J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[BasilicaLew]

Please try to keep this forum to a certain quality. A J-20 could be god awful at dodging missiles, and it still wouldn't matter, modern missiles are neigh impossible to dodge within their no escape zones, which is where they are designed to be fired. Conversations on if a J-20 can do a backflip or anything of the sorts doesn't contribute to its combat effectiveness.

 

[latenlazy]

Which word is a "hype word". You barge in here with one liners and personal attacks and criticize others for the level of discussion on this forum? I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere.

Going back to high alpha maneuvers and the J-20, I think siegecrossbow should now know what I mean when I say high alpha. I'm not sure if the J-20 is optimized for sustained turn rates as opposed to instantaneous, but the fact of the matter is we've never seen it do anything remotely close to the 2 example maneuvers I showed.

“High alpha maneuver” is a hype word. Articulating exactly which maneuvers in what envelopes under what situations actually have value in modern day air combat would be a more substantive contribution to discussion. You are trying to use the vibes of performative airshow displays as a substitute for informed observation. This is the sort of logic India followed when they wanted
TVCs on their MKIs, which ended up proving to be counterproductive in real life combat situations. You started this line of conversation with what was essentially a personal whine so yeah, I will criticize you for the level of discussion you are bringing.

There is an academic paper, by the J-20’s designer, that you can read on the J-20’s aerodynamic design and what it’s been optimized for. You should try to read it if you haven’t already.

 

[Mearex]

No, you are the one who is barging in here making it sound like it is reasonable to expect any of the maneuvers you described as if it is an entitlement, and using your own visual confirmation in determining what the role of this aircraft is, as if there is not a decade of prior discussion on this topic.

but I've never made any personal insults to or belittled others. If I disagree with someone, I'd simply offer my arguments as to why. I'm also not entitled because I've already accepted the fact that I will probably never see the J-20 do a high alpha maneuver. If you disagree about the role of the J-20, I'm happy to hear your reasons

 

[Mearex]

“High alpha maneuver” is a hype word. Articulating exactly which maneuvers in what envelopes under what situations actually have value in modern day air combat would be a more substantive contribution to discussion. You are trying to use the vibes of performative airshow displays as a substitute for informed observation. This is the sort of logic India followed when they wanted
TVCs on their MKIs, which ended up proving to be counterproductive in real life combat situations. You started this line of conversation with what was essentially a personal whine so yeah, I will criticize you for the level of discussion you are bringing.

There is an academic paper, by the J-20’s designer, that you can read on the J-20’s aerodynamic design and what it’s been optimized for. You should try to read it if you haven’t already.

????? Where in my description of air superiority fighter did I even mention the words "high", "alpha", and "maneuver"?

And a J-20 would do that by utilizing networked assets together like KJ-500/3000s AEWs and other assets, launching BVR missiles from miles away, because that is what modern-day air combat actually is. Not operating by itself to "find" an adversaries air superiority fighter to "dogfight". That simply does not exist anymore. I don't know about you, but did you see any "dogfighting" in Pakistan's air skirmish with India? No. They were shooting down IAF fighters even while still residing in their own country's airspace.

Maneuverability tricks at air shows to put on a spectacle for crowds is not relevant towards actual combat capabilities.

I've never said that dogfighting (or even maneuverability) was a part of an air superiority fighter's requirements. Reread what I wrote. It's all about the targets. The J-20 is designed to be stealthy enough to penetrate through enemy fighters and lob long range missiles at high value but less maneuverable assets like bombers, tankers, and AWACs with its PL-15s, instead of fighting F-22s head on. If you disagree and think it's meant to fight F-22s directly, I'm happy to hear your reasons

 

[Blitzo]

but I've never made any personal insults to or belittled others. If I disagree with someone, I'd simply offer my arguments as to why. I'm also not entitled because I've already accepted the fact that I will probably never see the J-20 do a high alpha maneuver. If you disagree about the role of the J-20, I'm happy to hear your reasons

The fact that you needed to "accept the fact" that you will never see it, is exactly an example of entitlement.
Instead, you should have not expected to see it or "want" to see it in the first place.

As for "personal insults" or "belittling others" --- that is correct, but your post in #4727 which started this discussion chain was not only juvenile but also conveyed entitlement and unreasonable expectations.
Everyone in the last page or so has been trying to explain to you the fundamentals of your incorrect view on PLA watching from first principles.


This isn't necessarily your fault, because you may be relatively new to PLA watching and all that.

Here are the relevant points that are useful for you to accept and internalize:
1) The PLA is generally conservative with what they show at flight displays/airshows -- that is not unique to J-20, but also is the case for in service J-10s, Flankers, and so on. When there are exceptional aircraft or testbeds like the J-10B TVC, maneuvers might be done in a manner which look "impressive" specifically to display subsystems that are unique and not able to be displayed in any other way (TVC being the subsystem in this case)
2) As with all PLA matters, they are generally conservative in what they show to the public overall in terms of all capabilities (not only kinematic performance, but weapons, EW, orbat etc).
3) Low speed, "high alpha" air show displays like what you described are not representative of the maneuvers that high kinematic performance, modern BFM would look like.
4) It is okay to want to see high alpha maneuvers because you think they look pretty or exciting, but you also need to accept that it has no bearing on relevant BFM or aircraft role, and it also means accepting that you are treating this as a spectator sport.

 

[Mearex]

Please try to keep this forum to a certain quality. A J-20 could be god awful at dodging missiles, and it still wouldn't matter, modern missiles are neigh impossible to dodge within their no escape zones, which is where they are designed to be fired. Conversations on if a J-20 can do a backflip or anything of the sorts doesn't contribute to its combat effectiveness.

where did I even remotely imply that doing backflips are useful in real combat? This started with siegecrossbow asking me if I was referring to cobras and falling leaves when I talked about not seeing high alpha maneuvers, and I clarified what I meant. I'd listen to your own advice if I were you.

 

[BasilicaLew]

where did I even remotely imply that doing backflips are useful in real combat? This started with siegecrossbow asking me if I was referring to cobras and falling leaves when I talked about not seeing high alpha maneuvers, and I clarified what I meant. I'd listen to your own advice if I were you.

Your dragging this.

 

[latenlazy]

????? Where in my description of air superiority fighter did I even mention the words "high", "alpha", and "maneuver"?

You’re joking right? Did you just forget your own words from like two posts back?

Which word is a "hype word". You barge in here with one liners and personal attacks and criticize others for the level of discussion on this forum? I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere.

Going back to high alpha maneuvers and the J-20, I think siegecrossbow should now know what I mean when I say high alpha. I'm not sure if the J-20 is optimized for sustained turn rates as opposed to instantaneous, but the fact of the matter is we've never seen it do anything remotely close to the 2 example maneuvers I showed.

…

I've never said that dogfighting (or even maneuverability) was a part of an air superiority fighter's requirements. Reread what I wrote. It's all about the targets. The J-20 is designed to be stealthy enough to penetrate through enemy fighters and lob long range missiles at high value but less maneuverable assets like bombers, tankers, and AWACs with its PL-15s, instead of fighting F-22s head on. If you disagree and think it's meant to fight F-22s directly, I'm happy to hear your reasons

Please illuminate for everyone here what the value of high alpha maneuvers are in aerial combat if they’re not for dogfighting. And if they are not important for aerial combat why are you raising such a loud stink about it.

 

[Blitzo]

????? Where in my description of air superiority fighter did I even mention the words "high", "alpha", and "maneuver"?

where did I even remotely imply that doing backflips are useful in real combat? This started with siegecrossbow asking me if I was referring to cobras and falling leaves when I talked about not seeing high alpha maneuvers, and I clarified what I meant. I'd listen to your own advice if I were you.

Here you first wrote you believed J-20 was not capable of high alpha maneuvers:



Following on from that, you followed up by saying you're not "delusional" to believe J-20 can carry out high alpha maneuvers, linking a video of a F-22 doing a "back flip" and then said you've "given up hope" on J-20 being a "true air superiority fighter" thus linking the idea that being an "air superiority fighter" is associated with high alpha maneuvers and things like doing a "back flip":




We are only able to go off what you write, and what you've written is that you've linked these performative "high alpha" maneuvers with the prerequisite of a "true air superiority fighter".

If you want to retract what you've written feel free to do so.

I've never said that dogfighting (or even maneuverability) was a part of an air superiority fighter's requirements. Reread what I wrote. It's all about the targets. The J-20 is designed to be stealthy enough to penetrate through enemy fighters and lob long range missiles at high value but less maneuverable assets like bombers, tankers, and AWACs with its PL-15s, instead of fighting F-22s head on. If you disagree and think it's meant to fight F-22s directly, I'm happy to hear your reasons

J-20 is an air superiority fighter and one of its primary opposing forces are 5th generation fighters including the F-22.

You are correct that at an operational level, J-20s and other PLA aircraft would seek to target US force multipliers like tankers and AEW&C etc, however to get through to them they would need to fight and defeat their substantial forward emplaced fighter escorts... made up of things like F-22s, F-35s, and other fighter CAP.
People have misunderstood J-20's role in targeting those force multipliers as "try to sneak in, lob a few missiles at those vulnerable slow moving tankers, and then run away" -- whereas it is better described as "blow large holes in the enemy's screening fighter escorts, then target the defenseless, escort-less slow moving tankers".

 

[Mearex]

The fact that you needed to "accept the fact" that you will never see it, is exactly an example of entitlement.
Instead, you should have not expected to see it or "want" to see it in the first place.

As for "personal insults" or "belittling others" --- that is correct, but your post in #4727 which started this discussion chain was not only juvenile but also conveyed entitlement and unreasonable expectations.
Everyone in the last page or so has been trying to explain to you the fundamentals of your incorrect view on PLA watching from first principles.


This isn't necessarily your fault, because you may be relatively new to PLA watching and all that.

Here are the relevant points that are useful for you to accept and internalize:
1) The PLA is generally conservative with what they show at flight displays/airshows -- that is not unique to J-20, but also is the case for in service J-10s, Flankers, and so on. When there are exceptional aircraft or testbeds like the J-10B TVC, maneuvers might be done in a manner which look "impressive" specifically to display subsystems that are unique and not able to be displayed in any other way (TVC being the subsystem in this case)
2) As with all PLA matters, they are generally conservative in what they show to the public overall in terms of all capabilities (not only kinematic performance, but weapons, EW, orbat etc).
3) Low speed, "high alpha" air show displays like what you described are not representative of the maneuvers that high kinematic performance, modern BFM would look like.
4) It is okay to want to see high alpha maneuvers because you think they look pretty or exciting, but you also need to accept that it has no bearing on relevant BFM or aircraft role, and it also means accepting that you are treating this as a spectator sport.

I mean sure, to me "accepting the fact that I may never see it" and "not expecting to see it" are the same, but if the latter is what you want then yeah, I do not expect to see anything like it now or ever. I also agree with your view on the WS-15 that until anything is actually seen, there's no point speculating or hoping, which is why I don't fully buy the "PLA is hiding the maneuverability of the J-20" or "Trust me, it may not be maneuverable in the subsonic regime, but it's ultra maneuverable when supersonic". Sure, the PLA is likely hiding performance, and canard deltas are indeed known to be supersonic performant, but until I see it with my own eyes, I won't simply assume that the J-20 is in fact hiding a major portion of its maneuverability or anything.

As for the rest of your points, I fully agree that the PLA is secretive, and that aerobatics are not relevant in modern combat. In fact I specifically said that when I say high alpha, I'm not talking about cobras and falling leaves (which I consider to be more... gaudy) and instead on something that is at least *relatively* more practical. In hindsight perhaps the F-22 backflip wasn't that good of an example. Everyone knows it's the age of BVR, but the ability to rapidly change directions will always be useful.

and just FYI I'm not new to PLA watching. Started ever since my dad took me to Beijing aerospace museum when I was young, so trust me, I support sino aviation as much as the next guy. And while I'm ecstatic at all the progress we've made, I've seen an unhealthy level of chest thumping recently, not just on this forum, but in general. I've had people look me dead in the eye and say that the J-20 is 10 years ahead of the F-22. That's why I always try to be just a tad bit more negative and cynical when talking with fellow supporters, because I know that humility is key and overconfidence kills progress. Tough love, if you will.