5th Generation Fighters - Discussion

[EricChase88]

This is what a aircraft engineer said about J-20. This is regarding J-20 body lift and vortex generation.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.


*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

 

[latenlazy]

This is what a aircraft engineer said about J-20. This is regarding J-20 body lift and vortex generation.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

I was the one who solicited the question from Amiga. My impression was that he left open the possibility that for whatever reason the approach works for the J-20, or that the approach simply fulfills whatever China needs from the design.

 

[Sferrin]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

 

[FighterJock]

How many active duty squadrons would the J-20 serve in PLAAF service once fully operational and what current planes would the J-20 replace. P.S this has been annoying me for some time.

 

[flanker]

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

You reckon F-22 is more advanced than T-50 in terms of aerodynamics?

 

[EricChase88]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.

Define "more advanced"

 

[EricChase88]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.

Define "more advanced"

I will quote him again.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22. Both are better than J-20.

 

[Sundog]

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

That's something of a non-sequiter, since it assumes the mission of the MiG 1.44 and the PAK-FA are the same. We can't know the reasons for the differences between the configurations without knowing;
1) The mission profiles for each aircraft.
2) MiG's submission for the PAK-FA.
It is possible for two design bureau's to have completely different design responses to the same mission profile, depending on how each team weighs the importance of different segments of the mission and due to the state of "in-house" technology they are familiar with wrt their designs.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

EricChase, Is this more Keypublishing forum conjecture parroted here with no evidence to support the hearsay? Is there any chance you can keep that garbage there, and let us be free of it here? I'm not a fan of the cross pollution. If I wanted to see keypubs conjecture and opinion, I will register on keypubs.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22.

So the T-50 is "more advanced" because it has additional moving surfaces that may or may not make it as good or better than the F-22? this is more advanced? IF the F-22 is capable of equal or better performance, doesn't that make levcons additional complexity to catch up? If we add Levcons to an F-22 does it become "more advanced"?

 

[Sferrin]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.

Define "more advanced"

I will quote him again.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22. Both are better than J-20.

Different doesn't necessarily imply more advanced. Given that the back end of the T-50 is basically a Flanker I'd question the "more advanced" notion.

 

[Sferrin]

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22.

So the T-50 is "more advanced" because it has additional moving surfaces that may or may not make it as good or better than the F-22? this is more advanced? IF the F-22 is capable of equal or better performance, doesn't that make levcons additional complexity to catch up? If we add Levcons to an F-22 does it become "more advanced"?

I imagine the LM stealth guys got a chuckle out of the levcons.

 

[EricChase88]

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

That's something of a non-sequiter, since it assumes the mission of the MiG 1.44 and the PAK-FA are the same. We can't know the reasons for the differences between the configurations without knowing;
1) The mission profiles for each aircraft.
2) MiG's submission for the PAK-FA.
It is possible for two design bureau's to have completely different design responses to the same mission profile, depending on how each team weighs the importance of different segments of the mission and due to the state of "in-house" technology they are familiar with wrt their designs.

Since MiG 1.44 didn't win, that has to say something.

 

[flateric]

didn't win what? in fact, 1.44 won MFI contest

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

MiG won the MFI competition, but the requirement was cancelled and eventually replaced with a new requirement (PAK FA) many years later.

 

[EricChase88]

Since Russian Air Force wasn't satisfied with MFI and discarded it for PAK-FA says something one way or another.

 

[latenlazy]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.

Define "more advanced"

I will quote him again.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22. Both are better than J-20.

Careful. Amiga was talking purely in terms of aerodynamic design, specifically in terms of body lift generation mechanisms and possibly in terms of vortex generation and control. He makes no claim about performance. That's why he caveated his reply with "this is purely a discussion about aerodynamics".

 

[flanker]

Given that the back end of the T-50 is basically a Flanker I'd question the "more advanced" notion.

Yes, and F-22's is basically Eagles. Great logic, will read again.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Since Russian Air Force wasn't satisfied with MFI and discarded it for PAK-FA says something one way or another.

???

 

[Radical]

According to Paralay, this is Mikoyan's submission for the PAK-FA program. Not sure if it's authentic, so maybe flateric can pitch in. In any case, it doesn't appear to share much with either the MiG 1.44 or T-50.

http://paralay.net/pakfamig.html

 

[flanker]

The top one is just some students work assignment or something similar.

 

[flateric]

No, that's not E-721

 

[Radical]

No, that's not E-721

Is that the name of the Mikoyan submission for PAK-FA?

 

[EmoBirb]

Not sure that J-20 are superior to F-35 and F-22 upgraded...

J-20A is probably the most advanced air superiority fighter flying right now. What being one and a half decades newer and produced by the world scientific and economic powerhouse does a jet [cigarette emoji]

@Sferrin CAC could probably scale J-20 production well into the 1000s of airframes, it's however not certain at all if they want to produce such numbers and if the PLAAF wants to procure so many jets either. Given the quality of J-20A and J-20S and the extensive investment and development funnelled into unmanned systems, it's more than reasonable to assume that China may favor fewer manned fighters in favor of unmanned fighters (choosing that wording consciously here). Add to that J-36 and 'J-50' entering production relatively soon and the production of J-20 doesn't seem particularly certain in the long run. Especially as J-35A is also being produced by SAC simultaneously.

While vastly more capable than 99% of all combat aircraft fielded today, it seems like the days of the J-20 in active production will be numbered in the mid 2030s.

Also I deliberately choose this thread for this. In order to not dilute the more serious and development oriented J-20 thread and certainly not the F/A-XX thread. @overscan (PaulMM) could the thread title possibly be changed to something like "5th Generation Fighters - Discussion"? I feel like this could serve as a pool for the general fifth gen production, deployment, speculation and comparison posts, which would keep dedicated system threads "cleaner" and more focused on scientific matters, hard numbers and credible information and speculation related to any given system being discussed. I hope that thought process makes sense.

 

[Antonio]

renamed

 

[Justo Miranda]

Since the moderator has decided to resurrect this debate, I think the following question is pertinent:

Who are these fifth-generation fighters going to fight?

How are the powers that build them going to prevent them from being destroyed by drones before they leave the factory, or during the move to their bases, or when they return from a mission with almost no fuel and start rolling into the protected hangars, or when they find that their base is under attack by hundreds of small, totally suicidal flying monsters?

不要用大砲來殺蚊子

 

[Ainen]

J-20A is probably the most advanced air superiority fighter flying right now.

It's the only one in production.
Though I won't pay too much into it; main practical consequence is probably specialist LwIR IRST inside.

 

[EmoBirb]

Who are these fifth-generation fighters going to fight?

They're mostly meant to counter similar aircraft fielded by opposing nations. Most importantly however they're meant to render modern IADS less effective and operate in such environments with minimal operational penalties. An F-35 can go places and conduct it's mission in a way that's prohibitive for legacy aircraft that used to serve a similar role, just to name a concrete example with plenty of real world backing.

How are the powers that build them going to prevent them from being destroyed by drones before they leave the factory, or during the move to their bases, or when they return from a mission with almost no fuel and start rolling into the protected hangars, or when they find that their base is under attack by hundreds of small, totally suicidal flying monsters?

You cannot have hundreds and small while also having the range and payload that's required to strike hardened infrastructure or large industrial complexes. Drones don't factor into that equation at all really. It's missiles that pose the biggest threat. But they have done so for decades and the preferred approach by any power is to deploy extensive air defence networks and pre-emptively degrade offensive missile capabilities of an opponent. That's why Iskander-M is utilized to wipe out MiGs and not so much Geran or Gerbera, because the odds to overwhelm countermeasures, hit time sensitive targets and inflict catastrophic damage all in one is tremendously bigger with the ballistic missile. As it combines range, speed and payload. And this capability is not going unnoticed, as now even less missile invested countries like the US or France seek to field modern and more capable theater ballistic missiles to match Russian, Chinese, Korean and Iranian designs in deployment.

A fifth generation fighter can actively participate in the hunt for such systems, especially through the usage of stand off munitions. Because they have the ability to operate under heightened SAM threat and due to significantly reduced detection time, it's more likely they'll be able to pick off TELs before they relocate, something drones struggle with due to low speed.

Time is one of the most valuable resources and exploiting small windows of opportunities or even being able to create them in the first place is what justifies higher cost of fifth generation fighters over legacy systems, obviously coupled with increased survivability.

 

[EmoBirb]

renamed

You're an absolute charm

 

[Scott Kenny]

Who are these fifth-generation fighters going to fight?

Well, F-22s were intended to delete Flankers (and Fulcrums, but not many of those left).
I suspect J-20s are intended to delete Eagles, Super Bugs, and Flankers. Though the Hawkeyes might have something to say about the Super Bugs.
And Su-57s are likely intended to delete Eagles, Vipers, Typhoons, Rafales, and Chinese Flankers.

How are the powers that build them going to prevent them from being destroyed by drones before they leave the factory, or during the move to their bases, or when they return from a mission with almost no fuel and start rolling into the protected hangars, or when they find that their base is under attack by hundreds of small, totally suicidal flying monsters?

Assuming that your enemies actually get a box of small drones within attack range of a base is something that should be considered, but should not be a limiting factor in deciding how many large aircraft you buy.

 

[Ainen]

I suspect J-20s are intended to delete Eagles, Super Bugs, and Flankers. Though the Hawkeyes might have something to say about the Super Bugs.

Benchmark was the F-22 and the future JSF.
F-22 as a target performance, F-35(fleet) as the actual threat (affordable mass of fgfa).

E-2D is a bit of a half way; it can provide early warning and threat picture, but you'd still need to provide a high fidelity track to engage. I.e. either outmaneuver or provide one through other means (such as networked legion).

And Su-57s are likely intended to delete Eagles, Vipers, Typhoons, Rafales, and Chinese Flankers.

Once again, F-22 and especially JSF fleets.
It makes no sense to benchmark a defending force against aircraft which flankers and available GBADs can perfectly contest with. It already plays from a home field advantage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It makes no sense to benchmark a defending force against aircraft which flankers and available GBADs can perfectly contest with. It already plays from a home field advantage.

Inteded targets-for-destruction, not performance benchmark.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

Inteded targets-for-destruction, not performance benchmark.

That's any target. Its goal is clear: destroy all non-stealth fighters, gain the upper hand in fifth-generation fighter battles, and still have the ability to severely damage it even after next-generation fighter strikes.

 

[martinbayer]

Does *anyone* have an *actual concrete* design to share and discuss, or is this thread just about blowing smoke???

 

[Ainen]

Inteded targets-for-destruction, not performance benchmark.

It's both. Broadly, for both countries, in the 2010s the threat was F-22, and its ability to neuter available air forces; in the 2020s the threat was the mass of F-35: it can dismantle GBADs and provide lots of high-quality reconnaissance.
Broadly, both are meant to, at any cost, prevent their countries from ending up in a position where Iran (which also worked on its anti-stealth environment, but with a substantial lag and without an air force to speak of) ended up.

F-22(35) were born as tools to gain advantage in unfavorable conditions (over the enemy). As such, they both aimed to provide next-generation capability ahead of the curve.
J-20 aimed at directly contesting such a development, keeping the advantage to China. Via directly countering F-22/35, but also 4th gen assets and force multipliers. Over neutral space (sea), i.e., the PLAAF has to be able to contest against USAF, USN/Marine air, and allied forces directly and simultaneously. J-20 (and J-35) are aimed directly at fighting American counterparts, though with slightly more prominent stealth duel capability(intended counterpart, developed in response to ATF/JSF as knows quantities).
China also expected (as we can say afterwards) to rely on a massive deployable anti-stealth & situational awareness ecosystem, which they can afford to forward deploy (and, if necessary, not crumble from losses). China has more modern manned AWACS than Russia has FGFAs, and they aren't even an attritable anti-stealth element; AEW drones are.

Su-57 (among other things; it's multirole) is more reserved in desired goals (unfavorable force ratio; there won't be Russian air superiority no matter how capable it is, within achievable boundaries): keeping home field (Russian territory) from being dismantled from the air. The main heavy lifting (deterrence) is performed by GBADs, but without an effective air component, they can be suppressed and destroyed in detail.
Su-57 is also meant to keep force multipliers away (LRAAM from day 1).

I have no way to verify this, but I also strongly suspect Su-57 is aimed specifically to work in tandem with Su-35s, guiding them like a persistent/survivable stand-in mini-AWACS, which won't be a single point of failure like a normal AWACS.
As such, Su-57 targets are also F-22/35, especially in conditions where the GBAD environment was suppressed/degraded, and timely intervention can prevent the system from collapsing.

Neither the J-20 nor the Su-57 is specifically aimed at any 4th-generation aircraft. The J-10/16 can for many years do so directly, after reaching critical mass.
Su-30/35 fleet can support the GBAD effort, aiming at keeping manageable strength ratio over Europe.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Everyone who reads my contributions to the forum knows that I'm a fan of fighters, I'm not discussing the technological quality or impressive performances of the fifth generation. I also don't deny the beauty, power and magnificent design of HMS Prince of Wales I'm just saying that its time has passed.

HMS Prince of Wales in Singapore on 4th December 1941, six days before her sinking by japanese bombers​

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FwoTCPijqsGrrZYDFQAAAAAdAAAAABBN&opi=89978449