J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.

kyuryu

Junior Member
;)

militairej2031482012103_zps32086d2d.jpg

militairej2031492012103_zpse5fdfada.jpg

militairej2031512012103_zpsd774fd67.jpg

militairej2031522012103_zpsa377be02.jpg

I knew it, the Bangladshi air force has commissioned China to develop the J-20 :nana:

Seriously though, if 2002 was rebuilt to incorporate an AESA from the get go, then it's a much more advanced prototype and much closer to production ready status than the early YF-22A when it first few.

I know several posts have been related to the J-20 assuming it was built from day 1 to be paired with the WS-15 irrespective of whether it does/doesn't include TVC, but do others feel that as part of CAC's risk management strategy that development 'might' mirror that of the J-10A/B ie the first model launches with a solid engine WS-10x = competitive performance, but not the ideal engine (WS-15 = outstanding performance), with production and additional refinements incorporated into a J-20B model?
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I knew it, the Bangladshi air force has commissioned China to develop the J-20 :nana:

Seriously though, if 2002 was rebuilt to incorporate an AESA from the get go, then it's a much more advanced prototype and much closer to production ready status than the early YF-22A when it first few.

I know several posts have been related to the J-20 assuming it was built from day 1 to be paired with the WS-15 irrespective of whether it does/doesn't include TVC, but do others feel that as part of CAC's risk management strategy that development 'might' mirror that of the J-10A/B ie the first model launches with a solid engine WS-10x = competitive performance, but not the ideal engine (WS-15 = outstanding performance), with production and additional refinements incorporated into a J-20B model?

Well, that's pretty much what I have been saying for some time now.

I think the current plan is to have the WS15 ready by the time the J20 is ready for serial production, but if the WS15 is significantly delayed for whatever reason, I have no doubt that the PLAAF will still order J20s to be inducted with whatever engines they are using now.

The most important thing for the PLAAF with the J20 is to get them to operational units ASAP so pilots could start converting to the type and new tactics and doctrines could be developed to make best use of the new possibilities offered by a 5th gen fighter.

The first J20s would no doubt go to the PLAAF 'Blue Force' aggressor units, so regular PLAAF pilots can train and practice with their J10s and J11s against a true 5th gen opponent to hopefully help to train them to counter such fighters at the same time as allowing the PLAAF Blue Force pilots to develop tactics to use 5th gens against conventional opponents.

The fact that the J20 running on WS10X or AL31 will not be as capable as a full spec J20 with WS15s would not matter so much, since the most different and important tactics and aspects with 5th gens is the fundamental way they would change BVR combat.

Even at full specs, a J20 would not really teach PLAAF pilots anything about WVR combat they could not already learn from DACT against other types, and as the Typhoon showed in recent exercises, in WVR, they have nothing to fear of the Raptor, so a 5th gen is little different from a 4th gen in WVR. It is at BVR that the Raptors and other 5h gens truly come into their own.

Having underpowered engines would not really make much of a meaningful difference to the J20's BVR combat potential, so no matter if it's in terms of training, or even real combat, a WS10X powered J20 would be as good as a full spec J20 in most of the fields that really matter. The only noticeable exception might be the lack of supercruise, but that is hardly a deal-breaker. With the J20 airframe designed to take WS15s, the first WS10X powered J20s could be retro-fitted with WS15s and be brought up to full specs with little difficulty at a later date, so the PLAAF really have very little to loose and a hell of a lot to gain by ordering WS10X powered J20s rather than wait for the full specs version.

That is all, of course a worst case contingency plan. Ideally, the WS15 would be ready in time, and the first J20s delivered would be full spec versions, and CAC can move on to designing a newer J20 to incorporate any new technologies that became available during the J20 development, and/or 6th gen fighters etc.
 

Engineer

Major
You have not really tackled the validity of the premise. I presented one reason for considering the possibility that A is better than C in terms of aerodynamic control, under a specific context, which is the discussion of supersonic drag. That reasoning was based on the argument that minimizing deflections of any aerodynamic surface also minimizes supersonic drag. The argument behind the premise remains unaddressed by you.
I do not see a validity there for me to tackle. Your presentation is A being better than B, which does not show A being better than C. In other words, you are making the very same mistake which you accused me of doing. Your reasoning about minimizing supersonic drag has already been addressed by points #2 and #4.

That's still besides the point. It doesn't tell us whether a traditional configuration+tvc is better (assuming optimized flight controls), or a canard configuration+tvc is better, or indeed if relying on TVC alone with neither is better for limiting drag. You're arguing on the premise of a comparison between a canard configuration and a traditional configuration. I'm arguing on (or exploring) the premise of which options are the best to minimize supersonic drag.
Points #2 and #4 already retorted your premise, thus your argument that J-20 will be fitted with TVC is weak. That's my thesis.

I can use the former argument for the latter under the premise of what's developmentally feasible. If we hold strictly that the PLAAF's ambitions are for a 2017 induction date, with a necessity of having a plane that isn't the final configuration to meet that deadline, that means the same options that exist for introducing a better engine also exists for any other technology later on.
No you cannot use the former argument for the latter. Necessity and option are not the same thing. We know J-20 won't be completed without WS-15, but we cannot assert with the same confidence that J-20 won't be completed without TVC.

Anyways, I don't really see a point in continuing this discussion. I find your arguments for why the J-20 won't/shouldn't have TVC to be reasonable but unconvincing. Let's agree to disagree.
I do not find your reasoning for J-20 to have TVC to be convincing either, so we will just have to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
;)

militairej2031482012103_zps32086d2d.jpg
T

There are a coupla two holers available her in the States, one here in Illinois, we could prolly pick up for a little over 50k, anyone wanna start a flying club. Hope they still have the ejection seats hot, I believe they were both operated by the boys who provide dissimullar combat training on DOD contracts, They are both fairly low time. Somebody on here needs to dig up some of that old money out of the back yard, talk about a buzz!
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
:p :p :p :p :p :p :p
 

Attachments

  • J-20 2002 1.11.12.jpg
    J-20 2002 1.11.12.jpg
    110.8 KB · Views: 123
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top