Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Akasa]

Another noob at work,btw that article was from ausairpower..a favourite destination of chinese forumers.

Is there anything else you do besides trying to cover your lack of argument with cheap one-liners?

Without supercruise -
IRST tracker will detect u further and faster.

Which then begs the question, why is supersonic speed needed in the first place? A subsonic aircraft faces none of the issues.

U enter battle far lower on kinamtic enrgy than ur opponent who is then at an advantage[KE] affects missile performance.
Non supercruising fighters will have severe problems getting BVR lock on supercruising fighters.
Supercruising fighters have advantage in missile no escape zone range.

In a battle, both aircraft will be pushing to their absolute limits. That is far beyond the now-insignificant cruise speed. In a head on fight both aircraft will close each other at the same relative speed. The situation is the same for both pilots no matter how much faster one aircraft is.

 

[SQ8]

Another noob at work,btw that article was from ausairpower..a favourite destination of chinese forumers.

Ausairpower is truly one of the most sensationalist websites and relies on dumping of misrepresented information to try and make their point. Which is why .. NO. and NO western air force, or respectable think tank wants to be associated with them.
The idea by them is to fool laymen by dumping numbers and statistics so that the general populous that is not aware or did not bother to look up the theory is fooled by them. Actual expects will see past these engineering "accountants".

That being said, non supercruisng or otherwise has little to do with obtaining a lock.. It has to do with reducing the IR signature and fuel efficiency. Dogfighting at supersonic speeds is possible but the pilot is the weak factor here.Moreover, the airframe as to have enough low drag and sufficient thrust so that it is able to maintain speed within a turn.

What supercruising essentially allows is faster Time on Target due to the ability to maintain a higher speed for a longer time AND the ability to use that higher speed to provide greater Kinematic energy to weapons released. If one looks at the shapes of fighters such as the J-20 and PAK-FA.. it comes to pass with the design of the J-20 that it is much more suited to flight in the supersonic regime as compared to other platforms(after all, the long thin delta has been the holder of speed records and offers the lowest drag as such.. but here it may be different). Hence, the J-20(if given the right engines or equal T/W ratio as the PAK-FA or the F-22 might have less difficulty slipping into the supersonic region as compared to the rest.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/j-20-chinas-ultimate-aircraft/

The article states the same.. so in essence the J-20 may be designed for an ENTIRELY different purpose than the F-22 and PAK-FA.. and may be more comparable to the FB-22 concept. Its shaping would allow it to get close enough and at supercruise to American High Value Air Assets like the E-3 or otherwise and attack them in a pass and GET OUT as fast as well. Perhaps , it is purposefully designed to avoid the dogfight and is more like the Mig-31 than a F-15; except that its a very stealthy Mig-31 and that is in itself a very deadly platform.

Because if you look at it, spotting something like the F-22 will be very very difficult for even something like the J-20. And for it to engage it in A2A combat is also folly. However, if such an aircraft can simply slip past the F-22's and other assets to strike at the main keystone like AWACS or Carriers.. then it sort of solves the problem for the Chinese in a way.
There were recent reports that US Navy ordered some panic upgrades to their naval ECM systems.. which means that something was developed which they found out about that caused them to panic; could the J-20 be part of that mix?
After all, the Chinese are smart learners and they are learning. Perhaps they figured that instead of fighting the Americans pound for pound.. why not find a way around them? Asymmetric warfare to their approach.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Is there anything else you do besides trying to cover your lack of argument with cheap one-liners?



Which then begs the question, why is supersonic speed needed in the first place? A subsonic aircraft faces none of the issues.



In a battle, both aircraft will be pushing to their absolute limits. That is far beyond the now-insignificant cruise speed. In a head on fight both aircraft will close each other at the same relative speed. The situation is the same for both pilots no matter how much faster one aircraft is.

Supercruise increases NEZ of bvr missiles considerably giving it solid advantage in BVR duels,leaving aside advantages in Endurance and detection.
But for a detailed explanation,perhaps a professional @gambit.

 

[SQ8]

To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting

Perhaps that is what the Chinese are now trying to do. Instead of trying to match the enemy's strengths.. they are trying to look for weaknesses that will exist regardless. A ***** in the Armor so to speak; although for the US that is a very very very difficult thing to find in conventional warfare.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Ausairpower is truly one of the most sensationalist websites and relies on dumping of misrepresented information to try and make their point. Which is why .. NO. and NO western air force, or respectable think tank wants to be associated with them.
The idea by them is to fool laymen by dumping numbers and statistics so that the general populous that is not aware or did not bother to look up the theory is fooled by them. Actual expects will see past these engineering "accountants".

That being said, non supercruisng or otherwise has little to do with obtaining a lock.. It has to do with reducing the IR signature and fuel efficiency. Dogfighting at supersonic speeds is possible but the pilot is the weak factor here.Moreover, the airframe as to have enough low drag and sufficient thrust so that it is able to maintain speed within a turn.

What supercruising essentially allows is faster Time on Target due to the ability to maintain a higher speed for a longer time AND the ability to use that higher speed to provide greater Kinematic energy to weapons released. If one looks at the shapes of fighters such as the J-20 and PAK-FA.. it comes to pass with the design of the J-20 that it is much more suited to flight in the supersonic regime as compared to other platforms(after all, the long thin delta has been the holder of speed records and offers the lowest drag as such.. but here it may be different). Hence, the J-20(if given the right engines or equal T/W ratio as the PAK-FA or the F-22 might have less difficulty slipping into the supersonic region as compared to the rest.
J-20: China's ultimate aircraft carrier-killer? | The DEW Line

The article states the same.. so in essence the J-20 may be designed for an ENTIRELY different purpose than the F-22 and PAK-FA.. and may be more comparable to the FB-22 concept. Its shaping would allow it to get close enough and at supercruise to American High Value Air Assets like the E-3 or otherwise and attack them in a pass and GET OUT as fast as well. Perhaps , it is purposefully designed to avoid the dogfight and is more like the Mig-31 than a F-15; except that its a very stealthy Mig-31 and that is in itself a very deadly platform.

Because if you look at it, spotting something like the F-22 will be very very difficult for even something like the J-20. And for it to engage it in A2A combat is also folly. However, if such an aircraft can simply slip past the F-22's and other assets to strike at the main keystone like AWACS or Carriers.. then it sort of solves the problem for the Chinese in a way.
There were recent reports that US Navy ordered some panic upgrades to their naval ECM systems.. which means that something was developed which they found out about that caused them to panic; could the J-20 be part of that mix?
After all, the Chinese are smart learners and they are learning. Perhaps they figured that instead of fighting the Americans pound for pound.. why not find a way around them? Asymmetric warfare to their approach.

I agree with much of you,but one thing is AWACS and high value assets always have powerful escorts.
Except that agreed.

 

[SQ8]

Supercruise increases NEZ of bvr missiles considerably giving it solid advantage in BVR duels,leaving aside advantages in Endurance and detection.
But for a detailed explanation,perhaps a professional @gambit.

I would not invite gambit here as it gets personal for many members and does not stay professional.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Perhaps that is what the Chinese are now trying to do. Instead of trying to match the enemy's strengths.. they are trying to look for weaknesses that will exist regardless. A ***** in the Armor so to speak; although for the US that is a very very very difficult thing to find in conventional warfare.

Some have stated that j-20 may be a low observable strike fighter to be used like tu-22m to attack carriers and as u said command and control assets in conjunction with land based ballistic missiles and naval platforms.

I would not invite gambit here as it gets personal for many members and does not stay professional.

Hmm..any other proffesionals?Death by chocolate?

 

[SQ8]

I agree with much of you,but one thing is AWACS and high value assets always have powerful escorts.
Except that agreed.

But thats exactly what it is. It does not have to close into the AWACS.. it simply has to get within employment range of weapons that can track and take down the AWACS. Which its low frontal RCS allows it to do.. the J-20 is not all aspect LO especially with those canards and Chinese patents allude to algorithms that compute the lowest RCS with the Canards for the aircraft based on a target or direction(the Eurofighter and Rafale use similar algo's)

Some have stated that j-20 may be a low observable strike fighter to be used like tu-22m to attack carriers and as u said command and control assets in conjunction with land based ballistic missiles and naval platforms.

Either way, the problem is with people trying to compare oranges and apples. The J-20 is perhaps not even in the category of aircraft that the F-22 and PAK-FA are.. and so trying to compare a interceptor/strike with air dominance fighters is ... Stupid.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Anyway we will know for sure in coming 5 yrs or so about both j-31 and j-20.Till then i agree perhaps this comparison is premature.

 

[RAMPAGE]

@Oscar Sir , @AUSTERLITZ how can we say that j-20 is an interceptor rather than an air superiority aircraft ?

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar Sir , @AUSTERLITZ how can we say that j-20 is an interceptor rather than an air superiority aircraft ?

Read the article first and then think of the shaping of the aircraft based on what has been written in there and what we were discussing. It is designed to go fast very quickly and stay fast for a long time.. add to that it is stealthy from the front.. and it will add together.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Indeed it can't as its not meant as air superiority fighter.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.@gambit

how did u make that assumption ???

 

[gambit]

Supercruise is a testament to the aircraft's aerodynamics and somewhat thrust to weight ratio, but pragmatically speaking such a feat is not useful in actual combat.

Bullsh1t. If supercruise have no utility in combat, which begins at the moment of adversary detection and not ACM, then why is China trying to achieve supercruise in the new J-20?

Supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without engine reheat, which is barely fast enough when compared with modern maximum speeds. Kinetic energy can be maintained by supercruise or by engine reheat, sometimes with the latter being more useful since it can provide rapid variation of thrust in a short time period. In fact there has been no case in history where aircraft maintained their cruise speed during a high intensity dogfight. In such dogfights one can be guaranteed that afterburners will be used to propel the aircraft to its highest speed, at which point preservation of kinetic energy is no longer a concern since the aircrafts' speed in a fight will outstrip that of cruise speed.

And that is why supercruise is so useful -- fuel quantity available for those rapid throttle movements. You get to the fight with as much maneuvering fuel as you can.

 

[gambit]

I would not invite gambit here as it gets personal for many members and does not stay professional.

This is a maturity issue for the Chinese members here. I have yet to conduct -- with a Chinese member -- a rational debate on purely technical grounds where the person have the maturity to concede that he is either mistaken, uninformed, uneducated, or simply flat out misunderstood.

 

[SQ8]

This is a maturity issue for the Chinese members here. I have yet to conduct -- with a Chinese member -- a rational debate on purely technical grounds where the person have the maturity to concede that he is either mistaken, uninformed, uneducated, or simply flat out misunderstood.

The problem is with all fanboys from anywhere in the world. They are unable to accept the shortcomings and in that fervour do not give the chance for actual praise to arrive. The F-22 has its limitations as does the F-35. so does the PAK-FA and many other fighters. However the approach of all praise and all critique is unrealistic.

Which brings another question into my mind.. What is more important? Shaping or Coatings.. or rather.. how much can you achieve with coatings alone or shaping alone.
It would be great if you could answer that here
http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/73549-fundamentals-stealth-design-concepts-rcs-reduction-3.html