J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

Status
Not open for further replies.

shen

Senior Member
Why do they need the Su-35?

why not? first generation imported Sukois rapidly approaching the end of service life. Chinese industries busy with development and production of domestic models. If Russia has excess production capacity, China should take up the offer. All depends on how quickly and smoothly the Russians can fulfill the contract. Wasn't there a report that the Su-35 will be delivered with Russian language display instead of conversion to Chinese? Let's not have any of the delays encountered by the Indo-Russian deals please.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
the first thing people should be asking is why only 24?

It seems that those who believe the PLAAF is planning the Su-35 as a next-gen fighter assume that 24 aircraft are sufficient to usurp the sheer numbers of the J-11B/15/16 as a frontline asset. The same individuals also conveniently forget that aircraft are being retired.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I believe the National Interest overall can have occasionally feature good content from guest contributors.

However, their defence column run by Dave Majumdar is simply terrible, and even reading their articles on a case by case basis the average quality is humiliatingly low. This particular article unfortunately is even worse than their average write up.


Obviously, when I say we should assess the stupidity of articles, it is on an individual basis. And on an individual basis, this article is simply ridiculous. You've been on SDF for quite a few years with immersion of many good China defence watchers, so the fact that you are not completely laughing at the content of article is bizarre.
You're right there are some neocon articles so erroneous on facts and reason they're hard to read. An example is the enclosed I link for discussion purposes. I had a hard time getting through the article, because it's something even Gordon Chang might be embarrassed to utter. Amateur hour doesn't begin to describe it.

Nevertheless, opinion pieces like it serve as good object lessons for rational readers that neocons have run out of ideas, so they continuously rehash and trot out the old ones that poll after poll show the American people no longer accept. Which in turn feed their desperation, so they churn out even more illogical, unbalanced, and factually wrong muck. They just don't get it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Over the past decade, China has become increasingly bold, doing everything it can to act the neighborhood bully. Narcissistic, entitled and unwilling to bear any criticism, China seems to believe it can walk over almost anyone—mostly because no one has given them any reason to think otherwise. Nations have refrained from criticizing China too strongly, or taking any kind of action, because they rely on the trade that has increased so massively from a country of over one billion people. Such reliance, however, is like continually spending on a credit card, ignoring the fact that one day the bill is going to be due.

In China’s case, we can see this with their heavy extraction of concessions from anyone with whom they deal. It began with the Dalai Lama, and the fact that the Chinese strongly caution any national leader who dare meet with him or even speak to him. It was always put across as a matter of respect for China’s internal sovereignty and basically not rocking the boat. Is one man really so powerful that the CCP needs to protest people meeting with him?

This summer, when Australian swimmer Mack Horton called one of the Chinese swimmers a drug cheat, the response from the state-run Global Times was nothing short of hysterical. They demanded an apology and referred to Australia as being “at the fringes of civilization” and that “no one should be surprised at the uncivilized acts emanating from the country.” Quite a fit to throw over something an athlete said.

Allowing of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a classic case of putting short-term gains ahead of longer term prosperity. The Chinese have shown that they have next to no respect for the concept of intellectual property rights, AKA the cornerstone of modern business. Cheap knock-offs of everything from designer fashion brands to ambulance stretchers continue to flood the West, with no sign of slowing down.

Then there is the cyber army that is paid to steal from Western business, government, military contractors and anyone deemed to have even the most slightly useful information. Other bad behaviors include the fact that China continues to undervalue its currency; that it protects its own companies while putting foreign firms at a competitive disadvantage, and that they are slow to implement WTO rules, while suddenly imposing unwritten laws that are unfavorable to foreigners.

And now we have China bullying anyone and everyone in the South China Sea, where they built a number of artificial islands with airstrips for military aircraft. China refutes the international regulations ruling that the islands belong to Japan, just as they refused the recent ruling of the International Court of Arbitration ruling that the “ten dash line,” whereby China claims the entirety of the South China Sea as their territory, is illegal.

Any ruling against China is seen by them as losing face, which poses the obvious problem for the West: How do you deal with a country that will disregard the international laws by which everyone else abides?

No one has yet stood up to China on this issue, because many of the disputed islands have been deemed too small and insignificant to start a major diplomatic row, or even a minor scuffle over. Yet the lack of action by both China’s neighbors and by the West has allowed China to become increasingly bold in their actions. We are now at the point where anything short of military action—and a hard line against China’s encroachment on the area—is going to continue to cost everyone dearly in the future.

There is little doubt that this has all been well-planned by the CCP. The fact that their government is stable and doesn’t have to worry about pesky things like democracy and elections means they can, and most likely do, plan 20 years into the future. Their shortest-term plan is five years, and that’s just what they broadcast to the rest of the world. In contrast, the longest plan most other countries have is an election cycle, and the plan there is to win the next election, rather than to look too deeply into the future. This lack of foresight is going to cause major problems in the next two decades as governments around the world discover too late that, while they have been caught up in the 24 hour news cycle and keeping China onside for trade, that the Chinese have been slowly and methodically working toward their plan of total domination of the region.

At such a point, there will be very little that can stop them beyond outright war. By then, however, it will again be too late, because the Chinese military will have caught up enough in a technological sense to do what it wants in the region. It’s doubtful they’ll have the capability to project power in the same manner as the United States—but they won’t need to. They will have the home court advantage, and more than enough in their arsenal to impose their will on neighboring countries, and the South China Sea. This is going to be an enormous problem when we consider that five trillion dollars worth of goods passes through this region each year.

The world has one of two choices: it can continue to appease China every time they overstep their bounds and make inconsequential diplomatic protests and complaints, or the world can show China that their actions are unacceptable and that there will be consequences. This is a choice that needs to be made sooner rather than later, because before we know it, there will only be one choice. It’s time the world opens its credit card statement and pays the bill, because if we continue to appease China for short-term gain, we’re going to open the statement one day and realize we can’t afford it.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
You're right there are some neocon articles so erroneous on facts and reason they're hard to read. An example is the enclosed I link for discussion purposes. I had a hard time getting through the article, because it's something even Gordon Chang might be embarrassed to utter. Amateur hour doesn't begin to describe it.

Nevertheless, opinion pieces like it serve as good object lessons for rational readers that neocons have run out of ideas, so they continuously rehash and trot out the old ones that poll after poll show the American people no longer accept. Which in turn feed their desperation, so they churn out even more illogical, unbalanced, and factually wrong muck. They just don't get it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Like I said, I have no problem with posting ridiculous articles, but I also feel like we need to assess them properly and if they're ridiculous then they need to be called out on it.

Articles by Gordon Chang are an example of socio-political and economic commentary that are almost roundly ridiculous and laughed out of here, and this particular example also fits that bill.

However articles by the defence section of National Interest and Dave Majumdar also often fit that bill, including the article you posted a page or so back about Su-35 and J-20.
 

b787

Captain
why not? first generation imported Sukois rapidly approaching the end of service life. Chinese industries busy with development and production of domestic models. If Russia has excess production capacity, China should take up the offer. All depends on how quickly and smoothly the Russians can fulfill the contract. Wasn't there a report that the Su-35 will be delivered with Russian language display instead of conversion to Chinese? Let's not have any of the delays encountered by the Indo-Russian deals please.
thiis is the funny aspect of this forum you get the funniest explanations in order to avoid reality.

Face it, J-20 still is in a development stage with some limitations, it has no Al-31F-2, it has limitation its engines are old Al-31s, they gave estrange solutions like ventral fins, but not here these are smart solutions.

PAKFA like J-20 are in some way alike, their designers accepted some aerodynamic concessions are worth using them if they help, on J-20 they sacrificed stealth, the F-22 with its flat nozzles and booms blends the fuselage smoothly and stealth was not sacrificed, on J-20 the ventral fins help the jet at high AoA because it does not use TVC as substitute for aerodynamic controls, the end result is a wing aft strake thinner where the ventral fins are set, a good solution for its wing design since a thin wing is better for high speed, however the fuselage transition from a flat surface cross section of the weapons bay and the rounded engine nacelles was poorly made having a zig zag shape.

The jet still will need the 117 of Su-35 if it wants to go supersonic without afterburner, without the 117, or even ws-15 J-20 is like the F-14A with TF-30 or early Su-27s with Al-21s.
But of course all is charity in the alternate reality:D
 

shen

Senior Member
thiis is the funny aspect of this forum you get the funniest explanations in order to avoid reality.

Face it, J-20 still is in a development stage with some limitations, it has no Al-31F-2, it has limitation its engines are old Al-31s, they gave estrange solutions like ventral fins, but not here these are smart solutions.

PAKFA like J-20 are in some way alike, their designers accepted some aerodynamic concessions are worth using them if they help, on J-20 they sacrificed stealth, the F-22 with its flat nozzles and booms blends the fuselage smoothly and stealth was not sacrificed, on J-20 the ventral fins help the jet at high AoA because it does not use TVC as substitute for aerodynamic controls, the end result is a wing aft strake thinner where the ventral fins are set, a good solution for its wing design since a thin wing is better for high speed, however the fuselage transition from a flat surface cross section of the weapons bay and the rounded engine nacelles was poorly made having a zig zag shape.

The jet still will need the 117 of Su-35 if it wants to go supersonic without afterburner, without the 117, or even ws-15 J-20 is like the F-14A with TF-30 or early Su-27s with Al-21s.
But of course all is charity in the alternate reality:D

uh no, ventral fins are neither strange( they are common) or a solution to weaker engines. weaker engines, at least initially, was expected from the beginning. The solution is reducing aerodynamic drag, by give it the best area-ruled airframe among fifth generation fighters, among other aerodynamic refinements. Just compare J-20 to the brute power approach of F-15.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
It's funny how the pride police gets upset when people just don't see the J-20 as a failure like they do. Why do they care when if what they think is true just makes those that don't follow lock-step with their beliefs just end up looking like fools. Even the most rabid China haters who want to treat China like the US did the Soviet Union by having China go bankrupt wasting money trying to catch-up somehow are upset that China dares to build this fighter even though they think it's inferior. Can't go bankrupt if they're not spending the money making it. Only panic makes people not think straight hence all the contradictions. Panic doesn't come from the confidence of knowing. It comes from not knowing.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
The jet still will need the 117 of Su-35 if it wants to go supersonic without afterburner, without the 117, or even ws-15 J-20 is like the F-14A with TF-30 or early Su-27s with Al-21s.
But of course all is charity in the alternate reality:D
To install the 117 into the J-20, they would need to modify the airframe and the software, and test the engine to make sure it behaved with the J-20's inlet design. That would take time. Switching engines is not a trivial matter. There's virtually no point investing time and money with a second interim solution when they're already well into development of their primary solution.
 

b787

Captain
uh no, ventral fins are neither strange( they are common) or a solution to weaker engines. weaker engines, at least initially, was expected from the beginning. The solution is reducing aerodynamic drag, by give it the best area-ruled airframe among fifth generation fighters, among other aerodynamic refinements. Just compare J-20 to the brute power approach of F-15.
The J-20 has two huge bulges on each side of the inlets, the DSI bulge, this is huge, thus forcing the intake mouth to be a wide gap too, this increases the cross section, the intake is followed by the weapons bays, this increases the area of the frontal cross section, thus the engine nacelles change abrutly from a trapezoidal to a circular shape, this increases the size of the J-20 fuselage, F-22 manages to fit the same engine weapons bay in a smaller and shorter fuselage and the booms are well blended, the J-20, could not do that, thus the transition from the trapezoidal cross section of the intakes and weapons bay to the circular cross section of the engine nacelles has not a smooth transition, J-31 in that is much better, the J-31 only is inferior to J-20 because both jets use old engines but RD-33 do not have a supercruise version neither can carry lots of fuel, thus the PLAAF will prioritize the larger aircraft because of range, in the same way Russia prioritized Su-27 over MiG-29, but the better aircraft is J-31 and F-22 is a much better approach to area ruling because flat nozzles are lower drag solution.

The J-31 if it has the right engine, will be a better fighter than J-20, J-20 is overhyped because is the larger jet and in long range missions is a better option flying over sea or land
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
And the DSI on the F-35 is stealthy ???

Come on ... were are back again right in a discussion we already had so often and since no-one really knows that stuff, these arguments are more or less baseless ..

Deino:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top