J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bltizo

Moderator
Staff member
Developing a J-20 Combat Manual

3x Golden Helmet Champions ( JJJ ) and his other Top Notch
PLAAF + PLAN Golden Helmet Champions have been tasked
to create 2 manuals ... ...
Err who's been speculating that the golden helmet pilots has been part of developing the J-20 combat manual? Is it your own speculation?

For instance, this part:
Their basic thinking is ... ...
If the frontline J-20 PLAAF and PLAN pilots can overcome the Acrobatic
Super Extreme Maneuverable Su-35 in WVR combat, then all the LockMart 5th Gen
aircrafts will become almost walk--in--the--park for the frontline J-20 PLAAF and PLAN pilots.

In other words, they conclude if the frontline J-20 PLAAF and PLAN pilots can
overcome 360 degree 3D Thrust Vectoring from Su-35 in WVR combat, then
confronting the 2D Thrust Vectoring LockMart aircrafts will
become almost kindergarden events.
.... that part is so wrong I do not even know where to begin.
 

Brumby

Major
Err who's been speculating that the golden helmet pilots has been part of developing the J-20 combat manual? Is it your own speculation?

For instance, this part:


.... that part is so wrong I do not even know where to begin.
My understanding of the US in terms of developing and integrating tactics using their 5th gen aircraft into their force structure are (i) leveraging situational awareness and (ii) as a force multiplier. With the former as evident in their red flag exercises, the consistent message is the "first look, first shot, first kill" that it brings into the BVR engagements and WVR is basically history. With regards to the latter, the F-35's are enhancing the situational awareness of their legacy platforms when integrated into the force structure with overall enhanced effectiveness in comparative large scale engagements.

Seems to me there is a completely different outlook in terms of how 5th gen assets are meant to be used. Interesting.
 

Bltizo

Moderator
Staff member
My understanding of the US in terms of developing and integrating tactics using their 5th gen aircraft into their force structure are (i) leveraging situational awareness and (ii) as a force multiplier. With the former as evident in their red flag exercises, the consistent message is the "first look, first shot, first kill" that it brings into the BVR engagements and WVR is basically history. With regards to the latter, the F-35's are enhancing the situational awareness of their legacy platforms when integrated into the force structure with overall enhanced effectiveness in comparative large scale engagements.

Seems to me there is a completely different outlook in terms of how 5th gen assets are meant to be used. Interesting.
Hold your horses, the problem here is that you are taking GreenestGDP at his word.

Let's just say that we should know nothing about how the Chinese Air Force may intend to use its 5th generation fighters, and we should be immensely skeptical towards anyone claiming to do so in anything resembling operational detail.

In this case, it seems like GreenestGDP is stringing together a few of his own observations and assumptions about the Golden Helmet competitions, as well as an entry that he read on evading air to air missiles, and used that to do a write up of his own speculation which he seems to be portraying as "this is what is happening".
 

Ultra

Junior Member
The industrial base at the time of development of F-22 was far more capable than China's at the moment. The only comparable industrial base at the moment to China is Russia and they are having real trouble with PAK-FA.

Also, remember that it took 7 years to go from YF-22's first flight to the first flight of F-22. And 6 years from when YF-22 was picked to the first flight of F-22. Now, CAC design was picked in 2008 and they went from that point to building the demonstrators in 3 years and then to the first flight of preproduction type in 2014. Now, it's probably 3 more years from that point to IOC. So, 9 years from when CAC's design was picked to IOC. Which is more impressive when one considers that CAC did not build a demonstrator like YF-22 when the competition was held, so it had to build the demonstrator and make significant changes from 2011 to 2014 to fix the problems they found in the demonstrator. In the end, delays are common in all major military projects. It's pointless to say what F-22's original schedule was, since they didn't actually achieve that. The point is that J-20 didn't seem to have a real major slip up in schedule up to this point, which is unusual compared to other 5th gen programs. That does not mean there won't be slip ups going forward, but we will have to wait and see.


The development of J-20 reminded me of China's Project 596 nuclear weapon program. China went from no nuke to having nuke in one of the shortest time compare to any other nation, and even shorter development cycle from crude uranium-235 implosion device to 3-staged hydrogen bomb in 2 years.

This feat has never been matched by any other nation to date.
 

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
.... that part is so wrong I do not even know where to begin.
Why don't you begin with PROVING that Super Maneuverable fighter aircraft can NOT
OUT TURN the best NATO supersonic missiles ??

My guess is ... ... you can NOT. ... ... please try ... ...
Because Law of Physics says ... ...
Yes, most definitely Acrobatic Super Maneuverable fighter aircrafts from PRC and Russia
( such as JF-17xx, J-10xx, J-11xx, Su-35, T-50 ) can absolutely OUT TURN
the best NATO supersonic missiles.

At present, I am holding back the inclusion of J-20 mobility and Super Maneuverability,
until the J-20 joint the annual PLA Golden Helmet Confrontational Combat Competition.

Thus, based upon all the available physical data and facts from the PLAAF
and PLAN pilots intensive weekly ( Day and Night ) exercises, and the
5 years running of the annual PLA Golden Helmet Confrontational Combat Competitions ... ...

The combination of Super Extreme Maneuverability and Heavy Radar Jamming
and EW fighter fighter aircrafts will obliterate a ( mediocre mobility and stiff and LO )
fighter aircrafts belong to the other side of the ocean.

BVRAAM is only good to attack the opfor AWACS and TANKER and EW aircrafts.
Being able to dogfight your way out from the opfor assets in WVR combat environment
is the numero uno priority for PRC and Russian AF.

In other words, for any self respecting fighter aircraft pilot, the BVR combat is a hoax.

Please do study the scientific aspects from all those videos links,
and study Dodging and Evading missiles physics,
before you refute my posts by using Scientific Diagrams.

I am sure most posters agree with me that Wall--of--Texts are annoying.


金头盔--JJJ--2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Moderator
Staff member
Why don't you begin with PROVING that Super Maneuverable fighter aircraft can NOT
OUT TURN the best NATO supersonic missiles ??
I never said that super maneuverable fighters cannot out turn air to air missiles under certain circumstances. They may well be able to.

What I am saying is that you should not be making claims about what Chinese Air Force 5th generation tactics may be based on your own speculation -- or at the very least you should make it clear that it is your own speculation and that you have no evidence to suggest the Air Force is actually pursuing your speculated strategy.


My guess is ... ... you can NOT. ... ... please try ... ...
Because Law of Physics says ... ...
Yes, most definitely Super Maneuverable fighter aircrafts from PRC and Russia
( such as JF-17xx, J-10xx, J-11xx, Su-35, T-50 ) can absolutely OUT TURN
the best NATO supersonic missiles.

At present, I am holding back the inclusion of J-20 mobility and Super Maneuverability,
until the J-20 joint the annual PLA Golden Helmet Confrontational Combat Competition.

Thus, based upon all the available physical data and facts from the PLAAF
and PLAN pilots intensive weekly ( Day and Night ) exercises, and the
5 years running of the annual PLA Golden Helmet Confrontational Combat Competitions ... ...

The combination of Super Extreme Maneuverability and Heavy Radar Jamming
and EW fighter fighter aircraft will obliterate a ( mediocre mobility and stiff and LO ) fighter aircraft.

BVRAAM is only good to attack the opfor AWACS and TANKER and EW aircrafts.
Being able to dogfight your way out from the opfor assets in WVR combat environment
is the numero uno priority for PRC and Russian AF.

In other words, for any self respecting fighter aircraft pilot, the BVR combat is a hoax.

Please do study the scientific aspects from all those videos links,
and study Dodging and Evading missiles physics,
before you refute my posts by using Scientific Diagrams.

I am sure most posters agree with me that Wall--of--Texts are annoying.


View attachment 23117

Like I said, super maneuverable aircraft could may well be able to evade incoming air to air missiles successfully, but it is very incorrect of you to write:

Developing a J-20 Combat Manual

3x Golden Helmet Champions ( JJJ ) and his other Top Notch
PLAAF + PLAN Golden Helmet Champions have been tasked
to create 2 manuals ...
In other words, the fact that you wrote your own speculation of Golden Helmet pilots being asked to "create 2 manuals" as well as writing "methods" as if they are official Chinese Air Force tactics, without any evidence let alone rumours, and passing it off to make it look "official" is the problem I have.

My personal opinion of Chinese Air Force 5th generation tactics is irrelevant, and whether "super maneuverable" aircraft can or cannot evade incoming air to air missiles is also irrelevant.

The problem is that we should not portray our own personal speculation as "fact" of what the Chinese military may be doing, and also consider the evidence (and lack of evidence) and the logic (or lack of logic) which may support the positions we hold. It is also important to not be "too confident" in a certain position, for instance, using words like "absolutely" without sufficient available evidence is not very confidence inspiring.
 

delft

Brigadier
Adding thrust vectoring to J-20 wouldn't only add to weight but also to fuel consumption. Together it might cost 20% of range. That's why the configuration of J-20 was chosen not to need thrust vectoring. I suggest it is just as unnecessary as the swing wing.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Guys ... either You stop this "non-J-20-related" discussion based on pure assumptions and wishfull thinking or I delete these posts.

Making flight manuals based on pure assumptions is off-topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top