J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Blitzo]

Making no comment about specific ranges on my part, but there’s I’d argue some good reason to believe the claims on relative performance gains. Ultimately the physics and engineering questions will speak for themselves.

Relative performance gains regarding the technicalities.

I am explicitly more saying that it's useful for the discourse if people overall (not you or your prior posts) exercise more caution in how posts about technicalities could lead to confusion about specific ranges or "real world performance".



Like, the science and technicalities are interesting, but people do be impressionable.

 

[latenlazy]

Relative performance gains regarding the technicalities.

I am explicitly more saying that it's useful for the discourse if people overall (not you or your prior posts) exercise more caution in how posts about technicalities could lead to confusion about specific ranges or "real world performance".



Like, the science and technicalities are interesting, but people do be impressionable.

I guess if your point is a claim of 3x range even if true does not mean you can confidently say a J-20 can see F-35s from 150 km out because actual detection capability in the field is directly constrained by a whole host of factors then yeah sure, worthwhile point of precaution to make.

 

[Blitzo]

I guess if your point is a claim of 3x range even if true does not mean you can confidently say a J-20 can see F-35s from 150 km out because actual detection capability in the field is directly constrained by a whole host of factors then yeah sure, worthwhile point of precaution to make.

Yes.

If I had to write anything about the new material being used on a hypothetical new radar than J-20, the most I would say is "a new radar using the new material is likely to be significantly more capable than its existing radars". I would even just straight up omit the "3 times longer detection distance" thing due to unknowns like target characteristics, comparison to what existing radar it is, etc.

 

[latenlazy]

Yes.

If I had to write anything about the new material being used on a hypothetical new radar than J-20, the most I would say is "a new radar using the new material is likely to be significantly more capable than its existing radars". I would even just straight up omit the "3 times longer detection distance" thing due to unknowns like target characteristics, comparison to what existing radar it is, etc.

The 3x distance claim is already out in the media and it can also be extrapolated from observable experimental data so I don’t think there’s much point in cautioning against citing it at this point. We can discuss the nature of what a 3x distance claim might entail but insofar as inhibiting the specific claim itself that’s out in the wild now.

 

[Blitzo]

The 3x distance claim is already out in the media and it can also be extrapolated from observable experimental data so I don’t think there’s much point in cautioning against citing it at this point. We can discuss the nature of what a 3x distance claim might entail but insofar as inhibiting the specific claim itself that’s out in the wild now.

Yeah and I'm saying for the purposes of discussion, "let's pretend we didn't see that" is probably better so people don't end up misinterpreting it and making a bunch of claims that they then try and fail to defend.

 

[ENTED64]

In this case I think 3x is reasonable just based on experimentally verifiable data. I think if people want to lay out the more cautionary case they’re first going to have to lay out why transceiver power scaling at the component level won’t translate to the system level. That would be the most effective direction to take discussion if we want to steel man the claim.

I guess if your point is a claim of 3x range even if true does not mean you can confidently say a J-20 can see F-35s from 150 km out because actual detection capability in the field is directly constrained by a whole host of factors then yeah sure, worthwhile point of precaution to make.

Yeah Blitzo basically said everything I wanted to say better than me. It's basically like you said, actual detection capability in operational use has more parameters than just power input of the radar. I was mostly saying that we should be cautious of extrapolating these things to claims of much longer actual detection range when this tech isn't in the field yet and we don't truly know.

 

[by78]

Self-explanatory.

 

[by78]

J-20 vs J-20A vs J-20S.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Great comparison series, the J-20A/S airframes have the cleaner construction seen on the J-35/A.

 

[latenlazy]

Yeah Blitzo basically said everything I wanted to say better than me. It's basically like you said, actual detection capability in operational use has more parameters than just power input of the radar. I was mostly saying that we should be cautious of extrapolating these things to claims of much longer actual detection range when this tech isn't in the field yet and we don't truly know.

I could be mistaken but it sounds like the radar is already out in the field haha.