J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Engineer said:

The canards, vertical fins, and in the future thrust vectoring will be used in pitch control. But these are irrelevant with regards to radar signature, because radar signature is optimized for when the aircraft is in criuse where flight controls deflection is minimal.

Click to expand...

at cruise having a highly loaded canard and a wing quit aft of the main landing gear will give it lots of canard deflection once center of lift moves backward at supersonic speeds

Engineer said:

It will have to for it to be considered a 4-th generation fighter.


You have no proof that J-20 is heavier, no proof that the production version will have less powerful engines, no proof that J-20 has significantly larger radar signature and IR signature.

Click to expand...

F-35 does not supercruise

MiG-29 said:

now it does not, and it has rounded nozzles, rounded nozzles keep thrust well, flat nozzles lose thrust, but cool better the exausting gases, then the IR signature on the J-20 is higher as well its Radar cross section.

Click to expand...

How do you know it won't use 3d tvc nozzles?
And j-20's rcs is greater than... What exactly? F-22 Pak fa? F-35? I'd wager against the latter two quite strongly if that were the case.

the main point will be is the J-20 going to supercruise?

Click to expand...

Yes.

being larger and heavier with less powerful engines and larger radar and IR signatures than the F-22 and still do you think it is a match for the F-22?

Click to expand...

Larger -- not by much, and that's not necessarily a detriment.
Heavier -- again if they can match 20 year old materials tech.
Less powerful engines -- I'll have to check figures for WS-15 and f119 again but they should be similar.
Larger ir and radar signatures -- the former I would agree with at this point until we see the WS-15. As for rcs, if the materials tech is comparable then I amateurishly claim there should be no significant differences. Not like the pak fa and f-35 at least.

it is also easier to spot at naked eye

Click to expand...

I'm sorry your credibility just flew out the window and imploded for good measure. First the j-20 isn't that much bigger than f-22, second and more importantly, by your logic lca tejas has one over the f-16 cause it's a bit smaller and slightly harder to spot??

---

Pardon me but are you the same person as mig-27mld over at defencetalk?

MiG-29 said:

uhmmm i see now you will claim it is superior to the J-10

Click to expand...

False. I am claiming that you do not have any information to draw the conclusions that you have claimed. However, for J-20 to be a 4-th generation figher, it will have to be superior to the J-10, which is true.

MiG-29 said:

the J-10 and Gripen have wings closer to the center of gravity than the AJ-37 Viggen and J-20, therefore the J-10 and Gripen are highly unstable and their canards are not as loaded as the canards on the J-20 and Viggen

Click to expand...

You have no information on the aerodynamic center or center-of-gravity of any of the above aircraft to make such a conclusion. Whether J-20's canards are more loaded or not does not alter the fact, which is that you do not know where J-20's aerodynamic center is to claim that it is behind the landing gears.

MiG-29 said:

The only advantage of the J-20 over the J-10 is the use of a V tail that can be used as pitch control, this will allow a triplane type configuration but will increase drag, as long as the J-20 remains hidden from the J-10 is an advantage, but a J-10 with 3D vectoring nozzles will beat a J-20 in close combat.

The AL-31 gives the J-20 a TWR near 1:1 and higher at combat weight, the J-20 won`t have a 1:1 TWR at max weight and at combat weight will have lower TWR than the J-10

Click to expand...

You have no information to conclude that J-20 won't have 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio.

MiG-29 said:

uhmmm i see now you will claim it is superior to the J-10, the J-10 and Gripen have wings closer to the center of gravity than the AJ-37 Viggen and J-20, therefore the J-10 and Gripen are highly unstable and their canards are not as loaded as the canards on the J-20 and Viggen

The only advantage of the J-20 over the J-10 is the use of a V tail that can be used as pitch control, this will allow a triplane type configuration but will increase drag, as long as the J-20 remains hidden from the J-10 is an advantage, but a J-10 with 3D vectoring nozzles will beat a J-20 in close combat.

The AL-31 gives the J-20 a TWR near 1:1 and higher at combat weight, the J-20 won`t have a 1:1 TWR at max weight and at combat weight will have lower TWR than the J-10

Click to expand...

It won't be using AL-31 when it goes into production. You're also trying to make a claim about a plane's aerodynamic performance based on center of gravity not center of lift. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Look up those two terms and figure out the difference.

MiG-29 said:

F-35 does not supercruise

Click to expand...

That has no bearing on whether J-20 can supercruise.

MiG-29 said:

F-35 does not supercruise

Click to expand...

F-35 has a more powerful engine. Hey look, you broke your own logic!

Bltizo said:

How do you know it won't use 3d tvc nozzles?
And j-20's rcs is greater than... What exactly? F-22 Pak fa? F-35? I'd wager against the latter two quite strongly if that were the case.



Yes.



Larger -- not by much, and that's not necessarily a detriment.
Heavier -- again if they can match 20 year old materials tech.
Less powerful engines -- I'll have to check figures for WS-15 and f119 again but they should be similar.
Larger ir and radar signatures -- the former I would agree with at this point until we see the WS-15. As for rcs, if the materials tech is comparable then I amateurishly claim there should be no significant differences. Not like the pak fa and f-35 at least.



I'm sorry your credibility just flew out the window and imploded for good measure. First the j-20 isn't that much bigger than f-22, second and more importantly, by your logic lca tejas has one over the f-16 cause it's a bit smaller and slightly harder to spot??

---

Pardon me but are you the same person as mig-27mld over at defencetalk?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Mig-27mld wouldn't get center of lift and center of gravity confused. He's also consistent at responding with some semblance of making a decent point.

latenlazy said:

Mig-27mld wouldn't get center of lift and center of gravity confused.

Click to expand...

To be fair, MiG-29 isn't confusing center-of-lift and center-of-gravity either. What he is doing is trying to confuse the concepts of center-of-lift for the wings and center-of-lift for the entire aircraft, the two being two separated concepts.

Huzigeng, the same man who leaked the J-20 on CJDBY around 2 years before the first flight, said that the production model will feature 3D TVC. He also said that the J-20 is slightly smaller than a Su-27, a fact which will become obvious once the plane starts test flying next to the flankers in yanliang.

Responding to comments on J-20's poor manoeuvrability huzigeng said that "if the J-20 were a fighter bomber then the YF-23 is not only a fighter bomber but a fighter bomber with pathetic manoeuvrability".