Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[UKBengali]

From what sector? The F-35 has DSI while the F-22 does not, which would lend to better performance in frontal aspect returns. The F-22s advantage is in its rectangular nozzles, which is considerably better than even serrated axisymmetric nozzles.

F-22 - RCS is "marble" sized.
F-35 - RCS is "golf ball" sized.

This is the only public statements that the US has made about the RCS of the F-22 and F-35.

The export F-35 does not have the same degree of stealth as the US version though.

 

[UKBengali]

As S10 mentioned, these are incremental upgrades, not evolutional or generation upgrades. The fact is its radar was designed in the 90s and uses technology of that area, with some minor improvements along the way.

J-20 radar was designed in the 2000s and so only 10 years newer than that of F22 - hardly a massive amount of time for China to allow China to catch up to USA.

The F-22 was upgraded with the APG-77v1 in 2007 and the new radar variant also captured some advances made in AESA design for the F-35 (APG-81) and Block 60 F-16E/F (APG-80). The APG-77(V)1 successfully completed flight-test certification March 2007.

The AN/APG-77(V)3 is the latest variant and AN/APG-77(V)4 will soon be rolled out to the fleet.

You would really need to be very optimistic to think that the J-20 radar is as good as the latest radar on the F-22.

 

[LKJ86]

F-22 - RCS is "marble" sized.
F-35 - RCS is "golf ball" sized.

This is the only public statements that the US has made about the RCS of the F-22 and F-35.

The export F-35 does not have the same degree of stealth as the US version though.

When U.S. was the only country in the world that had stealth fighters, there were myths about stealth, just like what you said.

But after China and Russia also have them, U.S. starts to keep silent.

 

[LeGenD]

I can upgrade a 1969 Shelby Mustang as much as I want, but it's not going to match the performance of 2020 GT500 Shelby. China has been releasing a new generation of avionics and radars every half a decade since 2000. Those aren't upgrades, but new products.

This is not sound logic.

The current B-52G is an entirely different aircraft than the original B-52 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current F-16 Block 70/72 is an entirely different aircraft than the original F-16 Block 15 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current M1A2C is an entirely different MBT than the original M1 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades. These FRAMES are usually trend-setters for much of the world.

It is a mistake to assume that countries are at par with each other in developing technologies. There are gaps which are virtually unlikely to bridge in practice because everything is not shared and taught and espionage considerations are not infallible.

 

[Figaro]

J-20 radar was designed in the 2000s and so only 10 years newer than that of F22 - hardly a massive amount of time for China to allow China to catch up to USA.

The F-22 was upgraded with the APG-77v1 in 2007 and the new radar variant also captured some advances made in AESA design for the F-35 (APG-81) and Block 60 F-16E/F (APG-80). The APG-77(V)1 successfully completed flight-test certification March 2007.

The AN/APG-77(V)3 is the latest variant and AN/APG-77(V)4 will soon be rolled out to the fleet.

You would really need to be very optimistic to think that the J-20 radar is as good as the latest radar on the F-22.

This is operating under the assumption that China was massively behind the US in radar technologies in the first place, which just simply is not true. Please tell me how this is the case, since it deployed its first AESA radar only a couple years after that of the US. I would buy this if we were talking about aero-engines, but for radars I won't. Also, why do you only assume the F-22s radar received upgrades but not that of the J-20? Do you really think that the radars of the production variants are at the same level of the prototypes ... have the Chinese been just lying dormant on their Type 1475 radar for the past 10 years (the first J-20 prototype rolled out almost 10 years ago)? I fail to understand why only the APG-77 would receive upgrades while the Type 1475 does not.

 

[UKBengali]

When U.S. was the only country in the world that had stealth fighters, there were myths about stealth, just like what you said.

But after China and Russia also have them, U.S. starts to keep silent.

Russia does not have a "stealth" aircraft.

Even India rejected it saying it is not stealth.

 

[LKJ86]

Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades.

It is not true.

U.S. had established total supremacy over its rivals, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, it was enough for U.S. to just upgrade its old weapons.

But times have changed now.

 

[S10]

This is not sound logic.

The current B-52G is an entirely different aircraft than the original B-52 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current F-16 Block 70/72 is an entirely different aircraft than the original F-16 Block 15 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current M1A2C is an entirely different MBT than the original M1 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades. These FRAMES are usually trend-setters for much of the world.

It is a mistake to assume that countries are at par with each other in developing technologies. There are gaps which are virtually unlikely to bridge in practice because everything is not shared and taught and espionage considerations are not infallible.

That's a perfectly good analogy.

You have an existing system architecture being given incremental upgrades over time. It will perform a lot better than the original, but that's not the same as a new system with two decades of advancement. An Intel i7 - 975 processor, no matter how much you overclock and give it aftermarket coolers, is still not as good as the latest stock Intel i5 -9600k, despite its status as a flagship product at the time of introduction. Now I am not saying that J-20 is superior to F-22 in every aspect, but the logic that Americans did it first therefore they are ahead is deeply flawed.

You are right that countries are not on par with each other in developing technologies, but you forget that countries advance at a different pace. UK was the largest and more advance industrial power than US in 1776. By 1876, that edge essentially fizzled. Chinese and Indian economy was neck and neck in 1990, with India actually being slightly bigger. By the end of this year, China will be 6 times the size of the Indian economy.

China is the largest industrial power on earth. Its higher education system produces 6 times the number of science and engineering graduates than US. It has more patent filings and published STEM researches than US. Twenty years ago China doesn't make Top 10 in the TOP500 supercomputer list. More than half the systems on that list is Chinese today.

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.

 

[Figaro]

This is not sound logic.

The current B-52G is an entirely different aircraft than the original B-52 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current F-16 Block 70/72 is an entirely different aircraft than the original F-16 Block 15 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current M1A2C is an entirely different MBT than the original M1 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades. These FRAMES are usually trend-setters for much of the world.

It is a mistake to assume that countries are at par with each other in developing technologies. There are gaps which are virtually unlikely to bridge in practice because everything is not shared and taught and espionage considerations are not infallible.

But is the B-52G as capable as a B-1B?

 

[LeGenD]

It is not true.

U.S. had established total supremacy over its rivals, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, it was enough for U.S. to just upgrade its old weapons.

But times have changed now.

Sir,

Americans have a history of developing FRAMES with futuristic considerations in mind. I provided some examples in my previous post.

Some of the technologies that WE notice becoming true today were first proposed back in the 1960s and 1970s. Imagine this.

There are databases which will not be made public.

That's a perfectly good analogy.

You have an existing system architecture being given incremental upgrades over time. It will perform a lot better than the original, but that's not the same as a new system based on an architecture that are two decades ahead.

An Intel i7 - 975 processor, no matter how much you overclock and give it aftermarket coolers, is still not as good as the latest stock Intel i5 -9600k, despite its status as a flagship product at the time of introduction.

You are right that countries are not on par with each other in developing technologies, but you forget that countries advance at a different pace. UK was the largest and more advance industrial power than US in 1776. By 1876, that edge essentially fizzled. China is the largest industrial power on earth. Its higher education system produces 6 times the number of science and engineering graduates than US. It has more patent filings and published STEM researches than US. Twenty years ago China doesn't make Top 10 in the TOP500 supercomputer list. More than half the systems on that list is Chinese today.

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.

Dear,

Consider PC analogy.

FRAME = Casing

Components inside the Casing can be replaced from time-to-time.

In case of defensive applications, even the Casing itself can be amended to accomodate new stuff if absolutely necessary.

 

[LKJ86]

Sir,

Americans have a history of developing FRAMES with futuristic considerations in mind. I provided some examples in my previous post.

Some of the technologies that WE notice becoming true today were first proposed back in the 1960s and 1970s. Imagine this.

There are databases which will not be made public.

How did U.S. refresh its weapons during the cold war?

 

[S10]

Dear,

Consider PC analogy.

FRAME = Casing

Components inside the Casing can be replaced from time-to-time.

In case of defensive applications, even the Casing itself can be amended to accomodate new stuff.

Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.

 

[PakFactor]

Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.

The casing is just a shell, what's inside is the main factor (motherboard)-- tech that determines engagement, data collection, etc.

 

[UKBengali]

This is operating under the assumption that China was massively behind the US in radar technologies in the first place, which just simply is not true. Please tell me how this is the case, since it deployed its first AESA radar only a couple years after that of the US. I would buy this if we were talking about aero-engines, but for radars I won't. Also, why do you only assume the F-22s radar received upgrades but not that of the J-20? Do you really think that the radars of the production variants are at the same level of the prototypes ... have the Chinese been just lying dormant on their Type 1475 radar for the past 10 years (the first J-20 prototype rolled out almost 10 years ago)? I fail to understand why only the APG-77 would receive upgrades while the Type 1475 does not.

Let us go by date of introduction into service:

F-22 - 2005
J-20 - 2017

J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar.

I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.

 

[S10]

The casing is just a shell, what's inside is the main factor (motherboard)-- tech that determines engagement, data collection, etc.

So glad you agree that incremental upgrades to F-22's 1990's avionic and radar architecture are limited in scope by the confines of such architecture.