China's J-31 Stealth Fighter Version 2

[Figaro]

The canards are designed to balance the center of gravity of the plane. Canards improve fuel efficiency. Canards also help maneuverability in the up-and-down direction.

However, the F-22 has its entire wingspan area located near the center of the aircraft. The huge wingspan for a smaller-sized F-22 fighter enables extreme LATERAL maneuverability. The F-22 also has TVC to boost its maneuverability.

I've watched countless videos of the F-22 and J-20. The F-22 can go from a horizontal position and climb vertically in the blink of an eye.

In my opinion, the F-22 is clearly more maneuverable until the J-20 can prove otherwise with new videos of its performance.

..... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And do you keep insisting that the F-22 is a much smaller plane? It is not. It is only 1 meter shorter than the J-20 in length while the latter has a larger wingspan. We merely haven't seen "extreme" demonstrations from the J-20 yet ... although we will. And TVC bleeds energy as well, which was demonstrated against a mock fight with the Eurofighter. To say a "blink of an eye" is a pretty audacious statement ... and there haven't been many videos of the J-20 performing stunts ... the same cannot be said for the F-22

The canards are designed to balance the center of gravity of the plane. Canards improve fuel efficiency. Canards also help maneuverability in the up-and-down direction.

However, the F-22 has its entire wingspan area located near the center of the aircraft. The huge wingspan for a smaller-sized F-22 fighter enables extreme LATERAL maneuverability. The F-22 also has TVC to boost its maneuverability.

I've watched countless videos of the F-22 and J-20. The F-22 can go from a horizontal position and climb vertically in the blink of an eye.

Unless the J-20 can post comparable videos, the F-22 is clearly more maneuverable. (See F-22 vertical climb video below)

Every airplane design has its strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, the F-22 is an incredibly maneuverable fighter. In contrast, the J-20 was designed for a much longer combat radius. However, I think it is incorrect to claim the J-20 is more maneuverable than the F-22.

As I've said, we will have to agree to disagree on this one ... I've just gotten off work and am very tired

 

[Martian2]

..... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And do you keep insisting that the F-22 is a much smaller plane? It is not. It is only 1 meter shorter than the J-20 in length while the latter has a larger wingspan. We merely haven't seen "extreme" demonstrations from the J-20 yet ... although we will. And TVC bleeds energy as well, which was demonstrated against a mock fight with the Eurofighter. To say a "blink of an eye" is a pretty audacious statement ... and there haven't been many videos of the J-20 performing stunts ... the same cannot be said for the F-22

One meter is a lot.

F-22: 19 meters
J-20: 20 meters

1 meter / 20 meters = 5%

For a combat fighter, 5% is important.

We're not talking about 1%. We're talking about 5%.
----------

Look at the extreme maneuvers of the F-22 at 1:37 into the video. It's quite impressive.

 

[BRAVO_]

keeping in view the price tag of J-20.... it has also very good maneuverability

 

[Hyperion]

Dear.... dear...... all those fancy dance of the F22 is because of ....
....
....
....
....
....
It's super capable engines marriage to various tweaks, and lastly don't ever forget a capable fighter sitting behind a very advance machine (think of command on the lines of man machine interface).

And no. 19m vs 20m makes no difference. Whatsoever.

One meter is a lot.

F-22: 19 meters
J-20: 20 meters

1 meter / 20 meters = 5%

For a combat fighter, 5% is important.

We're not talking about 1%. We're talking about 5%.
----------

Look at the extreme maneuvers of the F-22 at 1:37 into the video. It's quite impressive.

 

[LeGenD]

Martian, they are claiming that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor or strike-fighter, meaning that it has little maneuverability and is not suited for air-air roles. This is nothing to be proud of; they are wrong indeed.

J-20 and F-22 are fundamentally different designs. Any (real) expert will tell you as much.

J-20 [is] more suited for long-range strike missions on the ground. However, it is expected to have a decent level of air-to-air engagement capability.

Conversely, F-22 is an established air-superiority design but excellent for all kinds of engagements. China is not on par with US in these matters yet.

 

[Figaro]

J-20 and F-22 are fundamentally different designs. Any real expert will tell you as much.

J-20 [is] more suited for long-range strike missions on the ground. However, it is expected to have a decent level of air-to-air strike capability.

Conversely, F-22 is an established air-superiority design but excellent for all kinds of engagements.

That is not true at all. You really need to read yourself up on the J-20. The J-20's weapons bay is way too shallow to carry strike weapons. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/striker-or-interceptor-assessing-commentary-on-j-20s-role.t7832/

keeping in view the price tag of J-20.... it has also very good maneuverability

And that was with its AoA limiter on and "under-powered" engine. Can't wait to see how future J-20 variants are going to perform ...

 

[LeGenD]

That is not true at all. You really need to read yourself up on the J-20. The J-20's weapons bay is way too shallow to carry strike weapons. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/striker-or-interceptor-assessing-commentary-on-j-20s-role.t7832/


And that was with its AoA limiter on and "under-powered" engine. Can't wait to see how future J-20 variants are going to perform ...

I am sorry but none of that dispute my point.

 

[Figaro]

I am sorry but none of that dispute my point.

Well why don't you read it before commenting? All of their contentions dispute your point ... the J-20's bay is way too shallow and is roughly in size to the F-22. And why would a dedicated strike fighter (similar to the F-35) need canards to increase its high-alpha? After all, a strike fighter typically avoids WVR combat ...

 

[LeGenD]

Well why don't you read it before commenting? All of their contentions dispute your point ... the J-20's bay is way too shallow and is roughly in size to the F-22. And why would a dedicated strike fighter (similar to the F-35) need canards?

I have checked it briefly but I am busy at the moment. I promise to read it in full when I have time.

In the meantime;

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-just-how-good-it-20116

I will also try to find a paper that shaped my current point-of-view about J-20.

 

[Figaro]

I have checked it briefly but I am busy at the moment. I promise to read it in full when I have time.

In the meantime;

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-just-how-good-it-20116

I will also try to find a paper that shaped my current point-of-view about J-20.

The first site is credible, the other two are complete garbage. You should really check that link; some of these articles quote those very posters. They are highly authoritative. Do not ever read National Interest, Business Insider, or NextBigFuture when it comes to Chinese military matters. They are inaccurate and only published for the likes of MSM.

 

[Ultima Thule]

J-20 and F-22 are fundamentally different designs. Any (real) expert will tell you as much.

J-20 [is] more suited for long-range strike missions on the ground. However, it is expected to have a decent level of air-to-air engagement capability.

Conversely, F-22 is an established air-superiority design but excellent for all kinds of engagements. China is not on par with US in these matters yet.

delta canards platforms are specially built for air superiority then secondary mission of multi role operations, you forget MIG-1.44 and EURO-CANARDS there main missions is deny RuAF in Europe then their secondary mission of strike and CAS

I am sorry but none of that dispute my point.

All DELTA CANARD's main mission is air superiority look at EURO CANARDS their main is deny RUAF in Europe then it will come to play secondary roles of Strike and CAS

I have checked it briefly but I am busy at the moment. I promise to read it in full when I have time.

In the meantime;

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-just-how-good-it-20116

I will also try to find a paper that shaped my current point-of-view about J-20.

Just some random blogs western news paper references post some articles from jane's, flight global, aviation week they are all saying that J-20 is a air superiority jet with a secondary strike and CAS missions

 

[Martian2]

J-20 and F-22 are fundamentally different designs. Any (real) expert will tell you as much.

J-20 [is] more suited for long-range strike missions on the ground. However, it is expected to have a decent level of air-to-air engagement capability.

Conversely, F-22 is an established air-superiority design but excellent for all kinds of engagements. China is not on par with US in these matters yet.

What are you talking about?

The J-20 is a stealth fighter. The F-22 is a stealth fighter. These are the two premier stealth fighters in the world.

The J-20 can fight in the South China Sea, because it has a 1,243 mile combat radius. The F-22 cannot fight in the South China Sea, because it has a combat radius of only 471 miles.

Thus, China's J-20 wins in any battlefield beyond 500 miles. The F-22 was designed only for a Cold War European battlefield and lacks range.

The discussion on maneuverability was purely academic. In the real world, The J-20 and F-22 will fire BVR missiles at each other. WVR combat will virtually never happen.

In the real world, China has stealth-detecting radars on land, naval ships, and on drones. Chinese AWACS are intentionally designed to emit in the L-band to detect American stealth fighters. This means China's dragnet anti-stealth radar coverage along the Chinese coast and the South China Sea conveys a huge advantage upon the Chinese military.

Futhermore, China's airpower is supported by ample surface-to-air missiles.

In any plausible scenario along China's coast or the South China Sea, China's J-20 stealth fighters and supporting aircraft (AWACS, drones, naval missiles, radars and missiles on South China Sea islands) have the upper hand against the US military.

 

[Silicon0000]

Kindly change the topic from J-31 to J-20 vs F-22.

 

[Taygibay]

... the J-20's bay is way too shallow and is roughly in size to the F-22. And why would a dedicated strike fighter (similar to the F-35) need canards to increase its high-alpha? After all, a strike fighter typically avoids WVR combat ...

delta canards platforms are specially built for air superiority

Huh! Guys? No and No?

- The bay of the F-22 does carry AtG ordnance : GBU-32
- Canards play different roles depending on placement
- The long arm canards of the EF delta are for turn rate
- The closed-coupled canards on the Rafale, also a delta,
are for lift control and help attain lower speeds.

On top of which, no one wondered about speed in general
which is quite the factor in judging maneuverability . . .
turn radiuses are not as small at mach two as in subsonic WVR.


And as Silicon pointed out, how maneuverable is the FC-31?

Good day all, Tay.

 

[KAL-EL]

Yeah, we get it...

Chinese stealth fighter = all powerful and Unstoppable.

American stealth fighter = easy target and not so advanced.