J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
sequ said:
I think this is better
Click to expand...

The requirements must be different overall. I think the same requirements list would simply be - perform air to air roles. I agree that's a massive role similarity but it's also performed to such different levels we know a F-16 and a Typhoon look different and employ different configurations but both perform air to air roles.

It does make you wonder though why so many like canards and the Americans insist that canards are horrid for a fighter aircraft. They did have a few experimental aircraft using them and paper designs using them but I think some well regarded American fighter engineer once remarked that the best place to put canards is on someone else's aircraft.
 
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
The requirements must be different overall. I think the same requirements list would simply be - perform air to air roles. I agree that's a massive role similarity but it's also performed to such different levels we know a F-16 and a Typhoon look different and employ different configurations but both perform air to air roles.

It does make you wonder though why so many like canards and the Americans insist that canards are horrid for a fighter aircraft. They did have a few experimental aircraft using them and paper designs using them but I think some well regarded American fighter engineer once remarked that the best place to put canards is on someone else's aircraft.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking conventional layout has better subsonic sustained turn performance compared to canard delta, while canard delta has better instantaneous turn performance and better supersonic performance (due to canard's better moment arm placement when aero center move aft in supersonic regime, coupled with delta wings itself has higher L/D in supersonic speed)

So yeah it is different priority driven by different doctrine. But I wonder if the importance of sustained turn performance is nil these days, you rarely get into a dogfight, and if you do it's most likely a missile fight where whoever point nose at enemy and shoot first wins....
 
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
Deino said:
I can only rephrase the same ... I have a certain source - similar to the camouflaged J-10CE, which i had almost a week ago - which showed me an image but I promised not to share it. Latest similar surprising news is, the 6th AB at Suixi is getting J-16s.

@Totoro
Click to expand...
J-16 replacing Su-35 ?
 
Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
BVR as much as you can, WVR as much as you must is probably the rule of thumb here. There are inevitably going to be situations where your BVR options fail and you have to settle the engagement with a merge.
Click to expand...
Blitzo said:
BVR is where the bulk of the high yield combat capability comes from, and I expect BVR to be an even heavier driver of fighter and aerial combat system design priorities and capabilities in 6th gen.

But for now, with the current generation of 5th gen fighters and with technologies available, I think WVR is still going to be there as a potential last ditch action to take if all else fails. Being able to do it well is still useful, and having a plane that can do kinematically useful things in an easy manner is not un-beneficial. A degree of training will inevitably still be oriented around WVR ACM.
Click to expand...

Indeed gentlemen, but my question was post-merge. I'm skeptical that high alpha maneuvers like this would be used in WVR. I'd guess that they'd just go for a standard rate or vertical fight, and use HOBS+HMD. The same AoA characteristics of your aircraft would be better used executing the basics, rather than these fancy maneuvers. If you can't win by executing the basics better than the other guy, you're probably gonna lose anyway.

It's like watching a KO by Spinning Hook/Wheel Kick in UFC. It's only happened like 6 times out of a thousand, because it requires a lot of skill under stress. And the stakes in real-world ACM are much higher, and recovery from a poorly executed high alpha maneuver is even less likely.

Anyways, this is probably not for the J-20 thread, it's a general ACM topic. If there are any fighter pilots here, I'd love to hear their take on this in a dedicated BFM thread.
 
Last edited:
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
escobar said:
J-16 replacing Su-35 ?
Click to expand...
If it's the case, maybe Russia will take them back for the war effort ? Beside testing technology level and comparing to their planes, China don't have any niche left for Su-35. Fill gap before having enough j-20 maybe?
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Mohsin77 said:
Indeed gentlemen, but my question was post-merge. I'm skeptical that high alpha maneuvers like this would be used in WVR. I'd guess that they'd just go for a standard rate or vertical fight, and use HOBS+HMD. The same AoA characteristics of your aircraft would be better used executing the basics, rather than these fancy maneuvers. If you can't win by executing the basics better than the other guy, you're probably gonna lose anyway.

It's like watching a KO by Spinning Hook/Wheel Kick in UFC. It's only happened like 6 times out of a thousand, because it requires a lot of skill under stress. And the stakes in real-world ACM are much higher, and recovery from a poorly executed high alpha maneuver is even less likely.

Anyways, this is probably not for the J-20 thread, it's a general ACM topic. If there are any fighter pilots here, I'd love to hear their take on this in a dedicated BFM thread.
Click to expand...

That’s like saying 0-60 acceleration capabilities are irrelevant in cars because how often will you fine a scenario where you will be going from 0 to 60?

These manoeuvres are not meant to show you what the J20 will literally do in a dogfight, but to show you what it can do so you can infer what it might to do when needed.

Of course you are not going to be pulling such extreme manoeuvres right out of the gate and waste all your energy in actual combat, and it is indeed one of the more common mistakes rookies make when they are too desperate to try out their super-cool-finish-them-move when the timing isn’t right. That’s why training is important and also why actual fighter pilots are not going to fly like DCS noobs.

And we need to remember that this J20 is doing this with underpowered non-TVC AL31s and not even bothering with reheat. This is a pure demonstration of the aerodynamics of the J20 and it is very impressive given the only planes that can do similar are TVC equipped and using their ‘final form’ engines.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Mohsin77 said:
Indeed gentlemen, but my question was post-merge. I'm skeptical that high alpha maneuvers like this would be used in WVR. I'd guess that they'd just go for a standard rate or vertical fight, and use HOBS+HMD. The same AoA characteristics of your aircraft would be better used executing the basics, rather than these fancy maneuvers. If you can't win by executing the basics better than the other guy, you're probably gonna lose anyway.

It's like watching a KO by Spinning Hook/Wheel Kick in UFC. It's only happened like 6 times out of a thousand, because it requires a lot of skill under stress. And the stakes in real-world ACM are much higher, and recovery from a poorly executed high alpha maneuver is even less likely.

Anyways, this is probably not for the J-20 thread, it's a general ACM topic. If there are any fighter pilots here, I'd love to hear their take on this in a dedicated BFM thread.
Click to expand...

I don't think that in a combat situation any fighter aircraft is gonna slow down and loop multiple times, that's suicide. The demo is supposed to show good nose pointing capabilities. In an actual engagement you probably pitch up, turn 40-30 degrees so that your nose is pointing in the right direction, fire off an off-bore missile and that would be the end of it.
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
plawolf said:
That’s like saying 0-60 acceleration capabilities are irrelevant in cars because how often will you fine a scenario where you will be going from 0 to 60?

These manoeuvres are not meant to show you what the J20 will literally do in a dogfight, but to show you what it can do so you can infer what it might to do when needed.

Of course you are not going to be pulling such extreme manoeuvres right out of the gate and waste all your energy in actual combat, and it is indeed one of the more common mistakes rookies make when they are too desperate to try out their super-cool-finish-them-move when the timing isn’t right. That’s why training is important and also why actual fighter pilots are not going to fly like DCS noobs.

And we need to remember that this J20 is doing this with underpowered non-TVC AL31s and not even bothering with reheat. This is a pure demonstration of the aerodynamics of the J20 and it is very impressive given the only planes that can do similar are TVC equipped and using their ‘final form’ engines.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Pugachev Cobra High angle of attack and loss of speed was not intended to be used in dogfight anyway, it was a possible move to make Doppler radars losing their locks, caused by the big drop in speed. More a last ditch effort for evading radar guided missiles. More or less useless with new radar types.

J-20 don't have a need for that because it's build to evade radar anyway...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top