Relative to what the J-20 has demonstrated of course. Obviously not impressive if you compare it to say, the Su-57 at the last Zhuhai airshow
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
No, it was not impressive relative to what J-20 demonstrated.
J-10B TVC tech demo's display was relatively standard and not that impressive for a TVC equipped aircraft.
J-20's displays has also been relatively standard and not that impressive for a non-TVC equipped aircraft.
(And various J-10 and J-11B and J-16 and J-15T displays over the years have also been relatively standard and not that impressive for non-TVC equipped aircraft)
If you think J-10B's display was more impressive than what J-20 has demonstrated, that's because you are easily impressed by low speed basic TVC maneuvers as spectacles, rather than recognizing actually kinematically capable maneuvers.
I will repeat what I wrote in my last post -- 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).
Edit: take a moment to differentiate what you think "looks impressive" versus what is actually "kinematically important".
yes for TVC aircraft it's pretty standard, but I'm talking about the maneuvers themselves being impressive without considering whether the aircraft has TVC.
Think of it this way. The J-10B likely can do most of what the J-20 did, but not the other way around. That's why I implied the J-10B had a relatively more impressive display.
Also, I never said that those maneuvers are important or "kinematically capable". Do not put words in my mouth.
Last edited:
I'm not putting words into your mouth.
Let's reflect on your prior posts over the last few pages.
You said that you wanted to have a discussion about kinematic performance (post #3733), below:
You then invoked J-10B TVC testbed's performance as "very impressive" (post #3737), below:
==
Therefore, I am correcting your false impression by stating such performances are not kinematically capable or impressive, and giving you the discussion you desired.
and when did I say that the performances are important and kinematically capable?
You said they were "impressive" after you said you wanted to have a discussion about "kinematic performance".
By extension, it meant you were implying the "kinematic performance" of the J-10B TVC was "impressive".
I am explaining it was not kinematically impressive, nor was it capable, to provide you the discussion you wanted.
At this point your only way out of this conversation is by accepting that the J-10B TVC's performance was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and by accepting these two underlying fundamentals:
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).
If you do not accept them, then I can only assume you aren't interested in any good faith discussion on this matter in which case my participation in this matter is concluded.
This is just pedantics at this point. All I wanted to express was, if the PLA holds back equally when displaying both the J-20 and J-10B, then it follows that the J-10B is more maneuverable than the J-20. More maneuverable as in, there are maneuvers that the J-10B is capable of that the J-20 likely isn't. Perhaps impressive was the wrong word.
Anyways, before it got derailed to hell and back (as I expected), does anyone have footage of the J-20 pulling high AOA?
No, this isn't semantics.
Look, if you genuinely believe that in good faith, I will explain to you why the J-10B TVC performance does not make it "more maneuverable" than J-20.
A) The J-10B TVC performance was very standard low speed TVC maneuvers that is normal for any TVC equipped aircraft to be able to do. It isn't showing anything unique. I.e.: it is being "held back".
B) J-20 performances we have seen are also very standard maneuvers for a non-TVC equipped aircraft. I.e.: it is being "held back".
What A) and B) together mean, is not that "J-10B TVC is more maneuverable than J-20".
What it does means, is that "carrying out low speed maneuvers for J-10B TVC is a standard maneuver for J-10B TVC (or indeed any other TVC equipped aircraft) and is expected and thus not needed to be held back, but such low speed maneuvers are less expected for a non TVC equipped aircraft like J-20 (or indeed, J-10C, J-11B, J-16, J-35A, J-15T etc)".
So, the conclusion isn't that "J-10B is more maneuverable than the J-20".
Instead, the correct conclusion is "J-10B TVC (or indeed, any aircraft with TVC) is more maneuverable (particularly post stall) at very low speeds than non-TVC equipped aircraft".
The "very low speeds part" is vital.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but if you read what I said completely, I said that when I say more maneuverable, I meant the J-10B can perform maneuvers like the cobra and J-turn that the J-20 likely cannot.
If you are making an argument based off observed displays, the only valid statement one can make about comparable maneuverability that may be in J-10B TVC's favour, is for very low speed maneuvers where TVC has disproportionate effect.
Everything else is invalid.
Note, the above all applies as much for J-20 as it does for any other non-TVC equipped aircraft in PLA inventory from J-10A/B/C, their domestic Flanker families, and J-35/A.
I.e.: the difference isn't between "J-10B TVC versus J-20" but rather "J-10B TVC versus J-20 family, J-10A/B/C, J-11B/J-16/J-15, J-35 family".