Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[cirr]

http://v.ifeng.com/program/special/cjck2018/

@Deino

 

[Brainsucker]

Of course there is an ideal situation where the J-20's engine nozzles are not seen by both radar and IR sensors. But ideal situations are rare in flight.

But in different angle (the same angle as your J-20 photo), the F-35 engine nozzle is also exposed.

 

[gambit]

But in different angle (the same angle as your J-20 photo), the F-35 engine nozzle is also exposed.

The J-20's nozzles are more exposed, creating a higher IR intensity. The issue is about GREATER vulnerability, which means if flares are deployed, the J-20 will have less odds of a successful distraction than the F-35.

 

[帅的一匹]

The J-20's nozzles are more exposed, creating a higher IR intensity. The issue is about GREATER vulnerability, which means if flares are deployed, the J-20 will have less odds of a successful distraction than the F-35.

It's hard to say.

Most of time it's head-on engage.

 

[gambit]

It's hard to say.

Most of time it's head-on engage.

Even though modern IR missiles can be used in a head on scenario, if a pilot can advantageously position himself in a tail chase or similar to maximize engine nozzle exposure, he will do so.

Attacking from the rear is always an advantage. Next best is superior altitude. Ultimate is both. An AWACS aside, all aircrafts are most vulnerable in the rear aspect. No radar warning system can replace an active radar to detect a hostile in the aft sector. If I am lost in low altitude in background clutter, I will let my opponent pass over me and take him in his six with either radar or IR guided missile. The head on scenario is the least desirable engagement.

 

[clarkgap]

Of course there is an ideal situation where the J-20's engine nozzles are not seen by both radar and IR sensors. But ideal situations are rare in flight.

From other angles, vertical fin also can not complete cover the nozzle of F-35.

 

[帅的一匹]

Even though modern IR missiles can be used in a head on scenario, if a pilot can advantageously position himself in a tail chase or similar to maximize engine nozzle exposure, he will do so.

Attacking from the rear is always an advantage. Next best is superior altitude. Ultimate is both. An AWACS aside, all aircrafts are most vulnerable in the rear aspect. No radar warning system can replace an active radar to detect a hostile in the aft sector. If I am lost in low altitude in background clutter, I will let my opponent pass over me and take him in his six with either radar or IR guided missile. The head on scenario is the least desirable engagement.

As a retired pilot, it's a pity that you can't fly F35.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Maybe stealthy nozzle with 2D thrust vector like F-22....

If they r gonna go for thrust vectoring then why not 3d thrust vectoring

 

[clarkgap]

If they r gonna go for thrust vectoring then why not 3d thrust vectoring

You mean Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle or 3D-Thrust Vector Canard?

 

[Figaro]

You mean Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle or 3D-Thrust Vector Canard?

I think he's talking about the former ... why would the PLAAF choose 2D thrust vectoring over 3D?

 

[Beast]

I think he's talking about the former ... why would the PLAAF choose 2D thrust vectoring over 3D?

3D nozzle is not stealthy enough.

 

[sinait]

As a retired pilot, it's a pity that you can't fly F35.

He is not a pilot.
He does some technical work.
You can dig up old post to find out more.
.

 

[Deino]

https://twitter.com/x/status/975253588015398912

 

[Deino]

 

[gambit]

From other angles, vertical fin also can not complete cover the nozzle of F-35.

We are not talking about %100 coverage but reduced exposure. Target contact is near constant with radar regardless of maneuvers. The same cannot be said for passive method like the IR sensor.