It's possible some believe the Chinese will reveal some other even more maneuverable (looking) plane later. All in all though, their assumptions are probably wrong.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
It's possible some believe the Chinese will reveal some other even more maneuverable (looking) plane later. All in all though, their assumptions are probably wrong.
Well I just hope that they won't brand the SAC fighter China's counterpart to the F-22 and T-50 just because it is gonna look a lot like the other two! They make the same stupid mistakes they are making during the Cold War, only the other way around.
I think SAC's fifth gen will fill that. But the irony is that plane will be much more of a striker than j-20.
There will be some interesting questions when j-19 comes out and why the stupid Chinese chose the "less maneuverable" design as their next gen airdom fighter
To be fair, they didn't call the j-20 a striker but a fighter. They only referenced it as an example of the PLA trying to develop long range strike abilities. It means the DoD thinks the J-20 has long legs, not necessarily that it's purely a strike platform.
The worst part is it isn't like China isn't letting out any hints regarding the role of the J-20 either. Let us use basic logic.
General Hei weirong said that China's Fifth gen. fighter will enter service between 2017 and 2018 in the famous interview.
In the same interview he also talked about the requirements of true fifth gen fighter (aka the "4S", which includes supermaneuverability).
Dr. Song's paper also mentions that the small aspect ratio wings could achieve higher maneuverablility performances if coupled with canards and a liftbody design. He even the number of 80% increase in lift. Does the description (aside from the chin intakes) deviate from what we see on the J-20 much? Nope.
If China wanted a strike or intercept platform why not go with the FB-22 or JH-7A design? The designers aren't idiots. Control surfaces contribute to the RCS and some how the Chinese came up with a interceptor bomber with a RCS of (as a famous basher put it) "a clean F-16". Those people want to bash this plane so badly that they end up contradicting themselves.
Yes but I'm sure you've noticed how many people cannot read well, or even choose not to.
I would be wary to use that kind of logic. I believe f-117 has all moving tails too and it's a striker.
I prefer to counter argue by saying the plaaf has no need for a dedicated striker or interceptor before a general airdom plane, an then point to CCTV interviews, and years of rumors etc.
I agree with what you said about control surfaces/striker configuration.
Last edited:
When did the F-117 ever go supersonic? Won't need the large stabilizers for stability at high Mach speeds if it can't go that fast would it? Keep in mind that they were referring to the J-20 as an F-111 style deep penetration striker.
I remember on defencetalk when j-20 first came out I think gf-0012 aust said the canards would not be present on the final plane because he thought it was a screwed up configuration and were just "training wheels" for the prototype, and said it would have an rcs no better than a B-1...
Hence the need for internal weaponsbay...
Did anyone else notice that the "J-20 is a stealth MIG-25" proponents are the same people who thought that the photos were p.s.ed, the plane was a tech demo with no weapons bay, and most ridiculously - the landing gears couldn't be retracted?
- Status