J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
I don't agree with this at all. I think it dismisses all the progress and advancements China has made with its military as just the Pentagon lying to fundraise. It also implies that China can never be a peer competitor of the US, because once again anything China develops is just another lie the Pentagon tells to get money. Aside from this, it also implies that the entire general staff of the US armed forces are pathological liars who regularly tell falsehoods to raise money.

This just isn't a useful analytical model to use.
Click to expand...

You wrote "It could be that all the E-7/F-35 combo provides the USAF is parity. It could even be that the E-7/F-35 combo is still worse than the KJ-500/J-20. All we can conclude is that it's better than E-3/F-35."

The bolded parts is overreach.

All that we can conclude is that the USAF seems thinks that the E-7 is superior to the E-3 -- which is very reasonable given the E-7 is like two generations ahead of E-3 in technology.


Why are people trying to extrapolate some sort of big "gotcha" revelations from this interview, goodness gracious. Is it not significant enough just to have confirmation that J-20s and F-35s have had encounters in the East China Sea...
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
tphuang said:
All of that tells me USAF are probably concerned about KJ-500's ability to find F-35 and direct fighter jets over there. They don't like the current matchup of KJ-500 guiding J-20 vs E-3C guiding F-35. They like the matchup of E-7 guiding F-35 vs KJ-500 guiding J-20. Which means either E-7 has a tracking range advantage vs low RCS target against KJ-500 or F-35 has lower RCS than J-20 or both. They are also concerned that if they do find J-20 sooner, that advantage is lost due to range deficit on the AAMs.
Click to expand...

I think this is also a bit of overreach.

Imo the only thing the USAF preference for E-7 shows is that they are not comfortable with the performance of E-3 in the contemporary environment, and they are much more comfortable with the performance of E-7 in said environment.

I don't think we can make any estimates as to what US assessments of the respective capability of E-7 vs J-20 are relative to KJ-500 Vs F-35.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Deino said:
Wait ... one day I'll get my chance! ;)
Click to expand...
haha, patience. I think more will show up by summer time.

until then, according to scramble, for Korla

It is believed that by early 2022 the unit converted to J-16, although also a J-20A was reported to be test flying with the serial 72029, indicating this Brigade would be the next to receive this type.

I'm a little blown away by how quickly they are showing up. On the other hand, IAF is finally going to be able to see if they can track J-20 =)
 
Last edited:
M

minusone

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I think this is also a bit of overreach.

Imo the only thing the USAF preference for E-7 shows is that they are not comfortable with the performance of E-3 in the contemporary environment, and they are much more comfortable with the performance of E-7 in said environment.

I don't think we can make any estimates as to what US assessments of the respective capability of E-7 vs J-20 are relative to KJ-500 Vs F-35.
Click to expand...
Liking the prospect of KJ600 + J20 combo, yummy
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
You wrote "It could be that all the E-7/F-35 combo provides the USAF is parity. It could even be that the E-7/F-35 combo is still worse than the KJ-500/J-20. All we can conclude is that it's better than E-3/F-35."

The bolded parts is overreach.

All that we can conclude is that the USAF seems thinks that the E-7 is superior to the E-3 -- which is very reasonable given the E-7 is like two generations ahead of E-3 in technology.


Why are people trying to extrapolate some sort of big "gotcha" revelations from this interview, goodness gracious. Is it not significant enough just to have confirmation that J-20s and F-35s have had encounters in the East China Sea...
Click to expand...
About E-7, are we talking about the current balance beam type? If everything else (input power, number of module etc.) equal, a 2-face array is inherently inferior than a 3-face array. The basic is that the higher angle to the side the main lobe is steered, the lower signal strength reaching the target. So KJ-500 being better than E-7 (in its current form) is a reasonable imagination.

Of course, nothing should stop US to make their E-7 3-face, but that is not what E-7 is today.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
taxiya said:
About E-7, are we talking about the current balance beam type? If everything else (input power, number of module etc.) equal, a 2-face array is inherently inferior than a 3-face array. The basic is that the higher angle to the side the main lobe is steered, the lower signal strength reaching the target. So KJ-500 being better than E-7 (in its current form) is a reasonable imagination.

Of course, nothing should stop US to make their E-7 3-face, but that is not what E-7 is today.
Click to expand...

E-7 is not a balance beam, it is technically a four sides array, with the side arrays having 120 degree coverage each and the front and rear array having 60 degrees coverage each, providing full 360 degree coverage.

I.e. it isn't about a matter of coverage, because it simply isn't an issue for E-7.

E-7's MESA radar isn't like the balance beam on Erieye, KJ-200 or Netra.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top