They already have a smaller AESA in the J-10. The Chinese will have to put a larger AESA into that big airframe in order to make it viable for its role. I'd bet $5 on it being 20% bigger ;Dsaintkatanalegacy said:so you have decided that they already have a working AESA that's bigger albeit installed :
I agree with posts like this and Bobbymike's one.kcran567 said:A very large, (not optimized for dogfighting) aircraft, long range interceptor to patrol those vast Chinese borders. And, to make up for their lack of a large Navy/Carrier presence, a strike role to attack ground and surface targets...I would suggest a very strong anti-carrier and anti-ship role for this big airplane. Possibly needs a large bay to be big enough to fit some very large solid rocket + ramjet powered anti ship missiles.DFC said:This aircraft exhibits some of the philosophy that went into strategic interceptor projects during the closing stages of the USSR.
I won't be surprised if it has a high ceiling and decent range.
As far as the secondary ground attack role is concerned, I wonder if the canards can come into play there..
If we compare both design i think the T-50 is the best fighter in agility and supercruise, in stealth the J-20 might be at this moment slightly more stealthy.Kovalchuk said:Some height comparison
Yeah but the Su-34 is really a striker, the Su-30MKI is a fighter going strikerDFC said:PAK -FA,
the Su-30 MKI also uses canards for terrain following. But of course it is a multi-role plane.
RAND published a report on this in 2009:lastdingo said:Btw, I'm not sure that conventional missile warheads will do much lasting damage against a prepared airbase with repair teams. The missile cost may be prohibitive.
I was referring to actual aircraft design basics. I realize those don't tend to be popular among the believers.kcran567 said:I 100% agree with PAKFA, Lighter for a true fighter/dogfighter.lastdingo said:This is more about size (side load!) than weight, and the use of a flat fuselage as with T-10 and T-50 reduces the problem a lot because the fuselage is strong and the span of the wings themselves doesn't need to be extraordinary.PAK FA said:Let me explain when you have fighters of similar sizes and weights of course the aircraft with lower wing loading will have better turning ability that will happen even withing the performance of any fighter at different weights.Sundog said:i think you're confusing weight with wing loading. Or you're trying to talk about wing loading in a round-a-bout way. The aircraft with lower wing loading will pull more g's, regardless of weight, all else being equal.
But heavy aircraft in example MiG-31, are only rated to 5Gs and even heavier aircrat like the Tu-160 are rated at 2Gs at most why?
Simple heavier the aircraft you have to multiply their weight by the Gs, this means a very heavy aircraft has loads that are stronger than a lighter aircraft.
Btw, the MiG-31 is a bomber interceptor based on another bomber interceptor design. The max load is in both cases small because there was no intent to ever do dogfighting with them. There was also no intent to dogfight with a Tu-160.
On the other hand, the F-15 was rated to 9 G while many smaller designs were rated to 7 G or less.
Modern combat aircraft can be developed to tolerate 11 or 12 G - the 9 G limit was used in the 70's because humans weren't able to go farther with pneumatic anti-g suits without lying or being in a water tank. The hydro-based Libelle anti-g suit has addressed this issue and allows for two more Gs. Future combat aircraft designs may very well be designed for 11 or 12 G - especially if they're meant to be optionally piloted.
This aircraft J-20 is as big as an F-111 and being 60,0000 to 80,000 lbs range when fully loaded this is the largest of the new stealthy fighters by FAR.
Speculated that is a long range interceptor with some strike capability seems the most clear choice. It is clearly not built for dogfighting. And don't forget that unless the Chinese have built an engine that SURPASSES the ones in the t-50 or f-22, with higher thrust, how can the J-20 compete in the thrust/weight ratio category, let alone wing loading while having the largest design among them, and using (at best) engines with parity to the other designs. Even with engine parity to the f-22 and T-50, the J-20 will be heavier, and thus underpowered to the other two designs. Its a hard row to say the j-20 is going to be anything but a long range interceptor with strike capability, and air to air dogfighting given the least priority. The Chinese could have another (unbuilt) aircraft for that role, or just rely on the j-10's.
They're not. According to actual F-16 pilots (rather than internet ninjas) they get their asses handed to them regularly by the F-22 in dogfights.Sundog said:
While not STOVL, perhaps the Gripen would make a good fighter for this role.harrier said:RAND published a report on this in 2009:lastdingo said:Btw, I'm not sure that conventional missile warheads will do much lasting damage against a prepared airbase with repair teams. The missile cost may be prohibitive.
Indications were that missile strikes on airbases could sufficiently suppress ROC airpower, albeit temporarily, to allow PRC forces to gain air superiority and then to carry out conventional air attacks using PGMs. E.g from page 79 of the report;
"Although literally thousands of missiles might be needed to completely
and permanently shut down Taiwan’s air bases, about 60–200
submunition-equipped SRBMs aimed at operating surfaces would seem
to suffice to temporarily close most of Taiwan’s fighter bases. If China
can launch a single wave of this size, which seems consistent with the
number of SRBM launchers the PLA deploys, those missiles could suppress
ROCAF operations sufficiently to allow PLA Air Force (PLAAF)
strike aircraft to attack air bases and other military and industrial targets
with modern precision weapons. The result could be a Taiwan
with a profoundly reduced ability to defend itself, left open to a range
of follow-on actions intended to coerce or conquer it and its people."
How the J-20 might be used in such a situation is anyone's guess, but using it to keep US carrier airpower/AWACS etc. at arm's length is as likely as anything else I reckon. As is sending it to deal with F-22s where they are most vulnerable - on the ground.
It is interesting that the 'Taiwan scenario' can make the same case for STOVL as that made for it in the Cold War/NW Europe. If used in a scenario like that in the RAND report, STOVL aircraft could mean that many more missiles would be needed to adequately suppress ROC airpower, making a missile attack more difficult. However, to get the full benefits of a STOVL force you need to have an aircraft that can generate high sortie rates, which seems to be a challenge for the F-35B - ten vertical landings in ten months!
Anyway, the F-35B is not available to Taiwan, although I do know a bloke with some low time Harrier GR.9s to sell! Not that the UK would upset China in doing so. For an interesting article on all this see http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/blogs/orion/archive/2010/06/04/taiwan-jump-jets.aspx which does note that "Countering such a tactic (STOVL dispersal) would require PLAAF strike fighters in the air over the probable target zone, and as long as the ROCAF is still in the fight, that will not be an easy task." Maybe the J-20 could be used in just such a 'strike fighter' role?
In summary - the J-20, if a strike aircraft, may well make STOVL an issue again, alongside China's SRBMs. It will be interesting to see how the F-35B story develops if the J-20 is a strike platform.
I might hazard a guess on this one (although we're all speculating far beyond the evidence in many areas):PAK FA said:Another thing i do not understand of the J-20 why reduce the size of vertical dorsal stabilizer fin but add a ventral fin? the F-22 has two large dorsal fins but the J-20 has four fins that in area are very close to the F-22 vertical dorsal fins` area
The T-50 has indeed smaller vertical stabilizers without need for a ventral fin.
The only explanation i have is they made the dorsal fins smaller to reduce vortex burst buffeting, since the ventral fins do not interact as the dorsal fins with the vortices shed by the canard and forebody chines, the ventral fins add more lateral control than bigger dorsal fins by their own would have.
Hey, Sundog, are you baiting?Sundog said:I was referring to actual aircraft design basics. I realize those don't tend to be popular among the believers.
BTW, how much better are the F-16 and the Gripen than the F-22 at dogfighting? Just curious. Enlighten me.
As an economist I would ask for a dogfight comparison of several F-16's versus one F-22 of the same cost, but then again dogfight-only is unrealistic.sferrin said:They're not. According to actual F-16 pilots (rather than internet ninjas) they get their asses handed to them regularly by the F-22 in dogfights.Sundog said:
An intelligent economist would want the overall kill ratio.lastdingo said:As an economist I would ask for a dogfight comparison of several F-16's versus one F-22 of the same cost, but then again dogfight-only is unrealistic.sferrin said:They're not. According to actual F-16 pilots (rather than internet ninjas) they get their asses handed to them regularly by the F-22 in dogfights.Sundog said:
Sundog, let us see an aircraft as balance, in an balance you have to have equal weights to have it even, if you have different weights one of the arms will go up, unbalance, well a wing and a canard are the same, if you put the wing too aft, like in the case of the AJ-37, the nose weight will pitch down the Viggen automatically, now here we are talking about lift. instead of equal weight we are saying equal lifts, so the canard has to be made with enough lift to make the aircraft stable or instable, if the lift of the canard is positioned and sized in a way it only balances the aircraft, it will be neutral, if the lift of the canard is made small, it will remain stable, the aircraft will tend to pitch down, if it generates more lift it will pitch up and will become unstable.Sundog said:I was referring to actual aircraft design basics. I realize those don't tend to be popular among the believers.
BTW, how much better are the F-16 and the Gripen than the F-22 at dogfighting? Just curious. Enlighten me.
In fact, Northern China and Beijing in particular seemed full of rather tall people, especially the youth - old ladies still seemed pretty short on average.Avimimus said:I checked some more recent stats: The height difference is about 5cm. This might be a bit smaller if the people in the photos are from elite groups (as their families would be somewhat better fed than the average).
One of the things that J-20 highlights, however, is that carbon copying without a full understanding of the underlying principals behind something is counter productive. I can see several things that are evidence of this on the J-20.sferrin said:The more I look at the J-20 and it's canopy in particular the more angry I get at our complete failure from the standpoint of security. China has been able to cart off information with impunity and it's like we don't even care. The list of almost carbon copies of equipment is longer than I care to recite.
Well to be honest, of all the designs i know and i can remember now that use ventral fins, JH-7, Su-24, MiG-21, F-14, J-8II, MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-27, MiG-29, sepecat Jaguar, Mitsubishi F1, J-10, Lavi and F-16.Avimimus said:The vertical stabilisers are relatively small and are also all-moving. It is possible that the ventral stabilisers will only be on the prototype (being deleted as the design is validated)
Our resources to counter chinese is paper thin due to the so called War on Terror effort. I remember n official complained that for every illegal transaction of classified technology from US to China, there are 12 others that go undetected.sferrin said:The more I look at the J-20 and it's canopy in particular the more angry I get at our complete failure from the standpoint of security. China has been able to cart off information with impunity and it's like we don't even care. The list of almost carbon copies of equipment is longer than I care to recite.