endorsing a belief that maneuverability is relevant for modern air combat (i.e.: "isn't just used in dogfighting"), so clearly you aren't just wanting to have a discussion about its kinematic performance "regardless" of whether it's relevant for modern air combat.

It's fine if you want to talk about the link between kinematic performance/maneuverability and modern air combat. There's no need to be evasive about it.


However your underlying premises are simply incorrect. I encourage you to accept these two fundamentals, if you have yet to understand them:
1. The maneuverability that the PLA displays of its aircraft are always conservative, especially at air shows, therefore trying to gauge the "actual maneuverability" of PLA aircraft from air show performances or even PLA footage, is silly.
2. If you want to have a discussion about maneuverability/kinematic performance, then there is some baseline literature and years of semi official statements and credible rumours that you should ask to read first, and I advise you to do so with a bit of humility rather than barging in here with the assumption that your underlying conclusions are correct. (I.e.: accept that you are probably operating from a deficit of knowledge first).

Once you genuinely accept and believe these two, then a good faith discussion can be held.


Because over the years (and I am saying many years), this discussion has been done to death on this forum before.

 

[Raison D'tere]

Again, when did I say it was important? All I wanted was to have a discussion about the kinematic performance of this airframe, regardless of whether or not it's relevant for modern air combat, as that's a separate discussion. Then, as I exactly expected, people jumped in talking about the relevance of said kinematic performances

There are plenty of clips of the J10 with tvc doing such post-stall maneuvers, and that's a single engine fighter.

And if you will do, that the J20 is a step up of the J10's airframe (in my amateurish assumptions with canards, delta and all), then by extension they could do it too, but the PLA doesn't show it, and may cause unnecessary stress on the airframe.

 

[Mearex]

The maneuverability that the PLA displays of its aircraft are always conservative, especially at air shows, therefore trying to gauge the "actual maneuverability" of PLA aircraft from air show performances or even PLA footage, is silly.

First of all, everyone and their moms know this, and it applies to most militaries, especially the USAF, so a relative comparison between the airshow performances of two planes is still valid, because both are being conservative, not just the PLA plane. However, more importantly, do you think the PLA is more conservative with certain aircrafts than others? Because it had a display with a J-10B in 2019 which performed very impressive maneuvers, so one of two conclusions must follow: 1, the PLA is more conservative with the J-20 than the J-10B, or 2, the J-20 is less maneuverable than the J-10B

 

[Tomboy]

First of all, everyone and their moms know this, and it applies to most militaries, especially the USAF. However, more importantly, do you think the PLA is more conservative with certain aircrafts than others? Because it had a display with a J-10B in 2019 which performed very impressive maneuvers, so one of two conclusions must follow: 1, the PLA is more conservative with the J-20 than the J-10B, or 2, the J-20 is less maneuverable than the J-10B

That J-10B is a special TVC testbed not a production airframe.

 

[gelgoog]

The J-20 already has more manueverability than something like the F-35 because of the canards.
Because of the engine positioning in the J-29 aircraft it would also be limited to 2D rather than 3D TVC if they chose to add it which minimizes the advantage of such a design.

 

[Blitzo]

First of all, everyone and their moms know this, and it applies to most militaries, especially the USAF. However, more importantly, do you think the PLA is more conservative with certain aircrafts than others? Because it had a display with a J-10B in 2019 which performed very impressive maneuvers, so one of two conclusions must follow: 1, the PLA is more conservative with the J-20 than the J-10B, or 2, the J-20 is less maneuverable than the J-10B

You are technically correct in that the specific J-10B airframe with TVC performed certain maneuvers that a non-TVC aircraft would not usually perform at such low speeds (that goes for J-20, J-10 and Flankers), but that's not an inherent reflection of their airframe maneuverability, but it's rather because that J-10B was specifically a TVC test bed, and the purpose of that display was to demonstrate certain basic capabilities that TVC could do at speeds which standard non-TVC aircraft do not typically do.

For example, there is a reason with they have not had typical Flankers or J-10s (i.e.: aircraft without TVC) pull cobras in public.


So no, that J-10B TVC test bed performance is entirely consistent with the overall pattern of "PLA is more conservative overall towards what they display/reveal". I.e.: the J-10B TVC test bed performance was relatively conservative and didn't show anything one would not expect for a TVC aircraft.

Edit: If anything, the J-10B display was not impressive at all. In what world does some low speed, falling leaf and cobras from a TVC equipped aircraft actually come across as very impressive???
The fact you think it was impressive is a rather concerning reflection of your understanding and appreciation of what actually useful kinematic performance is (TVC equipped or not).

I advise you again to reflect on the two fundamental points in my previous post that you should absorb and accept.