J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by siegecrossbow, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    3,367
    That isn’t any different from slowing down to get a tighter turn radius. Slowing down=bleeding energy. That’s what the physics of slowing down entails.

    And if your adversary has good supersonic maneuverability and supercruise while you’re trying to reinsert energy they’re already using their superior energy advantage to get a better kill position. As your plane slows down to get a better angle with a banking turn an adversary that can supercruise will probably try to both accelerate in order to out range you and also climb to get out of your line of sight. While you’re trying to terminate the bank turn to reposition and add energy they will then dive to get their kill shot from their higher position. I’m not assuming it’s difficult to reinsert energy via sacrificing altitude or adding thrust. I’m pointing out that to have to do so midcombat is costly to your position. Energy manueverability is all about relative energy states. Good subsonic turn rates are important for exploiting positioning but they are not the end all be all of dogfighting.

    That extra energy to reach the supersonic regime is reflected in fuel burn and the efficiency by which the plane adds more energy, not the energy state of the plane. The plane that is going supersonic will still have the higher total level of energy. What you’re saying is basically that the faster movng object has less energy than the slower moving object. That’s a violation of basic physics.

    Okay, so are you saying good ITR=bad subsonic manueverabilty? What do we make of the claim that the J-20 is comparable to an F-16 in the subsonic regime then, when the F-16 is commonly regarded as having the best subsonic STR of its generation (hence the best gun fighter)? Furthermore, to your point about G forces, if 9G is the limit for all fighters because of human pilot constraints then there really should be very little to no difference in STR between most fighters in the subsonic regime if they can all do 9G turns in that regime.

    Do you know what helps sustained maneuverability? The ability to attain or recover energy. Do you know what helps attain or recover energy? Being able to accelerate faster, fly higher, reach higher speeds. Do you know what helps maximize combat usability in supersonic flight? Supersonic maneuverability. This goes to the point I made about how it makes no sense to talk about different flight regimes in aerial combat as if fighters are restricted to just one regime for one type of combat condition. In reality fighters will use any kinematic advantage they can get, and being able to maneuver effectively at a higher speed is a huge advantage even in close range. Maneuverability isn’t all about turn rates. Once again you are overextrapolating from a simplified shorthand because you seem incapable of grasping the more complex fundamentals.
     
    #4541 latenlazy, Jan 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  2. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    3,367
    The J-20’s emergence really validated the type of PLA watching that was pioneered by forums like SDF. Before that most people thought the content here was fanboy wanking (though of course a lot of the poorly sourced stuff really was).
     
    N00813, ougoah and Bltizo like this.
  3. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    14,997
    I think the lead up to J-20 (what I like to call the J-XX era) really helped to develop confidence in the processes being used for PLA watching overall.
     
    N00813, ougoah and latenlazy like this.
  4. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    3,367
    Yes. It was quite the learning moment. Helped cut through a lot of the noise that I remember people like you and I were still trying to learn how to sift through. A lot of our ability to make good predictions and analysis really came out of that retrospective review of what ended up being right and wrong in the run up to the J-20’s revelation. Just speaking for myself, I was still digging through archival material leading up to that point years later just to catch anything else we might’ve missed, or any other information pattern we didn’t notice that could be useful in the future.
     
    N00813 and Bltizo like this.
  5. Dizasta1
    Offline

    Dizasta1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    HMCS & HOBS change the way dogfights are fought. Aircraft agility could be pushed to their limits, but that's as far as it would go in dodging HOBS Missiles. Suitable course of action can only be in new defensive systems integrated on the aircraft without compromising it's primary properties, functions and roles. Logically speaking, a good answer to HOBS Missiles is effective burst lasers that are strong enough to pierce through the missile, and have targeting stability and accuracy to not miss. Think of it as a cannon replacement, only more accurate, precise and deadlier at close range to oncoming missiles. Whoever masters the tech of short burst laser weapon which can be integrated on stealth fighters. Will have changed the nature of dogfights forever.
     
    t2contra likes this.
  6. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,334
    I think it is kind of premature to discard the idea of the cannon. Besides that AIM-9X failure in Syria a couple of months back it is not like there are not IRCM systems. Unlike bullets, smart missile systems can be jammed, plus they are slower so they can be countered. There have been active IRCM systems for several years already. They typically are used in slow-moving ground attack aircraft which are more vulnerable to IR guided missiles. Heck, even tanks have them, like the Shtora system on the T-90.

    But yes I agree with @Dizasta1 that HMCS & HOBS change the landscape significantly. Any aircraft without those systems fighting against an aircraft with those systems is at a serious disadvantage in close quarters combat.

    That post from East Pendulum is interesting. It basically confirms that their present 6th generation design targets are what we discussed in this thread. I would not be surprised if there are changes between now and the introduction date however. Like, if I was to design an aircraft, I would not put any internal weapons bays in it. I would make a clean design which can either have rail mounts of an optional stealth weapons bay similar to the one designed for the Super Hornet.

    I think the internal weapon bay design places limits on weapon size and shape which are cumbersome. Plus in a lot of environments, like counter insurgency, the need for stealth proper is quite limited.
     
    #4546 gelgoog, Jan 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  7. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,758
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Yeah. Historical perspective is very useful in trying to figure out what is going to happen.

    I've just realised I've been China watching for 20 years now, although most of that isn't related to the military.
     
  8. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,528
    Likes Received:
    23,908
    J-20 201x tail in XXL.jpg So far I have never noticed that the fixed front part of the J-20's vertical stabilizer is latticed or meshed! At least for the 201x prototypes.
     
  9. jobjed
    Offline

    jobjed Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,108
    Likes Received:
    5,634
    Production number looks to be 00-series, which is different to the CB01-series we saw on production airframes. This suggests the CB01-series are independent of the 201X prototypes, so the production number CB0121 that we saw strongly suggests at least 21 production airframes separate to the 201X prototypes exist.
     
  10. Klon
    Offline

    Klon Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    933
    So, a two-seater?
     
Loading...

Share This Page