The last aircraft parity was Vietnam, and it certainly was not 10/1, more like 2/1 to 4/1.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter II
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
- Status
The last aircraft parity was Vietnam, and it certainly was not 10/1, more like 2/1 to 4/1.
BAJRANGBAL
New Member
I dont want to close this thread early. What is going to be next for J20?..
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Me bad , a more authoritative sight was more in line with your figs.The other site was including NK loses.
I was under the impression that the PLAAF circa 1963 onwards was made up mainly of mig 15/17/ 19's
Martian
Senior Member
If J-20 requires as much maintenance as F-22, China is in for a lot of pain.
"In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.[174] The Office of the Secretary of Defense puts that figure at 34 hours of maintenance per single hour of flight at a cost of $49,808 per hour of flight.[174] However, a Lockheed spokesman says that the variable cost per flight hour is only $19,000,[173] with a direct maintenance man hours per flight hour of 18.10 in 2008 and 20.48 in 2009.[173] The Pentagon requirement is for 12 hours of maintenance per flight hour.[173] The F-22 also reportedly encountered a critical failure every 1.7 hours.[N 2] The F-22 had required maintenance every 0.97 flight hours in 2004. This improved to 3.22 flight hours per maintenance event in production Lot 6 aircraft.[173]
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with skin repairs accounting for more than half of the maintenance.[174] Another source of maintenance problems is that many components require custom hand-fitting and are not interchangeable.[174] The canopy visibility has degraded more rapidly than expected, with refurbishments at 331 flight hours, on average, instead of the required 800 hours.[174] Pentagon officials respond that measuring flying costs for aircraft fleets that have not reached 100,000 flying hours is premature. They say improvements have been made since 2008, and the F-22s are on track to meet key performance parameters by 2010.[174]
During at least one exercise the F-22 maintained a high state of mission readiness. In January 2007, it was reported that the F-22 maintained a 97% sortie rate (flying 102 out of 105 tasked sorties) while amassing a 144-to-zero kill ratio during "Northern Edge" air-to-air exercises held in Alaska, the first large-scale exercise in which the Raptor participated. Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, the squadron commander of the 27th FS from Langley AFB commented on the upkeep and reliability of the Raptor's RAM during simulated combat conditions, stating "the stealth coatings are not as fragile as they were in earlier stealth aircraft. It isn't damaged by a rain storm and it can stand the wear and tear of combat without degradation."[148]
However, rain has caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when the Raptors were briefly posted to Guam.[180]
Each Raptor requires a month-long packaged maintenance plan (PMP) after every 300 flight hours.[181]"
"In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.[174] The Office of the Secretary of Defense puts that figure at 34 hours of maintenance per single hour of flight at a cost of $49,808 per hour of flight.[174] However, a Lockheed spokesman says that the variable cost per flight hour is only $19,000,[173] with a direct maintenance man hours per flight hour of 18.10 in 2008 and 20.48 in 2009.[173] The Pentagon requirement is for 12 hours of maintenance per flight hour.[173] The F-22 also reportedly encountered a critical failure every 1.7 hours.[N 2] The F-22 had required maintenance every 0.97 flight hours in 2004. This improved to 3.22 flight hours per maintenance event in production Lot 6 aircraft.[173]
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with skin repairs accounting for more than half of the maintenance.[174] Another source of maintenance problems is that many components require custom hand-fitting and are not interchangeable.[174] The canopy visibility has degraded more rapidly than expected, with refurbishments at 331 flight hours, on average, instead of the required 800 hours.[174] Pentagon officials respond that measuring flying costs for aircraft fleets that have not reached 100,000 flying hours is premature. They say improvements have been made since 2008, and the F-22s are on track to meet key performance parameters by 2010.[174]
During at least one exercise the F-22 maintained a high state of mission readiness. In January 2007, it was reported that the F-22 maintained a 97% sortie rate (flying 102 out of 105 tasked sorties) while amassing a 144-to-zero kill ratio during "Northern Edge" air-to-air exercises held in Alaska, the first large-scale exercise in which the Raptor participated. Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, the squadron commander of the 27th FS from Langley AFB commented on the upkeep and reliability of the Raptor's RAM during simulated combat conditions, stating "the stealth coatings are not as fragile as they were in earlier stealth aircraft. It isn't damaged by a rain storm and it can stand the wear and tear of combat without degradation."[148]
However, rain has caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when the Raptors were briefly posted to Guam.[180]
Each Raptor requires a month-long packaged maintenance plan (PMP) after every 300 flight hours.[181]"
Last edited:
Martian
Senior Member
You're thinking of the Korean War and not the Vietnam War
Operation Bolo achieved its results without a single American aircraft downed, but that was an exceptional outcome during the Vietnam war. In Korea the kill ratio of F-86 Sabres against MiG-15s like the one at the 2005 Edwards AFB airshow ran something like 10 to 1 in favor of the Americans, but in Vietnam the ratio became as low as 1 to 1, and this eventually forced the American military to respond. As well as introducing new tactics, new equipment in the form of a cannon was added, first in an underbelly pod and then in a fuselage mounting with a large muzzle fairing under the nose. The Phantom had been conceived as an all-missile interceptor, but it was finally realized that combat almost never occurred at supersonic speeds, and to succeed in a close-in dogfight a gun was necessary. The poor kill ratio also led the navy to establish its Fighter Weapons School, afterward to become famous as Top Gun, which improved the ratio to 13 to 1 and later to 22 to 1.
Operation Bolo achieved its results without a single American aircraft downed, but that was an exceptional outcome during the Vietnam war. In Korea the kill ratio of F-86 Sabres against MiG-15s like the one at the 2005 Edwards AFB airshow ran something like 10 to 1 in favor of the Americans, but in Vietnam the ratio became as low as 1 to 1, and this eventually forced the American military to respond. As well as introducing new tactics, new equipment in the form of a cannon was added, first in an underbelly pod and then in a fuselage mounting with a large muzzle fairing under the nose. The Phantom had been conceived as an all-missile interceptor, but it was finally realized that combat almost never occurred at supersonic speeds, and to succeed in a close-in dogfight a gun was necessary. The poor kill ratio also led the navy to establish its Fighter Weapons School, afterward to become famous as Top Gun, which improved the ratio to 13 to 1 and later to 22 to 1.
Last edited:
Correct. However the PLAAF almost always had the upper hand during the U.S. border incursions. The legacy fighters like the MIG-17 and MIG-19 out performed American fighters such as the F-104 and F-4, which emphasised speed and high altitude ceiling over agility. I recall one instance where a missile launched by an American F-104 missed the Chinese Mig-17 and struck another F-104 by accident.
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
If I am not wrong with the figure, I think PL-12 has the maximum range of 70 km, while the AIM-120D has the maximum range of 180 km. That's more than 2.5 times the range of PL-12. Couple with a superior AESA radar, I think Chinese are at a huge disadvantage. Even if in the future somehow the gap becomes closer let's say PL-12 with twice the range (140 km) it is still 40 km short of the AIM-120D.
It is hard to say what the future holds, but all we can say is currently, the missile and radar range are shorter on the chinese side, so, the evolving tactic could only mean the chinese would be on the defensive, drawing in the enemy attacker, while the American can play both the defensive AND offensive.
The PL-12 you make reference first came out around 2005. Variants since then have improved on range; I know at least one variant has 100 km, and I first heard of that a year or two ago.
Now don't ask me for sources -- PLAAF air to air missile development is one of the least chronicled areas -- but I'm certain at present the max range of PL-12 is far beyond 70 km. (I remember an article from Richard Fisher, and another on aviation week which quoted the PL-12s range as beyond 100 km actually. Can't remember if it was two articles or Fisher's article on aviation week though...)
With ramjets the range of any long range missile will be increased dramatically and for the PL-12 at least, should easily match the AIM-120D's current 180 km. (And that's assuming the radars on the PLAAF side have shorter range. With the Flanker and J-20's large radome they should be able to fit radars larger than the F-15 and F-22, respectively. Putting in the fact that the Chinese have experience with AESAs, any dispecrancy between USAF and PLAAF radars shouldn't be that great)
Anyhow, by the time PLAAF fighters start fielding PL-12D and PL-21 along with AESA in substantial numbers (~2015-2020?) I imagine the MRAAM and radars on either side should achieve relative parity and that's clearly the timeline which the supposed USAF tactic has in mind.
------
Also, I wouldn't quote sinodefence, or actually anyone on the real numbers of PLA weaponary or how many units they're fielding of anything. Sinodefence still quotes ~200 Type 99 tanks in service and don't have any developments within the last two years logged in.
------
Also, here's a good post from Crobato, made on CDF when PL-12 first came out, regarding missile range:
"Quoting missile range are useless because manufacturers can 'cheat' by boosting the missle.
For example, if you can launch the missile on a much faster aircraft and at a much higher altitude, the missile will surely travel much farther than it would be at a lower altitude and lower speed aircraft.
So quoting 50, 60, 70, or 100km ranges is useless without the context of the launching platform. What speed is the missile launched? How high?
According to the designer of the SD-10, the Russians got their figures for the R-77 by firing it from a launching aircraft traveling at Mach 1.5 at an altitude of 10,000 meters. For the SD-10 it's 70km launched from an aircraft at Mach 1.1 at 5,000 meters.
Another factor to remember when you have propellant is trading off range for speed. By having propellant that burn faster, the missile travels faster, which increases kill probability but decreases range. And vice versa, you can increase range by trading off speed.
For example the Python 3 is a much shorter range missile than the R-73, 15km vs. up to 30km. But the Python 3 travels at Mach 3, while the R-73 does Mach 2.2. Improved propellant pushes the Chinese version of the Python 3, the PL-8, to 22km however.
So again, what speeds do the missiles travel? I like to compare that in their context of range.
The third factor is how big is the warhead. The bigger the warhead the bigger the explosion radius and the likelihood of a killQuoting missile range are useless because manufacturers can 'cheat' by boosting the missle.
For example, if you can launch the missile on a much faster aircraft and at a much higher altitude, the missile will surely travel much farther than it would be at a lower altitude and lower speed aircraft.
So quoting 50, 60, 70, or 100km ranges is useless without the context of the launching platform. What speed is the missile launched? How high?
According to the designer of the SD-10, the Russians got their figures for the R-77 by firing it from a launching aircraft traveling at Mach 1.5 at an altitude of 10,000 meters. For the SD-10 it's 70km launched from an aircraft at Mach 1.1 at 5,000 meters.
Another factor to remember when you have propellant is trading off range for speed. By having propellant that burn faster, the missile travels faster, which increases kill probability but decreases range. And vice versa, you can increase range by trading off speed.
For example the Python 3 is a much shorter range missile than the R-73, 15km vs. up to 30km. But the Python 3 travels at Mach 3, while the R-73 does Mach 2.2. Improved propellant pushes the Chinese version of the Python 3, the PL-8, to 22km however.
So again, what speeds do the missiles travel? I like to compare that in their context of range.
The third factor is how big is the warhead. The bigger the warhead the bigger the explosion radius and the likelihood of a kill"
I do miss his input, he was always so technical and convincing.
Last edited:
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
There was a "spiritual sequel" to Top Gun called "Stealth".
While the storyline was garbage, but the effects were pretty good, and I really dig that "F/A-37 Talon" design.
The concept of F/A-37 was originally derived from Northrop Grumman's SwitchBlade concept; except they changed the jet engine noozle to that of F-117 style design.
The Northrop Grumman's SwitchBlade concept is interesting because not only they foresee a possibility of a forward swept wing design, they also incorporated canard design while maintaining the stealth. So J-20's canard design might not yield any stealth performance penalties if the Northrop Grumman engineers had considered it as well.
Martian
Senior Member
PL-12 is widely known to have a range in excess of 100km
I remember reading Wikipedia's article on the PL-12 and it clearly stated that the range is in excess of 100km. Read the four footnotes for citation.
"Operational range 100+ km[1] [2][3][4]"
I remember reading Wikipedia's article on the PL-12 and it clearly stated that the range is in excess of 100km. Read the four footnotes for citation.
"Operational range 100+ km[1] [2][3][4]"
- Status