J-20 vs. F-22, Pak Fa, and F-35

[500]

How can something not operational be superior!? Oh well another VS thread...

Your inputs gentlemen and ladies, are badly needed I think.. @gambit , @Technogaianist , @500

You'r right, its silly to discuss something that is not operational and we dont know even basic data (empty weight, fuel, thrust etc ).

As for DSI, its bad for fast aircraft thats why F22 is not using it.

 

[illuminatidinesh]

your smartphone is manufactured in China

Doesnt mean anything...... U should know the difference between manufactured and assembled ..... Fanboys LOL

 

[Sipahi]

Doesnt mean anything...... U should know the difference between manufactured and assembled ..... Fanboys LOL

Indians got the product they pay for. Cheap product.

Everyother Multinational company has it presence in China and actually can you tell me what is the quality of indian product kid ?

 

[silent poison]

In this thread, I will write posts to compare important features among the fifth-generation stealth fighters.

Feel free to start your own separate J-20 complaint threat. However, please stay out of my thread until I finish writing the first six posts. After that, if you don't have something constructive to add then please put your posts in your own J-20 complaint thread.

There are things that I want to cover for the general reader.
----------

Chengdu J-20 has best frontal stealth

#1 Chengdu J-20. Has Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) and Serpentine duct (S-duct).
#2 F-22. Lacks DSI.
#3 T-50/Pak Fa. Lacks DSI. Lacks S-duct.

Never understand the obsession of DSI . But , if i m a pilot and asked to choose one of four i will go for F-22 .

 

[illuminatidinesh]

Indians got the product they pay for. Cheap product.

Everyother Multinational company has it presence in China and actually can you tell me what is the quality of indian product kid ?

Oh yaa says a pakistani? Tell me one thing y do u guys become bandwagon for someone else always?

 

[Sipahi]

Oh yaa says a pakistani? Tell me one thing y do u guys become bandwagon for someone else always?

Thanks to our Dictator Politicans and Democratic Generals.

 

[gambit]

In this thread, I will write posts to compare important features among the fifth-generation stealth fighters.

Feel free to start your own separate J-20 complaint threat. However, please stay out of my thread until I finish writing the first six posts. After that, if you don't have something constructive to add then please put your posts in your own J-20 complaint thread.

There are things that I want to cover for the general reader.

This is not CDF where you can have your ways. But then, since the CDF experiment turned out to be a miserable failure, maybe things here should stay the way they are.

So let us begin...

1. Chengdu J-20 has maxiumum altitude of 65,620 feet. F-22 maxes out at 60,000 feet.

This is in no way 'prove' the J-20 is superior to the F-22.

To start off, there is a difference between the SERVICE ceiling vs the MAXIMUM ceiling.

Ceiling (aeronautics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the service ceiling, the aircraft is still able to maneuver, while the maximum ceiling is higher, the aircraft will not be able to maneuver. These two figures are not fixed for all aircrafts. Each aircraft have its own service and maximum (absolute) ceilings.

Generally speaking, for a prop jobber, if you cannot climb more than 100ft/min, you have reached the service ceiling for that prop jobber. For a jet, if you cannot climb more than 500ft/min, you have reached the service ceiling for that jet. These are generally accepted figures and there are slight variations from design to design.

In 2007, the F-22 is cleared for a maximum ceiling of 65,000 ft. But even if the F-22 is rated with a lower maximum ceiling figure, the alleged difference is operationally and tactically meaningless.

2. Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of 1,200 miles. F-22 combat radius is only 470 miles.

Already explained here...

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft | Updates & Discussions. | Page 140

3. Chengdu J-20 has EOTS (electro-optical targeting system). F-22 has no EOTS.
4. Chengdu J-20 has EODAS (electro-optical distributed aperture system). F-22 has no EODAS.

These have limited tactical uses. Optics have their own technical and environmental restrictions. If the F-22 have superior radar, and I believe it does, the J-20's optics will be useless in combat.

5. Chengdu J-20 is optimized for both transonic flight and maneuverability. F-22 is optimized only for maneuverability.

No planform is perfect for every region of flight. As complex designs, each will have aerodynamic advantages the other do not or have less of. Lockheed managed to have a balance between maneuverability and low radar observability for the F-22 while the J-20 is a cleaned up version of the MIG 1.44, of which we know was not originally designed for low radar observability. The J-20 may have a lower RCS than the MIG 1.44, but its radar visibility will render any alleged aerodynamic advantages over the F-22 tactically useless. The F-22 will see the J-20 first and the J-20 will die first.

 

[Martian2]

Citation for Chengdu J-20 combat radius of 1,200 miles

Source (The Jamestown Foundation): An Initial Assessment of China's J-20 Stealth Fighter | The Jamestown Foundation

"Scaling the dimensions of the J-20 against proximate ground vehicles of known types in photographs does yield very accurate dimensions, showing that the J-20 is a large fighter, in the size class of the United States F/FB-111 family of aircraft, or the proposed but never built FB-22A 'theater bomber.' This in turn indicates an empty weight in the 40,000 – 50,000 lb class, depending on construction technique used in the design, and an internal fuel load of up to 35,000 lb. Inevitably, this yields subsonic combat radius figures in the 1,000 – 1,500 nautical mile class, subject to the thrust specific fuel consumption of the production engine in subsonic cruise. The J-20 is therefore a fighter built for reach, and would be competitive in range performance against the F/FB-111 series, the F-15E Strike Eagle series, and the new Russian Su-35S Flanker series. The implications of this will be discussed further."

Note: One nautical mile = 1.15 mile
----------

The key difference between the J-20 and the F-22 is the delta wing. The J-20's delta wing is optimized for transonic and supersonic flight. You see the same delta wing on the Eurofighter and the French Rafale.

The F-22 designers only cared about maneuverability, because the F-22 was originally envisioned for a war in Europe against the Warsaw Pact. Thus, range was not a problem with numerous NATO land bases available.

By selecting a very large trapezoidal wing and incurring a 15% fuel penalty for the 2D TVC horizontal stealthy nozzles, the F-22 is very fuel inefficient.

Additionally, the F-22 uses very old stealth technology. The F-22 has 600 pounds of stealth paint applied before every mission. In contrast, the J-20 has more advanced baked-in stealth coating like the F-35.
----------

Don't forget about the engine bypass ratio. The J-20 most likely has a higher bypass. This is another factor in the J-20's favor.

The J-20 is roughly the size of the F-15. Since the F-15 has a combat radius of 1,000 nautical miles (or 1,150 miles), the J-20's comparable combat radius of 1,200 miles is reasonable.

Source (Boeing): Boeing: F-15 Strike Eagle

 

[gambit]

Don't forget about the engine bypass ratio. The J-20 most likely has a higher bypass. This is another factor in the J-20's favor.

How is it an advantage ? A higher bypass mean closer to being a turbofan while the F-22's engines are closer to being turbojets, which is desirable for supercruise.

The J-20 is roughly the size of the F-15. Since the F-15 has a combat radius of 1,000 nautical miles (or 1,150 miles), the J-20's comparable combat radius of 1,200 miles is reasonable.

The F-15 have less internal fuel capacity than the F-22, which means the public combat radius for the F-22 is very conservative and probably factored in supercruise to reach targets sooner.

Still nothing to 'prove' the J-20 is superior to the F-22. This is like saying a car with leather seats is superior to the one that does not. A two barrels small block V-8 vs a four barrels big block V8 ? That is a real comparison.

The P-47 is larger, more physically robust, have more fuel, and have more armaments, therefore, the P-47 must be superior to all those fighters.

 

[Martian2]

 

[Azeri440]

1. Source for 600 pounds of stealth paint reapplied before every mission? such information even if true is classified

2. F-22 required 10.5 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time in 2009 , you can see in this official document
the time of maintenance has went down year after year , during that year F-22 already passed the requirement well before reaching its maturity.

it's worth to mention F-22 isn't too expensive too maintain (44,000 per flying hour) in comparison to F-15 (30,000 per flying hour) , specially when you consider the new technology used in F-22 , while F-15 has been in service for decades.

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf

3. @gambit already explained to you multiple times about the combat radius of F-22

4. the fly away cost of F-22 was set at $146 mil. , and considering F-22 is a nearly 2 decade old design and first of its kind in the world , far ahead of its rivals, such cost is not "astronomically high" , in comparison Pak-Fa fly away cost is passing the $100 mil. mark and forcing Russia to reduce its orders. There is no information available regarding the price of J-20 but it will surely also reach a $100 mil mark.

to put it in comparison how the technology has matured and what effect it had on the price of the fly away cost

F-35 at full production will have a fly away cost between $80-90 mil.

 

[Martian2]

1. Source for 600 pounds of stealth paint reapplied before every mission? such information even if true is classified

2. F-22 required 10.5 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time in 2009 , you can see in this official document
the time of maintenance has went down year after year , during that year F-22 already passed the requirement well before reaching its maturity.

it's worth to mention F-22 isn't too expensive too maintain (44,000 per flying hour) in comparison to F-15 (30,000 per flying hour) , specially when you consider the new technology used in F-22 , while F-15 has been in service for decades.

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf

3. @gambit already explained to you multiple times about the combat radius of F-22

4. the fly away cost of F-22 was set at $146 mil. , and considering F-22 is a nearly 2 decade old design and first of its kind in the world , far ahead of its rivals, such cost is not "astronomically high" , in comparison Pak-Fa fly away cost is passing the $100 mil. mark and forcing Russia to reduce its orders. There is no information available regarding the price of J-20 but it will surely also reach a $100 mil mark.

to put it in comparison how the technology has matured and what effect it had on the price of the fly away cost

F-35 at full production will have a fly away cost between $80-90 mil.

Gambit used Wikipedia (which anyone can edit) to support his claim regarding the combat radius. It's worthless.

If you want to read Gambit's garbage, go right ahead. I'll stay with GlobalSecurity, Jane's, FlightGlobal, AviationWeek, and other reputable sources of information for my citations.

You crazies can believe whatever you want.
----------

Source (AviationWeek 2014): http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/12/asd_12_04_2014_dossier.pdf

 

[Martian2]

Seven Reasons that F-22 has a much shorter combat radius than Chengdu J-20

The Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of 1,200 miles. The F-22 has a combat radius of 470 miles? Why?

The short answer is the Chengdu J-20 was designed for long distance. The F-22 was designed for super-maneuverability at the expense of distance.

The Chengdu J-20 was designed to fight in the South China Sea. The F-22 was designed to fight in Europe.

Let's go through the design differences that affect the combat radius.

1. Chengdu J-20 uses the canard-delta wing design for efficient transonic and supersonic flight. This has to do with the shockwave. The Eurofighter, French Rafale, and Gripen follow the same efficient canard-delta wing shape. The F-15 uses a modified delta-wing design. The F-22 is an odd duck with its large trapezoidal wings that generate a lot of friction.

The J-20 canard provides balance to the center of gravity of the aircraft. In contrast, most of the lift for the F-22 is centered behind its center of gravity. This means the F-22 has to adjust its control surfaces to compensate. This is inefficient.

2. The Chengdu J-20 has a leading-edge wing angle of 43 degrees. This is conducive to supersonic flight. The F-22 has a less efficient angle of 47.5 degrees. This means more air friction. The air molecules can't slide along the wing as easily.

3. Despite being a noticeably longer plane, the Chengdu J-20 has the same wing area as the F-22. The F-22 has a massive wing area for its size, which is great for maneuverability. However, the massive wing is terrible for fuel efficiency. The F-22 also has massive vertical stabilizers. This entails more friction.

4. The Chengdu J-20 has a blended fuselage and air inlet. In contrast, the F-22 has an air gap between the fuselage and the air inlet. This means more turbulent airflow and friction for the F-22.

5. The Chengdu J-20 has DSI to smooth the airflow into the air inlet. The F-22 uses a cumbersome mechanical air adjustment device. The airflow into the F-22 inlet is less smooth, because the edges of the mechanical air adjustment device will create vortices.

6. The F-22 has stealthy 2D TVC horizontal nozzles. This imposes a 15% fuel penalty on the F-22. The Chengdu J-20 has no such impediment.

7. The Chengdu J-20 probably has a higher bypass ratio than the F-22. Bypass ratios are relative. The Chengdu J-20 engines are probably designed to trade some performance for fuel efficiency. On the other hand, the F-22 was designed to go all-out in Europe.

The F-22 engines probably traded fuel efficiency for more performance. Evidence for the F-22 tradeoff can be seen in a YouTube video, where the F-22 went almost straight up after takeoff. You can obtain an incredible climb rate out of the F-22 engines, but fuel efficiency was probably a secondary concern in the design. Performance and efficiency are tradeoffs. That's the way engineering works.

In conclusion, there should be no argument over the short F-22 combat radius of 470 miles versus the Chengdu J-20's much longer combat radius of 1,200 miles. The reasons (as stated above) are well known. The two aircraft were designed for different intended roles.

 

[Martian2]

Lockheed Martin F-22 site states combat radius of 410 nautical miles

(Note: 410 nautical miles = 472 miles)
With a short combat radius of 472 miles, the only viable airbase is Kadena on Okinawa after you add external fuel tanks to the F-22. However, the short distance means China can easily wipe out Kadena with ballistic and cruise missiles. The F-22's short combat radius renders it almost useless in the Pacific.

Source (Lockheed Martin): F-22 Raptor Team Web Site: Technology - Flight Test Data

 

[gambit]

Gambit used Wikipedia (which anyone can edit) to support his claim regarding the combat radius. It's worthless.

Bullshit.

If I ever presented wiki, it was only to show people that what I said exists. I have also used other much more credible sources such as IEEE but I always made sure the abstract contains keywords relevant to the subject so that people would know that I do not make things up. So far, no one, not even you Chinese, have ever returned to this forum and proved I lied.

Not only that, based on my 10yrs in the USAF and on two fighters, F-111 and F-16, I happen to understand more about the combat radius calculus than you do. Every aircraft have its own unique combat radius and often it contains items specific to the aircraft that other do not have. For the F-22, since it can supercruise, it would be absurd for the USAF and LM to exclude that factor. While supercruise is not afterburner, it still uses more fuel than in non-afterburner flight. The USAF calculus for the F-22's combat radius have the jet uses supercruise, at the pilot's discretion, to get to the combat area.

If you want to read Gambit's garbage, go right ahead. I'll stay with GlobalSecurity, Jane's, FlightGlobal, AviationWeek, and other reputable sources of information for my citations.

Fine...Then you should have no problems showing us a few, not just one, credible sources for the assertion that the F-22 require 600 lbs of 'stealth paint', whatever that is, before each sortie.

While you may have learned how to debate from me, as in showing sources, you still cannot escape what you are: an intellectually dishonest person.

As if that is not bad enough, you lack critical thinking skils.

- How long does it take this 'stealth paint' to dry ? I know for a fact, based on my friends at Nellis who are assigned to the F-22 squadron there, that a single F-22 can fly day after day. Assume the average peace time training sortie is 2 hrs. How soon after landing does the crew chief take the jet into the paint barn to begin the application of that 'stealth paint' ? Did you know of the slang 'paint barn' ? I doubt it. You never been in the military.

- Does the process require striping off the old 'stealth paint' ? It must because you cannot simply overpaint the previous coat.

- What happens if an F-22 is a guest somewhere ? Does your credible source explain how is that 'stealth paint' reapply ? Since its formula unique and top secret, does the host have some of that on hand ? Or does the USAF overnight Fedex 600 lbs of 'stealth paint' to that host base ?

- Why is it that not a single photograph of the F-22 have evidences of that 'stealth paint' during and after flight ? Further, the F-22 have been at plenty of airshows and that mean human eyewitnesses with plenty of cameras, still and video, humming away. And yet not a single photo and human eyewitness of this 'stealth paint' peeling.

We want to see credible technical sources in English, not Chinese.