J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Inst]

I am not saying that the side bays are for pods only, since we've yet to see pods, but that it's a possibility. Likewise, we can't confirm that the J-20 lacks guns to date. It is possible that the Chinese decided that sacrificing a sidebay if guns are in fact necessary is better than increasing weight and decreasing fuel load for a dedicated gun compartment.

 

[Inst]

I'd also point out that max Gs on BVR missiles is higher than on WVR missiles; BVR missiles are adequate for dogfighting purposes provided they have the IR seekers to lock on stealth targets.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I'd also point out that max Gs on BVR missiles is higher than on WVR missiles; BVR missiles are adequate for dogfighting purposes provided they have the IR seekers to lock on stealth targets.

I don't think the off-bore capability of a BVR missile is as good as something like an AIM-9x though. Otherwise why dedicate so much time and effort to create a dedicated WVR missile?

 

[jobjed]

I'd also point out that max Gs on BVR missiles is higher than on WVR missiles; BVR missiles are adequate for dogfighting purposes provided they have the IR seekers to lock on stealth targets.

The g-forces sustained by BVR missiles are higher despite having a comparable if not inferior turning radius than WVR missiles because they fly faster at the point of interception. WVR missiles fly straight towards the IR source and lose tons of kinetic energy during manoeuvres; they are never able to get to up to the sort of speeds BVR missiles achieve using prolonged acceleration and kinetic to potential energy translation. Lower speed means lower g-force for the same turning radius, a = v^2/r and all that.

When BVR missiles initiate the final dive onto a target after flying for over a hundred kilometres, their airspeed is easily around Mach 4. If the enemy aircraft's RWR sounds and the pilot pulls a hard turn, the missile needs to possess sufficient structural strength to survive a swerve while flying at Mach 4 in response to the hard turn. If the missile fails to hit and overshoots the target, game over. It ran out of fuel ages ago and doesn't have the reserve energy to circle back for another attempt at the aircraft that is now on full AB hightailing it in the opposite direction.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Could this be the HMD? (compared to BAe systems -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

 

[defenceman]

Yes, but defenceman's question was asking about whether J-20 was a "shoot and scoot" aircraft. That question is directly related to, if not a merely different phrasing, of asking what J-20's role is meant to be.



@defenceman -- whether an aircraft has an HMDS is not the most important determinant for the role of an aircraft. For example, if we gave a P-3C pilot an HMDS to cue AIM-9Xs with that would not make it an air superiority fighter, yet the fact that F-22 still does not have an HMDS does not make it a "shoot and scoot" fighter either.

Hi thanks for your detailed input Bltizo

 

[defenceman]

Hi @Bltizo or @siegecrossbow if you guys can post a HMDS currently been in use by airforce or any navy will be appreciated I hope admin will not get offended with my request as I have read somewhere Chinese su27 are having some kind of russsian HMDS in use
Thank you guys for your previous inputs

 

[plawolf]

What's the reliability of this source? The best gunfighter? Assuming he means within PLAAF otherwise how on earth would he be able to confidently say that? And even if J-20 is indeed the best gunfighter, they didn't even install a gun? Seriously even the Americans relinquished and decided it's still better to be safe and sacrifice some weight and space for a gun. Obviously still a very relevant weapon for a fighter even today.

The gunport was located a long time ago. The external pannelling changed to be more seamless during developing, but the port is still there in exactly the same place it always was.

I honestly have no idea where all this no gun ‘consensus’ came from, but it seems suspiciously like an alternative line of attack by the 23m+ meter crowd trying to cast doubt on the J20’s role and performance after their initial attempts to doing so based on length got thoroughly debunked by reality.

 

[FORBIN]

When it come to a chase, that is if a J-10B/C, J-16 can get behind a J-20, even without the afterburners on, the J-20 will be very vulnerable to J-10B/C, J-16 armed with PL-10. PL-10 is a AIM-9X/Iris-T/ASRAAM class missile. Don't forget the J-10B/C, J-16 also have IRST. They may not even need the RADAR in a tail-chase. In good weather conditions those IRST will have BVR level detection ranges.

F-15, F/A-18E/F, Eurofighters, armed with AIM-9X, ASRAAM score confirmed kills againts the F-22. Even the Rafale with MICA-IR I believe scored kills. Reducing RCS is one thing but reducing IR signature is much harder especially when the afterburners are in full glory.

Exact for the last comments also dépends frontal, rear, side very difficult to know IR signature no comparison with RCS we have datas not exact but reliable.
But a two engine is better for IR signature hot air is more diluted etc.. the best the F-22 ofc with a special design.

And i add IRST don't have LR BVR tracking range for engage target important difference and IRST is interesting but on the fund don't change really A2A combat many parameters...

 

[SpicySichuan]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I know this article is biased and contains possible gross understatement of the WS-10B engine. Still, it could be interesting to add it to our discussion.