Thats what i said, so the logical thing to do is design a fighter (F-22, J-20 , etc) as your top priority ...
J-20... The New Generation Fighter II
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
- Status
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Look around, when people with their own pre-set interpret of something, "merely" an official claim, are not that easy to convince them to "let it go".
There's my own point to share:
I, have the ability, to rob the candy from a children, I just don't.
China's Air Superiority Fighter (including J-20), have the ability to carry this carry that, it just don't.
This is more a clash of philosophy, than "Applied Science" already. I am ready to let it go, whatever jobscope the fans appointed to J-20, it is PLAF make it happen at last.
airsuperiority
Captain
it's just amusing how people can hold to certain beliefs really strong even when there are so much more stuffs to counter and disprove them
anywys, score 1 for us again. ppl who formerly kept thinking strike fighters..they're nowhere in sight now lol
anywys, score 1 for us again. ppl who formerly kept thinking strike fighters..they're nowhere in sight now lol
Sure, you can design your fighter in any configuration as you want. But right now... the J-20's primary role is for air superiority... official claims had said that. This might not be because of technical constraint or the such... but might also be because of politics (to downplay the China threat theory)
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
I don't know. The J-20 could still very well be just a strike fighter.
Chief reason being hamper by the technological bottleneck eg. super agility / super maneuverability - and so far there is no reason to believe China has the ability to make vector thrusting nozzles, and quality high performance engines and stealth.
Strike fighter on other hand, requires less sophiscation - its merely acting as launching platform for bombing/strike mission where it can launch its payloads (look at F-111, Panavia Tornado) and then bail out quickly. It doesn't need to be as maneuverable as air superiority fighter, and since it doesn't need to do dog fighting as much, stealth is not as much a requirement.
It all depends on the engines (VTC/high thrust), and the level of stealth J-20 has.
It took american almost 25 years to finally developed F-22, and before that, even though they categorized and gave F-117 a fighter designation, its really was a strike bomber. It was limited by the technology at the time, it could not fly at high speed and keep its stealth, and its maneuverability was limit by the aerodynamics of its airframe and underpowered engines.
So unless China can overcome those bottlenecks, it can call it air superiority fighter, but its real performance will say otherwise.
Chief reason being hamper by the technological bottleneck eg. super agility / super maneuverability - and so far there is no reason to believe China has the ability to make vector thrusting nozzles, and quality high performance engines and stealth.
Strike fighter on other hand, requires less sophiscation - its merely acting as launching platform for bombing/strike mission where it can launch its payloads (look at F-111, Panavia Tornado) and then bail out quickly. It doesn't need to be as maneuverable as air superiority fighter, and since it doesn't need to do dog fighting as much, stealth is not as much a requirement.
It all depends on the engines (VTC/high thrust), and the level of stealth J-20 has.
It took american almost 25 years to finally developed F-22, and before that, even though they categorized and gave F-117 a fighter designation, its really was a strike bomber. It was limited by the technology at the time, it could not fly at high speed and keep its stealth, and its maneuverability was limit by the aerodynamics of its airframe and underpowered engines.
So unless China can overcome those bottlenecks, it can call it air superiority fighter, but its real performance will say otherwise.
Last edited:
Maggern
Junior Member
If manoeuverability wasn't very important for J-20, why then would it sacrifice some stealth for the canards? Surely they point towards an increased manoeuverability?
Quickie
Colonel
Well, J-20 definitely looks more maneuverable than the F-117. Furthermore, thrust vectoring is not that an important factor towards contributing to maneuverbility, and Chinese designers do have experience designing a maneuverable carnard fighter, like the J-10. I personally think J-20 has a stealthy look. For this and its other capabilities, we'll just have to wait until someone come out with some hard data by actual measurement of the J-20's performance in some years time.
Last edited:
During dog fighting in the '60's the air speed of the fighter aircraft rapidly decreased to some 400 km/h. At that speed thrust vectoring is very important. I can't remember reading about any more recent experience.
My expectation is that in the next 6 years J-20 will be fitted with stronger engines with thrust vectoring, but I'm not really a competent judge of the matter.
My expectation is that in the next 6 years J-20 will be fitted with stronger engines with thrust vectoring, but I'm not really a competent judge of the matter.
This is the second part of the video "Military Technology" of CCTV-7 dated 5 Mar 2011 which talks about weapons being put into operation during the 11th Five-Year Plan. (The first part is posted in J-10 thread as J-10 and J-10B are mentioned.)
youtube.com/watch?v=2HfbO-08gBs
At 00:13, it is said that the maiden flight of J-20 at the end of 2010 is made feasible with the experience gained on the independent research of J-10. Then the other expert said that it is possible for J-20 to form actual combat ability in the next 5 years with more test flights, and China will become few in the world operating 4th gen fighters.
youtube.com/watch?v=2HfbO-08gBs
At 00:13, it is said that the maiden flight of J-20 at the end of 2010 is made feasible with the experience gained on the independent research of J-10. Then the other expert said that it is possible for J-20 to form actual combat ability in the next 5 years with more test flights, and China will become few in the world operating 4th gen fighters.
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
Actually I'm not so convinced the acrobatic-like type of thrust-vectoring maneuvers would be really useful in a dogfight. What's more important is the extent of improvement in turn rates that thrust vectoring could possibly provide, something which I think depends largely on the design of the aircraft itself.
- Status