J-20... The New Generation Fighter

Re: New Generation Fighter

FriedRiceNSpice said:

That is unproven, I doubt the F-16 would be significantly more maneuverable than the F-35. Key figures such as rate of climb and turn radius remain classified. Maneuverability aside, he Pentagon has stated that in its analysis, the F-35 is shown to be at least 4 times more capable in air-to-air combat than any 4th generation aircraft currently in the US arsenal.

Click to expand...

'significantly' is your word not mine.

Btw, it has been stated in various circles and expert views that maneuverability isn't what the F-35 is centered upon.
Of course the F-35 is a 5th gen plane much better than any 4 gen aircraft. It uses the most advanced technologies available and combines that with stealth.

Re: New Generation Fighter

'significantly' is your word not mine.

Click to expand...

'Significantly' and 'much more' do not differ much. Both are modifiers of the same magnitude.

Re: New Generation Fighter

In science and engineering, significantly is usually taken to mean a difference that cannot be attributed to chance or noise. To be more precise, use a word like substantially...

Re: New Generation Fighter

challenge said:

what will be the final cost? F-22 cost more than $300 million plus per plane,assume the PLAAF Gen-5 fighter cost 1/3 price of F-22,it will be still far more expensive than said, SU-30mkk.

Click to expand...

China's next generation fighter will NOT cost 100 million. My guess is more like 40-50 million at the HIGH end. American 5th generation aircraft and European 4+gen fighters are absurdly expensive because of bureaucracy, politics, and high cost of labor (not because of their advanced technology). Chinese contractors work in a very different environment.

Pointblank said:

The costs for the F-22 includes development costs. The actual fly away cost is much lower.

Click to expand...

Yeah flyaway cost is 178 million a piece, which is still preposterous.

HKSDU said:

In which area?

Click to expand...

Sensors (radar) but Stealth mainly.

HKSDU said:

If its about maneuverability, then J-10 and J-11 are just as good as the F-22 and F-35, if not better.

Click to expand...

I hope you mean J-11 and J-10 are better in some aspects compared to F-16 and F-15. Because F-35 and F-22 are better than J-10 and J-11 (respectively) in every single way... except price... and maybe F-35 is easier to detect with eyeball than J-10.

SampanViking said:

Because many of these Airframes are themselves reaching the end of their normal life expectancy

Click to expand...

Old aircraft have already started the process of being slowly replaced with J-10s, J-11's, JH-7's and advanced J-8s. They will not be replaced on a one-to-one bases since the newer aircraft are bigger, more multi-role, and PLAAF is reducing size of its total inventory. And financially China is in a much better financial position than it was 20 years ago.

Re: New Generation Fighter

HKSDU said:

In which area? If its about maneuverability, then J-10 and J-11 are just as good as the F-22 and F-35, if not better.

Click to expand...

according to air international,during the mock dog fight between F-15C and F-22,F-15C pilot in nevada proving ground,F-15C simple unable to get clear lock on F-22,according to F-15 pilot F-22 thrust vector control system, and super cruise capability gave the raptor the edge in close in dog fight.

Re: New Generation Fighter

challenge said:

according to air international,during the mock dog fight between F-15C and F-22,F-15C pilot in nevada proving ground,F-15C simple unable to get clear lock on F-22,according to F-15 pilot F-22 thrust vector control system, and super cruise capability gave the raptor the edge in close in dog fight.

Click to expand...

FriedRiceNSpice said:

*cough* *cough*
Maybe slightly better than the F-35, but the F-22 is one of the most maneuverable birds around. No one knows how maneuverable the J-10 is, and no one really knows how maneuverable the F-35 or F-22 is either. We only have an idea of the upper limits of the Flanker series because the Russians have been pushing those planes to the limits at every air show they hold in their bid to win more export orders.

Click to expand...

That's from one perspective, the Americans. But I don't like it however when people think that when an aircraft with TVC and supercruise capability is more maneuverable then an aircraft without it. The F-22 wasn't built with dog fighter in mind, it was built for long range engagements. If you put say TVC onto an F-4 does that make it more superior and maneuverable then an F-16! Heck you can put TVC on boeing 747 and say its more maneuverable then another aircraft just cause its TVC. Its basically sterotyping that when ever an aircraft has TVC installed on it, it'll be more maneuverable then an aircraft without it. I find is sometimes false and in this case I do. TVC vs Canards, TVC requires to get the aircraft nose for climb by first lifting the rear end of the aircraft before its lift is transferred to the nose. While canards firstly lifts the nose before transferring the lift to the end of the aircraft. I find its more efficient in thrust with canards then an aircraft without canards but with TVC. Having both at sometime is kind of pointless since they cancel each other advantages in a way, offering little or sometimes so significant advantages if you have one or the other. In the end, the J-10 is more smaller and lighter then the F-22, so its easier to maneuver the aircraft in my opinion. And F-15 is known to be outmaneuvered by Flankers, and claimed J-10 is more maneuverable then the Chinese flankers in service. Just some of my thoughts.

Re: New Generation Fighter

And F-15 is known to be outmaneuvered by Flankers, and claimed J-10 is more maneuverable then the Chinese flankers in service. Just some of my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Well, manevuability is one of the J-10s supposed strong points, so it would not be surprising for it to be more manuevable than a 20 and 30yr old design. Also the J-10, being a smaller aircraft as you mentioned, is perhaps one of the most maneuvable 4.5th gen aircraft in existence. I wouldn't be surprised if it proved to be just as manevable as the similiar shaped and size Eurofighter. Then again, the F-16 can outmanever F-15s as well, yet it is not considered the better dogfighter, for smaller aircraft also have their disadvantages, otherwise the PLAAF would only build J-10s (and not J-11s).

As for Flanker vs F-15, they have differing advantages. F-15 can outclimb Flankers and have higher top speed, while Flankers can outmanever the F-15. However, the general consensus seems to still favor the Flanker as a more versatile, overall more capable platform (avionics and sensors aside).

Re: New Generation Fighter

HKSDU said:

That's from one perspective, the Americans. But I don't like it however when people think that when an aircraft with TVC and supercruise capability is more maneuverable then an aircraft without it. The F-22 wasn't built with dog fighter in mind, it was built for long range engagements. If you put say TVC onto an F-4 does that make it more superior and maneuverable then an F-16!

Click to expand...

Lets say the F-22 has a sustained turn rates of 28°.... that speaks for its maneuverability. F-22 also have powerful engines, a very good TWR, and a nice aerodynamic design. All these things add up to give F-22 the maneuverability it has and maneuverability was one of the things taken into consideration in the design.

Regarding J-10, well I haven't seen much videos of it performing baring one that shows some tight turns and near vertical take-off. What is its sustained turn rates?

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Then again, the F-16 can outmanever F-15s as well, yet it is not considered the better dogfighter, for smaller aircraft also have their disadvantages, otherwise the PLAAF would only build J-10s (and not J-11s).

Click to expand...

Smaller aircrafts have their disadvantages of carrying less load, less roam of more powerful radars, less fuel carrying capabilites, etc but being an inferior dog-fighter is not one of them.
And who told you the F-16 are not considered a good (or better) dog-fighter?

PLAAF having J-10s and J-11 have to do with different missions and a combination of hi-lo and not because of their dog-fighting capabilities.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Regarding J-10, well I haven't seen much videos of it performing baring one that shows some tight turns and near vertical take-off. What is its sustained turn rates?

Click to expand...

Sustained turn rate doesn't matter as much in dog fights nowadays, with the rise of helmet mounted sight and 3rd and 4th generation short range AAM, you will no longer be chasing your opponent's tail, instead, you just have to bring him into the 60° cone in front of you and a kill is pretty much guaranteed, so, snap turn rate is much more important than sustained turn rate.

Re: New Generation Fighter

If there is a single philosophy or adage which colours my view on weapon procurement, it has to be "don't build/buy something that you are not prepared/can't afford to lose" This is a rather stark acknowledgement that weapons are ultimately consumable tools and that a nations ability to win modern major wars is about its abilities; both industrial and financial, to build new weapons faster than they are destroyed and to destroy the enemies weapons faster than they can be replaced.

With this in mind, when I look at the figures being quoted for the costs Super Planes as compared to China's modern production planes, (and I can only take these figures on trust) it seems fair to assume that China can build a squadron of very capable, modern state of the art Aircraft for the cost of a US Superplane. Now I am sure that F22's and F35's are good, but not that good and the balance of morale would have to sit with the PLAAF in any potential conflict.

This leads on to the phenomena, of weapons which are too expensive to lose not actually getting to be used in the wars in which they were intended or indeed would really be needed. The best example of which would be the Royal Navy's and Germanys High Seas Feet Superdreadnaughts which spent most of wartime holed up in base for their protection. If you spend $150 - $300 million on a plane and then only use it to attack tribesman in failed states, you might just as well stick a laser target designator on a Sopwith Pup!!

Of course China should continue with the development of its next generation of aircraft, but a low unit cost must be a primary development objective, sufficient to produce something that significantly blunts the advantage of a Superplane, but still able to be built at a 5:1 cost advantage. In the meantime, I still say that the priority must be to replace the old 50' and 60's Airframes with modern designs, specifically designed to fight under China's definition of "localised wars under conditions of Informationalization and Technology"