J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[ougoah]

Huh? How are those copies of a Russian designs? Especially the gimbal design. Both Raven ES-05 and Captor-E have been at airshows with a swashplate design for sometime.

Captor-E -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

KLJ-7A -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Irbis-E -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The KLJ-7A does not rotate the way the Ibris-E does. (EDIT: It cannot rotate the way Irbis-E does.)

And, regarding the side arrays, well that is nothing new. F-22 still has provisions for side arrays. EDIT: If the program wasn't cancelled it probably would have got side arrays.

Piotr's primary area of focus and expertise is Russia, so naturally it would make sense for him to naturally think of systems that he is more familiar with even if they may not be the most accurate system to compare it with.

Exactly. He only knows about Russian equipment and being more interested in writing and selling articles, he naturally finds patterns. Ah Chinese AESA has side panels. Therefore it MUST be a copy. Please be reasonable. How is that NOT inaccurate and disingenuous behaviour?? Actually really pathetic if you ask me.

Where do we draw the line? Russians had fighters before China, even if China built a 7th gen after USAF gets theirs and Russia is still working on Su-57, he'll probably write the Chinese 7th gen is a copy of Su-57 super modernised version that is now 8th gen LOL

 

[ougoah]

I think the word "insider" needs to be used carefully.

I generally consider the word "insider" to mean people who have access to "inside" information by virtue of their own direct relationship to either the industry or the service, usually because of their occupation or working in a position where they can get access to certain information.

For PLA watching, I would argue there are no such thing as "western insiders" because people on this forum, including Deino (as much as I hold him in the highest esteem of course) are not the individuals who have access to the fundamental information.
Rather people on this forum have the experience to track what insiders are saying (for PLA watching, those insiders are basically all Chinese) and to make sense of their releases to come up with likely conclusions.


So when you say "western insiders" I think a more accurate term would be to say "experienced PLA watchers" if you are referring to people who are "trustworthy" and who write in the English language -- or perhaps alternatively, "Chinese insiders" if you want to talk about the source and the basis of our current knowledge.

Yes I am referring to these journalists who claim to have "insiders". Sorry should have written that instead but shorthand and fairly obvious considering the context.

We have a decade long track record of up to perhaps hundreds of western articles on all levels of journalism that have gotten China wrong. And intentionally wrong for likely political reasons. So rare are the English language productions accurate and well reasoned on Chinese stuff, I am only aware of Deino and yourself who seem to be doing a good job of giving an unbiased aspect with well reasoned and proven facts. These guys always claim to have "insiders" and so many of them claim different things? Could it be Chinese intelligence or something duping these journalists? I think not but it does appear that way since everyone is all over the place with claims.

 

[Blitzo]

Exactly. He only knows about Russian equipment and being more interested in writing and selling articles, he naturally finds patterns. Ah Chinese AESA has side panels. Therefore it MUST be a copy. Please be reasonable. How is that NOT inaccurate and disingenuous behaviour?? Actually really pathetic if you ask me.

Where do we draw the line? Russians had fighters before China, even if China built a 7th gen after USAF gets theirs and Russia is still working on Su-57, he'll probably write the Chinese 7th gen is a copy of Su-57 super modernised version that is now 8th gen LOL

I'm going to assume that his claims are not a result of deliberate malice or conscious bias but perhaps an honest result of his reliance on Russian industry sources and having a more Russian industry/Russian service-centric area of focus.

Yes I am referring to these journalists who claim to have "insiders". Sorry should have written that instead but shorthand and fairly obvious considering the context.

Yes, no problem.

I suppose what I mean is that even for the credible journalists or commentators who talk about the PLA (like Deino), they tend to rely on Chinese insiders and interpretation of what the insiders say.
However those journalists and commentators themselves do not have direct "access" to insiders in any form, but merely have the awareness to keep up to date with whatever the Chinese insiders happen to feel gracious and generous enough to bestow unto the rest of us.

We have a decade long track record of up to perhaps hundreds of western articles on all levels of journalism that have gotten China wrong. And intentionally wrong for likely political reasons. So rare are the English language productions accurate and well reasoned on Chinese stuff, I am only aware of Deino and yourself who seem to be doing a good job of giving an unbiased aspect with well reasoned and proven facts. These guys always claim to have "insiders" and so many of them claim different things? Could it be Chinese intelligence or something duping these journalists? I think not but it does appear that way since everyone is all over the place with claims.

Similar to what I wrote above, I have never claimed to have "insiders," because that would imply I have some sort of "access" to them.

What myself and what Deino do have, is the awareness that the insiders know a lot and to incorporate what they write into our pieces and our understanding. But we do not have any more privileged access to Chinese insiders than anyone else (or at least I don't!).

 

[ougoah]

I'm going to assume that his claims are not a result of deliberate malice or conscious bias but perhaps an honest result of his reliance on Russian industry sources and having a more Russian industry/Russian service-centric area of focus.





Yes, no problem.

I suppose what I mean is that even for the credible journalists or commentators who talk about the PLA (like Deino), they tend to rely on Chinese insiders and interpretation of what the insiders say.
However those journalists and commentators themselves do not have direct "access" to insiders in any form, but merely have the awareness to keep up to date with whatever the Chinese insiders happen to feel gracious and generous enough to bestow unto the rest of us.

You're absolutely right I reckon. According to Deino he's supposed to be a genuine and pretty nice guy. Maybe it isn't a sinister effort to discredit Chinese equipment but it may very well have come from Russian sources and we ALL know how bitter that crowd is these days. So essentially he's transferring those sinister efforts through another medium.

On Chinese insiders and our forum claims, speculations, and member articles like Deino's and your own, I think there's a huge difference. Chinese insiders and reputable leakers are known to be CORRECT. Proven time and time again unless you want to believe footage of J-10 and everything else are all photoshopped CGI fakes and China is still barely able to make a Mig-21. Big difference between them and the Russian/ western insiders who have in the past claimed that Liaoning is on its way to Syria to fight along with Russia against some evil Zionist conspiracy regime, to China's ASAT abilities are non-existent, and every incorrect claim in between. Therefore the information from one group ought to be taken a little more seriously while the other's are not. Simply because one has been proven over decades to be accurate and honest (even if the leaks are more often than not encouraged and engineered), while the other has been proven over decades to be full of it.

I think Chinese need to be very careful of Russia. Not a peep from China about the laughable condition of Su-57 and assorted projects while Russia spares no effort in undermining everything Chinese military related. It's clear one group has some class and the other is somewhat of a bad loser, in desperate fear of losing the last shreds of their Mig-29 and Su-27 market in future.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Unfortunately not ... but my feeling tells me these are already some years ago.

Piotr may well have been speaking strictly to a 5th Generation System, such as is on the F-35 and talking more about the "sensor fusion" aspect, than the actual AESA, I don't know??

I would point out that many Chinese weapons through the years had a genesis in Russian systems, often being directly licensed from the Russians, just for example SKS and AK-47 rifles, Mig 15 and Mig 17, Mig 21, more lately Su-27. Knowing that history reminds us that lots of military equipment has "Russian Roots"...

The J-20 on the other hand, is certainly a clean sheet design, and as such. its rather natural for our Russian sources to "downplay" its novelty, and success even ahead of the Su-57, I suspect that aspect is a little hard on the "Russian Psyche".

Also, I've pointed out to others that sometimes the Russians "just tell blatant lies", and then watch the "look on your face" for a little chuckle,,,,,

LOL, for instance, it wouldn't surprise me to hear a Russian friend say??? "well yes, as a matter of fact, of course the Russians were first on the Moon", with an entirely straight face, and then stand back and "laugh at your shock"?

so lots of serious people, don't always get the Russian sense of humor, but "getting it", I even use the same "tool" at times to find out what the other person actually knows, as opposed to what they "think they know"...

So as Deino states, Piotr is well connected to the Russians of the past, he is a nice guy and gentleman, and while he may have argued with Deino over Chinese AESA, he does indeed respect Deino's expertise. While he may be old, he's certainly not irrelevant, and his sources may indeed be "drying up",? but he retains a "body of knowledge" and a special insight into Russian thinking, and Deino is wise to "pick his brain", and filter the information through what our "Chinese Sources" may gives us some insight into...

Make no mistake, the Chinese do want you and I to recognize their progress, and showing a proper respect and honesty with that progress, may earn you more knowledge from that source... its human nature that we wish to be acknowledged.

 

[Blitzo]

You're absolutely right I reckon. According to Deino he's supposed to be a genuine and pretty nice guy. Maybe it isn't a sinister effort to discredit Chinese equipment but it may very well have come from Russian sources and we ALL know how bitter that crowd is these days. So essentially he's transferring those sinister efforts through another medium.

That is certainly possible -- or there might not be any deliberate obfuscation by anyone, and it's just an issue of different people in the information chain incorrectly interpreting certain statements down the way.

On Chinese insiders and our forum claims, speculations, and member articles like Deino's and your own, I think there's a huge difference. Chinese insiders and reputable leakers are known to be CORRECT. Proven time and time again unless you want to believe footage of J-10 and everything else are all photoshopped CGI fakes and China is still barely able to make a Mig-21. Big difference between them and the Russian/ western insiders who have in the past claimed that Liaoning is on its way to Syria to fight along with Russia against some evil Zionist conspiracy regime, to China's ASAT abilities are non-existent, and every incorrect claim in between. Therefore the information from one group ought to be taken a little more seriously while the other's are not. Simply because one has been proven over decades to be accurate and honest (even if the leaks are more often than not encouraged and engineered), while the other has been proven over decades to be full of it.

I suppose if we define "insiders" merely as people relevant in each nation's industry or service, then yes it is certainly true that "insiders" from the west or from Russia do not tend to be very useful for PLA watching purposes, and I think most PLA watchers factor that into the equation.

 

[ougoah]

Piotr may well have been speaking strictly to a 5th Generation System, such as is on the F-35 and talking more about the "sensor fusion" aspect, than the actual AESA, I don't know??

I would point out that many Chinese weapons through the years had a genesis in Russian systems, often being directly licensed from the Russians, just for example SKS and AK-47 rifles, Mig 15 and Mig 17, Mig 21, more lately Su-27. Knowing that history reminds us that lots of military equipment has "Russian Roots"...

The J-20 on the other hand, is certainly a clean sheet design, and as such. its rather natural for our Russian sources to "downplay" its novelty, and success even ahead of the Su-57, I suspect that aspect is a little hard on the "Russian Psyche".

Also, I've pointed out to others that sometimes the Russians "just tell blatant lies", and then watch the "look on your face" for a little chuckle,,,,,

LOL, for instance, it wouldn't surprise me to hear a Russian friend say??? "well yes, as a matter of fact, of course the Russians were first on the Moon", with an entirely straight face, and then stand back and "laugh at your shock"?

so lots of serious people, don't always get the Russian sense of humor, but "getting it", I even use the same "tool" at times to find out what the other person actually knows, as opposed to what they "think they know"...

So as Deino states, Piotr is well connected to the Russians of the past, he is a nice guy and gentleman, and while he may have argued with Deino over Chinese AESA, he does indeed respect Deino's expertise. While he may be old, he's certainly not irrelevant, and his sources may indeed be "drying up",? but he retains a "body of knowledge" and a special insight into Russian thinking, and Deino is wise to "pick his brain", and filter the information through what our "Chinese Sources" may gives us some insight into...

Make no mistake, the Chinese do want you and I to recognize their progress, and showing a proper respect and honesty with that progress, may earn you more knowledge from that source... its human nature that we wish to be acknowledged.

J-20 according to many Russian military observers and enthusiasts, is just a cheap copy of a Mig-1.44. Despite the glaringly obvious evidence against that claim. I don't think it's about being recognised. There's still a slight emphasis on Deng's whole bide your time, hide your strength mantra in today's Chinese leadership. However they are seemingly more open and showy these days because there's money to be made in exports for one thing and it's good to gradually improve your image from low quality equipment and copies to decent stuff. That can't happen overnight. Another important consideration for them is improving military image deters drama from occurring nearby. Strength is a good deterrent of violence. Another thing is if Chinese equipment image is gradually improved over time to reflect their actual quality these days, it helps with all Chinese exports and overall economy. That is exactly why western powers and Russia is so willing and desperate to undermine this whenever it suits them. Russia wants to preserve their market and what better way than badmouthing the competition. Only western powers ever say anything "positive" about Chinese military abilities and when they do, it's to incite fear and justify increased budgets.

 

[Deino]

J-20 according to many Russian military observers and enthusiasts, is just a cheap copy of a Mig-1.44. Despite the glaringly obvious evidence against that claim. I don't think it's about being recognised. There's still a slight emphasis on Deng's whole bide your time, hide your strength mantra in today's Chinese leadership. However they are seemingly more open and showy these days because there's money to be made in exports for one thing and it's good to gradually improve your image from low quality equipment and copies to decent stuff. That can't happen overnight. Another important consideration for them is improving military image deters drama from occurring nearby. Strength is a good deterrent of violence. Another thing is if Chinese equipment image is gradually improved over time to reflect their actual quality these days, it helps with all Chinese exports and overall economy. That is exactly why western powers and Russia is so willing and desperate to undermine this whenever it suits them. Russia wants to preserve their market and what better way than badmouthing the competition. Only western powers ever say anything "positive" about Chinese military abilities and when they do, it's to incite fear and justify increased budgets.

Again, take care: "according to many Russian military observers and enthusiasts" =/= Piotr Butowski

 

[PhilFYW]

How do you guys think of this source?

作者：邵思博
链接：

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

来源：知乎
著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权，非商业转载请注明出处。

超音速机动性能是 F-22 的设计重点之一，也是该机与第三代战斗机的“代差”标志之一。除了前述超巡、超音速加速/爬升性能外，超音速状态下的盘旋能力也有明显提高。有资料称，该机在 M1.7 时稳定盘旋过载可达 6.5G。考虑到 F-15 在同等条件下盘旋能力远逊于此，而苏-27 在 M0.9、中空才达到这个水平，不能不说这是一个相当惊人的进步。
　　能够达到如此之大的超音速盘旋过载，发动机是一个重要原因，而同样重要的还有飞机的超音速升阻比和配平能力。
　　关于升阻比，不难理解。要拉出足够的过载，机翼就必须产生相应的升力，伴随而来的就是诱导阻力的急剧增大（诱阻系数与机翼迎角平方成正比，与机翼展弦比成反比）。如果诱阻系数太大，诱阻增长极快，那么很快就会抵消发动机的剩余推力，飞机虽仍可能拉出较大过载，但发动机推力已不足以维持稳定飞行，当年的幻影 III 瞬时盘旋性能好而稳定盘旋性能差，正是为此。以现代航空技术水平而言，要设计出具有高升阻比的机翼或者具有良好超音速性能的机翼均非特别困难，但要将两者合而为一却非一日之功。这也是 F-22 足以自傲的一点。
　　而配平能力则往往容易被人忽略。机翼的高升力是拉出大过载的基础，但升力越大，产生的俯仰力矩也越大。如果飞机自身不能提供足够的俯仰配平力矩，那么要么进入上仰发散状态而失控，要么被机翼升力产生的低头力矩压回去，无法拉到需要的迎角。特别是在超音速条件下，飞机焦点大幅度后移，机翼升力产生的低头力矩相当大，进行超音速机动需要更强的配平能力。以超音速性能著称的米格-25，就是由于配平原因而无法进行较大过载的超音速机动——该机超音速平飞时，平尾偏转就已接近极限，能用于超音速机动的余量相当小，所以虽然机体可以承受更大的载荷，但 M2 时的最大盘旋过载仅有 3G。
　　要解决配平问题，一是大幅放宽静稳定度，将飞机焦点前移。这样超音速飞行时飞机焦点虽然仍会后移，但距离重心近，产生的低头力矩相对较小。不过，这样一来飞机在亚音速大迎角机动时同样会面临配平问题——这次是配平机翼产生的抬头力矩。被媒体过分渲染的近耦鸭式布局，由于鸭翼距离重心较近，配平能力不足，F-16 的总师哈瑞·希尔莱克就曾说过：“鸭翼最好的位置是在别人的飞机上。”广为人知的 LAVI 战斗机就始终未能解决大迎角配平问题。因此，在当年 ATF 方案论证时虽然出现过不少鸭式布局方案（老航迷们应该还记得 80 年代采用鸭式布局的“YF-22”的想象图），但 F-22 最终还是选择了具有较强配平能力的正常式布局，纵向静稳定度也大幅放宽。解决配平的另一个途径是采用推力矢量控制（TVC）技术。采用 TVC，其主要优点有：在气动操纵面基础上又增加了一个配平手段，配平能力自然大幅增强；高速飞行时气动操纵面偏转将产生极大阻力，而采用 TVC 可以起到同样的操纵效果却无需偏转操纵面；TVC 并不仅仅是偏转推力矢量而产生法向分力，强大的发动机喷流将在后机身形成引射作用，产生新的“升力”增量，同时参与配平。F-22 的超音速机动性大幅提高，TVC 技术功不可没。
　　就超音速盘旋本身的特点而言，其最大优势体现在日趋重要的超视距空战中。前面已经提到，在超视距空战中无论是攻击还是防御态势，超巡能力都非常有用，而超音速盘旋能力则是保证攻防转换顺利衔接的关键一环。当 AIM-120 进入自导段时，F-22 为了避免进入对方武器有效射程或者冲得太快进入风险极大的近距格斗，需要转向高速脱离。可以想象，对于 F-15 这类飞机而言，为了尽快转向，转弯前的速度需要保持在其角点速度附近，完成转向之后再加速脱离，这必然限制其发射 AIM-120 时的速度，减小了有效射程；或者为了提高有效射程增速到超音速，发射后再次减速，但牺牲了时间。对 F-22 来说，完全没有这些麻烦。良好的超音速盘旋能力使之可以在超视距作战阶段始终维持较高的能量状态，以应付各种突发事件。

Its quoted on Zhihu but the original website is unavailable.
Original website:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My Chinese is not good enough to offer a full translation. Can anyone translate this?

 

[PhilFYW]

Never mind I found another source for the same article!
Its here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!