• Friday, September 20, 2019

F-22 vs J-20 - aka USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters

Discussion in 'Chinese Defence Forum' started by samsara, Jul 3, 2018.

  1. Austin Powers

    Austin Powers BANNED

    Messages:
    11,702
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 4,576 / -7
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    You wanna bring F-22 to China see how many get shot down?

    You can fight Qaeda all you want. You will never be prepared to fight China that way.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. Ortis

    Ortis FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 47 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    That would be due to the AA and AAA systems as well as many other factors not the J-20 alone. And again, J-20's pilots don't have any combat experience like America's. Obviously with a home field advantage the J-20 is going to win, just like if the J-20 was brought to America it would be shot down like flies. If it were a proxy situation like Syria or another country between America and China, it would be a totally different situation. And I don't see the use in comparing a decades old jet to a new one when the F-22 is being replaced by the F-35. A better thread would be the F-35 vs J-20
     
  3. SME11B

    SME11B FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    181
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -2
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    You some kind of stealth expert? Why should we believe some random internet comment claiming the rcs is literally over 1000 times larger than those in the know state it is?

    In some ways china would be easier to defeat since they can be found more easily and our systems are designed to fight that type of enemy. You are stepping into the US's forte. The reason the US is in guerilla wars so much is because most are not dumb enough to face us in the open.
     
  4. Austin Powers

    Austin Powers BANNED

    Messages:
    11,702
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 4,576 / -7
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    Shut up Russian paid troll.
     
  5. SME11B

    SME11B FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    181
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -2
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    F-22 has superior stealth, supercruise, radar, experienced pilots and probably avionics and agility. F-22 will have more options and any fight between them is f-22s fight to lose. If it doesn't act recklessly it can stay outside the enemies ability to detect or track it and be able to not only shoot but also collect intel and pass it on. F-22 would be out over the pacific not over chinese territory anyway so how would they deal with that so easily? Add f-35 to the mix to compliment f-22 and there is no air force in the world that stands a chance without some sort of external factor in their favor, like say numbers.

    The j-20 isn't even finished and its "fleet" is tiny. The best hope china has is to launch as many missiles as it can and hope that's enough to halt operations at least for a while but if that doesn't work they will be surrounded and blockaded. Also how would AAA hit f-22 is it flying really low for some reason? F-22 will be in bases as close as they can get and will at least be a factor around the first island chain so its not pointless to talk about.

    A russian paid troll defending the f-22....you sir are a genius.
     
  6. rcrmj

    rcrmj SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,296
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +1 / 8,734 / -13
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    there is a funny phenomenon among less informed fans```Chinese fans underestimate U.S might as they were blinded by the ever fasting development of China's high techs````on the other hand, the American fans do also underestimate China's high tech capability due to the fact that they are on the top for so long, and China was in a $hit situation for too long`````however, the reality of high tech development and its landscape is never like that "shape" most people believe it should be````

    China much like the U.S and Russia, decades of consistency, huge amount of capital investment, strong national will (high pressure of either to maintain or improve its current geopolitical situation) and endless supply of talents````well, if there is a fourth country can have these 4 characters, they would come-up with an arse-kicking 5th gens in very short of time too```

    my posts to you are indeed random internet comments, and not asking you to take them seriously,```all I want to do is to throw in piece of my mind regarding the stuff I'm interested````and at the end of the day, matters regarding sensitive and high end military techs, they are not for general public to speculate, more importantly not a matter of an opinion, no matter how you are going to trash or inflate of them, they are there for a purpose`````

    oh, btw```there isnt a single stealth fighter's "worst angle" RCS is 0.01m2````and please dont say things like one stealth plane's RCS is X/Y/Z m2```people from the circle, whether they are Chinese or American, dont say armature things like that``as a plane's RCS is always a relative term`! in real air battle, plane wont fix its "good looking" posture fly to a theatre```its funny and stupid``:lol:
     
  7. SME11B

    SME11B FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    181
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -2
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    With testing they will know what the rcs will be at what angle, US 5th gens have software that shows them how detectable they are depending on their orientation to a given sensor. It will take some time for China to come up with that US developers said it took a lot of trial and error.
     
  8. rcrmj

    rcrmj SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,296
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +1 / 8,734 / -13
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    and for what reason that China has already built a stealth fighter and hasn't done that calculations? they are all data and figures, software is a tool to use those data to come-up with a practical solution````China and U.S has the most extensive data on this field, they both throw massive capitals into this, and keep doing so````anyone wants to make a working stealth fighter, they have to either buy the raw data from these two, or do it all over again just by themselves`````````````never underestimate the ground works behind any fancy kits```this is the main reason for the sheer ignorance and stereotypes from both side when it comes to judge other's capabilities`````China is not a new comer in ground research works```this was the only thing that the scientists could do in the past, when China's economical and social condition was a $hit````

    and btw, I never said anything negative on America's military might or to inject any of the seemly stereotypes that shared among Chinese fanboys````

    even if I "disclosed" any sensitive info, it wouldnt be me to get "invited"```I would sell out the one without a hesitation```:lol:
     
  9. LeGenD

    LeGenD ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,708
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +20 / 7,864 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    No problem, friend.

    True.

    However, important characteristics of F-22A, and F-35 variants, CANNOT be RETROFITTED in any legacy aircraft; omnidirectional VLO characteristics, internal components of every character being electronically fused (superior multi-mode operations capability and situational awareness for the pilot), specialized communication technologies (alien to other platforms), and platform-specific technologies. These characteristics cannot be ported in full to legacy platforms, and cannot be undermined with a series of retrofits in legacy platforms. Take a look at the course of evolution of F-16 from Block 15 to Block 70 - a massive leap in its war-fighting capabilities over the course of time - but even the latest F-16 Block 70 does not stand a chance against the aforementioned aircraft because their inherent characteristics.

    Since US have invested a great deal in F-22A and F-35 variants, Pentagon will be willing to go to extreme lengths to keep these aircraft much ahead of any other including the prospects of costly internal changes (if necessary). Already, their are reports about F-22A and F-35 variants* receiving significant set-of-enhancements in the 2020s.

    *To give you an idea; F-35 variants will receive 2nd generation EODAS capability from Raytheon in the 2020s; changes in relevant hardware (sensors to be replaced), and software-related updates in the avionics. Even its current EODAS capability (AN/AAQ-37) have no peer in the world, but USAF is not taking any chances.

    Actually, F-22A - in its current configuration - is not even close to stressing its airframe:

    The Raptor’s airframe is incredibly robust due to the Air Force’s extreme requirements for the design during the closing years of the Cold War. Though the F-22 was designed with an 8000-hour airframe life, real life-flying experience shows that the jet can be safely flown without modifications out to 12,000 hours at the low-end and as many as 15,000 hours on the high-end.

    “Way back in the late 80s and early 90s when we designed the F-22, we had about 10 design missions that we built the structure of the aircraft around,” McIntyre said.

    “That’s what during EMD [engineering, manufacturing, development] we did the full scale testing on against those missions. We came to find out we have not been flying the Raptor nearly as hard as those design missions nor as what we found out during the structural testing, so actually the airframe itself—without any service life extension program—is good out to approximately 2060.”

    Details in here: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...2-raptor-will-fly-until-2060-21329?nopaging=1

    F-22A was not feasible for mass production because it costed up to 216 million USD per product to develop. Still, 100+ of these being operational at a time is a HUGE FORCE, and a major source of headache for a potential opponent. Just this force would be sufficient to wipe out an air force of any other country, if complemented with the right kind of support structures.

    Below are some examples for comparison:

    [​IMG]

    As you can see, 1xx figure for detecting an F-22A is unlikely with any X-band AESA radar platform. The 92N2E is among the most powerful X-band AESA radar systems outside American and European.

    The FRONTAL rcs of F-22A fall within 0.0001 m^2 - 0.0002 m^2 range while the REAR rcs of F-22A fall within 0.01 - 0.001 m^2 range (Global Security & Kopp, 2012); these figures are subject to improve over time due to [innovation] in RAM coating treatments. However, in view of these figures, the 92N2E can notice an F-22A from its REAR at up to 75 KM distance (best case scenario; 0.01 m^2 figure), but this is unlikely in actual war; an S-400 system will not be ignored as a potential target, and F-22A would be rather tasked to eliminate an S-400 system (frontal rcs becomes valid), and not pass by (rear rcs becomes valid). F-22A is also expected to super-cruise in each sortie in order to reduce its rear emissions to bare minimum.

    You also mentioned L-band frequency range; only SU-57 incorporate L-band AESA radar extensions (N036L x 2) on its wings, among all combat aircraft thus far. J-20 does not have these extensions.

    Nevertheless;

    Active and Passive detection systems are expected to be electronically fused in the J-20 (5th generation characteristic), and this could be the reason for picking an F-22A in the 1xx range in terms of distance, but this would be possible in the scenario of an F-22A transmitting its signals (actively), and not otherwise. Therefore, your sources are highlighting best case scenario for detection, grounded on certain set of assumptions. Marketing 101.

    They might have surpassed the original AN/APG-77 configuration [in certain aspects], but the current AN/APG-77(v)1 configuration have pulled ahead.

    [​IMG]

    AN/APG-77(v)1 is also FOURTH GENERATION among X-band AESA solutions, but it is not for export. They do not export their most capable hardware to other countries, not even to NATO member states and Israel.

    I had a discussion on these lines before, in another thread: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-11

    You are a fairly realistic man, and this is why your friends do not appreciate your conventional wisdom at times. Believe me! I am in the same boat. My fellow brothers also dislike my views at times, because I do not subscribe to POLITICALLY CORRECT mentality. I understand your position.

    Yes, China is a superpower now. Its advances - in all aspects - are in front of all. I would say that China is a very powerful country, and a dangerous adversary to any other force. American war-machine is relatively advanced but this does not suggest that it will have an easy time with Chinese defenses in an actual war (God forbid). I do not know, honestly.

    Anyways, I enjoyed having this conversation with you. Good day to you.
     
  10. rcrmj

    rcrmj SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,296
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +1 / 8,734 / -13
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    let me try if I can find a diagram of the latest fighter AESA radar's detection chart```I know there is one done by the States````a rough number of RCS and range in relativity```

    [​IMG]
    this chart if for USA X-band radars VS target RCS, the numbers are for public consumption`````

    [​IMG] \
    This is Russia's BUT the infos were gathered by the U.S```````

    for both chart, F-22, F-35 and J-20 are all fall in the category of 0.01m2 RCS````it is a "practical" number, rather than their ideal RCS figure```which can go smaller than 0.001```but in real war its useless````as it can only achieved by 100% head-on-heand with 0% deviation!!!!`````an intersection angle of 0.1 degree that would increase the RCS ten folds (figure of speech, not exact 10 fold`:lol:)````
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  11. rcrmj

    rcrmj SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,296
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +1 / 8,734 / -13
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    and btw, the most advanced American and Chinese optical sensors can detect and lock F-22 type target at range of over 150KM````given the fact that the export version of optical sensors that China can offer to others can achieve 80KM, but it cant guide weapons towards target`````

    and here I want to stress the issues of stealth fighter's RCS ```` no matter what numbers "given" "leacked" or "officially announced" by any groups, just dont take them seriously, especially those profit seeking non-govemmental organizations`````these figures are matters of a nation's strategic secrecy, the related parties wont disclose that for any reasons`````the cost of doing so is capital punishment in China, dont think it will be any lesser in the States or any Western countries``````so in fact, almost all the "numbers" we know to the public are from meida```````

    so when it comes to professional exchanges or discussions of such matter in the circle, they use relative numbers````but that 0.0001m2 RCS of F-22 is way off in practical term, that I'm for sure````in real war, a plane, does not know how many enemy radars are looking, at what distance and at what angle (very important), besides there are scale more optical sensors at work, monitoring the sky```

    to radar, a slight change of intersection angle would increase the RCS many folds, so in this case, given the fact that the pilot has no idea how many radars are scattered in the confrontation theatre (on land, on sea or in the sky) so the pilot does not know how to "point" its best angle to A radar to acheive its best "looking" :lol:````

    to optical sensor, it will creat even more obstacles to supersonic stealth fighters```as stealth fighter is relative to electronic waves, but does not work to optical sensor``````to all air forces, it is almost forbidden to fly supersonic below 7000m altitude, unless there is a must !(then you have to bear the risk of the plane breaking apart in the sky instead of being shot by enemy's weapon``), like a show, but with very limited time, like seconds``` , because it will affact plane's durability in big deal, be it fourth gen or fifth gen, unless there is a break through on material science````But flying with supersonic speed at altitude of 7000m-14000m will cause another problem```it is the layer of smoke layer (do not know the terminology in English, basically it means when plane flying at this layer, that the tail gas or exhaust gas will condense and leaves a trace trail behind the plane, that could be very very long and very very "showy" to optical sensors``, the size of the layer varies according to weather condition```but the general range is ranging from 7000m to 14000m altitude```), which is a bad idea to enter the confrontation zoon````

    currently U.S and China is working on next gen coatings for stealth plane, primarily to reduce infared radiation, around 50%-80% reduction to optical sensor, but the reduction to radar wave is only like X%, not that much``
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018