J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think some people are forgetting the USN, which has about 700 F/A(E/A) Super Hornets (all of which are AESA equipped). That would certainly be a factor in determining how many J-20's need to be purchased I would assume. Eventually they will also have 250 F-35C's as well along with the Navy NGAD.

Edit: Oh, and the Marine Corps which has like ~200 F/A-18 A-D which are getting GaN based AESA radars and will eventually have around ~450 F-35B/C's.
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@Deino, if you want to delete offtopic posts, please go all the way through. Instead of keeping bogus information up, while deleting the substantiated counter posts I made.


In fact I have a certain life along and besides moderating off-topic stuff! :mad:

Indeed I just deleted all posts from the report on since I'm currently still at work. o_O ... and try to read all that stuff later.

However, would you and other be more mindful and would not divert in length again to Russian stuff, which is totally irrelevant and simply off topic, it would ease dramatically the moderator's workload!

By the way, was this already poted?

J-20AS GE.jpg
 
Last edited:

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
In fact I have a certain life along and besides moderating off-topic stuff! :mad:

Indeed I just deleted all posts from the report on since I'm currently still at work. o_O ... and try to read all that stuff later.

However, would you and other be more mindful and would not divert in length again to Russian stuff, which is totally irrelevant and simply off topic, it would ease dramatically the moderator's workload!

By the way, was this already poted?

View attachment 115070
Haven't seen it, thinks it is new (from memory).
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tankers aren't just a tool to extend range (thou they indeed can).

They're a tool to extend time on station - including aircraft, for those this time isn't that big(so bigger fuel tank, in this case, becomes not overly relevant). Moreover - when calculating in fuel - time on station extends disproportionally: almost all the fuel we add in-flight goes to "productive" part of the flight, instead of the transfer.
They're a tool to extend reaction time, of course - plane is already in the air, next to the operational zone.
They're a tool to "open" untouchable fuel reserve for combat - because the pilot can expect to get more, just a dozen minutes away, on his cruise altitude. For example, that may mean much more liberal use of reheat.
They're finally another tool to get more effective time out of aircraft - because actual flight isn't the most straining part of the sortie for equipment, airframe and pilot - it's take offs and landings.

Yes, but remember that the Flanker airframes are already designed around a 3.75 hour fuel endurance because that is the practical limit of what a fighter pilot can handle. The Tornado was also designed around a 4 hour fuel endurance for the same reason.

From what we can see, the J-20 is designed for even more range and endurance. This may be part of the reason why a 2 seat variant has been developed, as 2 pilots can operate longer missions.

So the fact remains that a larger airframe can hold more fuel for range/endurance/afterburners.

And if we're talking about J-20s undertaking long range air-to-air missions in the Western Pacific, I don't see tankers being a better option than a pair of drop tanks.

A Y-20 tanker has a huge radar signature, is vulnerable to AAMs and costs $150? Mn.

In comparison, a drop tank is like $10K? so you can buy like 15000 for the cost of a single tanker.

Plus drop tanks have a smaller radar signature than a tanker and can be dropped at any time so the J-20 can go fully stealthly. And if I do a back of the envelope calculation, a J-20 with a pair of drop tanks will get 500-1000km? offshore before the drop tanks are empty.

At that point a J-20 would still have a full internal fuel load, but this is not optimal for air-to-air combat. So after the drop tanks have been dropped, I can see a J-20 going to supercruise as they're going to have to dump fuel anyway.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys … it is really enough! This constant off topic posts about Meteor, how many fit into a F-35 and so on are irrelevant and either you stop this your you must face the consesequences.

This is now the final warning
 
Last edited:

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Regarding the best BVR missiles that can be stored within the J20's main internal weapons bay, is China likely to maintain the edge on that front for the foreseeable future vis a vis its competition? And how about for the J20's radars vis a vis its competition? This is not counting anything meant for NGAD or China's equivalent of that.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
That would be the PL-15. There are multiple contradictory claims for its range but should be higher than anything the US can use at the moment. Depending on which numbers you believe it either has a range in between the AIM-120D (only available starting this year) and AIM-260 (not available yet) or higher than the AIM-260.

I personally think the PL-15 has a range similar to the AIM-260. Because the PL-15 is a dual pulse missile.

The PL-21 long range missile should not be able to be carried internally in the J-20 because it is just too long. Supposedly 6m long vs 4m length for PL-15. Also AFAIK the Ramjet powered air to air missile is still not in service.

As for the radar, given China is basically neck and neck with the West with regards to GaA and GaN technology, I doubt there will be any significant advantage for US radar over next decade at least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top