J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
The treatment of this new hatch is a significant difference from before. The treatment means that it is meant to be opened in the air just like the weapon's bay doors. A regular maintenance panel or just a piece of skin does not need such treatment.
The thing you're ignoring is a G-limit on maneuverability; i.e, a faster aircraft with 9G maneuverability isn't going to be more maneuverable in angular terms than an aircraft in slower speed and with the same or higher G maneuverability. If the aircraft has a 9G STR at 400 knots and a 4G ITR at 800 knots, starting the maneuver at the same relative time to impact will be more advantageous at 400 knots.
The claim is fundamentally as nonsensical as if I were to be dodging a bus coming straight at me. On a motorcycle, I'd have reduced maneuverability since I'm already at speed, and be challenged by both the cornering ability of the motorcycle and my own cornering skills. On foot, on the other hand, I could simply side step to get out of the way of the bus.
====
In reality, when you're dodging a missile, it's going to be a BVR attempt to dodge the missile because missiles at high energy states, potential or kinetic, are going to be unevadeable. The only times you can evade the missile is when the missile is at a depleted energy state, i.e, it's been chasing you for some time. In that sense, high supersonic maneuverability is useful because you'll be in a supersonic state in an attempt to evade the missile to begin with, and you'll decelerate by using ITR to bleed energy until you're in a low-speed high-agility state.
However, the other aspect of this is the turn; i.e, when you're being homed on by a BVR missile from long-range, you need to do a 180 degree turn so you can begin evading the missile instead. A high-speed platform is going to spend considerable amounts of time bleeding energy and altering course so that it can reverse direction, i.e, at Mach 1.2, you could be spending 18 seconds at 10 degrees (9G) turn rate just to go to zero degrees, whereas a Mach 0.4 platform could do the same turn in 6 seconds.
In such a case, your best option (since you'll lose all speed as part of your original velocity) would be to decelerate to increase the angular maneuverability, then attempt to regain speed.
If a bus is coming at you from the Y direction you will move far more in the X direction on a motorcycle going at full speed with a 5 degree turn than you will cover by foot with a 50 degree turn. The rest depends on how far away the bus is. If you’re moving faster in the bus’s direction that will certainly be worse for the amount of time you have to avoid the bus than moving slower in the bus’s direction, but there isn’t a single plane that will be moving in the direction of a missile that’s fired at it.
====
Huh? We’re talking about WVR combat. SRAAMS aren’t unevadable. A lot depends on the position of the fighter when it takes its shot.
The missile is going to close on you a whole lot faster when you’re executing your turn at Mach 0.4. You may be able to rotate faster but it’s not going to help you much if the missile ends up a lot closer to you. You keep overlooking that what matters when trying to avoid missile intercept is total distance covered in X, Y, and Z directions over a time, not your turn rate.
Actually in a head on scenario your best option is probably to climb, roll, drop, then accelerate.
Last edited:
@Inst and @latenlazy, could you two take your arguments about maneuverability, missile avoidance, etc. to a more appropriate thread? You guys had been going off-topic for at least 2 pages now. I'm tired of having large parts of the pages taken over by your off-topic back and forth.
A gun with about 500 bullets would be very heavy and take a lot of space. Effective range of gun damage from 500-> 200 m. The problem is that the enemy is constantly moving at supersonic speeds and the direction of flight is not fixed, making the effectiveness of the gun almost zero.
And short distances will have no stealth effect. It turned into a dogfight, dominated by fourth generation jets: fast, maneuverable, cheap. To be effective against enemy aircraft in dog fighting, the J-20 needed a redesign to be more maneuverable, but it reduced stealth effectiveness. This is a bad compromise.
I don't like the idea of adding guns to the J-20
And short distances will have no stealth effect. It turned into a dogfight, dominated by fourth generation jets: fast, maneuverable, cheap. To be effective against enemy aircraft in dog fighting, the J-20 needed a redesign to be more maneuverable, but it reduced stealth effectiveness. This is a bad compromise.
I don't like the idea of adding guns to the J-20
Last edited:
It's not really heavy it depend of what you put in. It gave another firing option and can be use for warning shots.
A GSh-30-1 in the j-11, j15- j16, su-27, su57.. weight 46kg and carry 150 round at 0,4 kgper round= 60kg . With mounting and bullet box it probably go to150 kg.
A short range missile weight arround 90 -115 kg and you need to add the rack, bomb bay place for it.
Don't get your question. Neither do I see the relevance of bring in F-35 into comparison.
Different manufacturers do things in different approaches. J-20 treat all its open-in-air doors with black edge treatment, and nothing else. That is only CAC. What LM does to F-35's large fixed panel is irrelevant to J-20.
Last edited:
- Status