Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Corsair1963 wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

Hypothetically speaking, as notional Chinese requirement that thier new AC at some level is roughly competitive with the F-22. The unknown is a factor, but if the Chinese even acheived a lesser degree of equality with the F-22, then it has some superior charactoristics over the F-35. Charactoristics that can be used as strengths against the F-35, whose strengths would be EW and stealth.

Is the F-35 the best solution for the Asian Pacific, to counter the T-50 & J-20?

The F-35 will be more than capable of taking on the PAK-FA and J-20. Plus, it will be available in far greater numbers........

Agreed, my point is that nations like Japan or Korea would be using the F-35 as an inteceptor type platform. Is the F-35 capable of this mission given the greater speed/altitude (assumed) of the J-20 and T-50.

F-16.net Sponsor

strykerxo wrote:

Hypothetically speaking, as notional Chinese requirement that thier new AC at some level is roughly competitive with the F-22. The unknown is a factor, but if the Chinese even acheived a lesser degree of equality with the F-22, then it has some superior charactoristics over the F-35. Charactoristics that can be used as strengths against the F-35, whose strengths would be EW and stealth.

Is the F-35 the best solution for the Asian Pacific, to counter the T-50 & J-20?

I don't disagree J20 may surpass Raptor in a few aspects, but across full spectrum of what makes an air superior platform, no, I don't think it can be a match for the Raptor, if you look at raptor, its way more sleek than J20 hence it would be more stealthier. then some other key factors (engines, radar) favor the Raptor as well.

F35 on the other hand are supposed to outnumber the foes, unless China makes over a thousand of J20, chances are they are still have to be in a defensive position, which buy USAF time to R&D next gen platform

batu731 wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

Hypothetically speaking, as notional Chinese requirement that thier new AC at some level is roughly competitive with the F-22. The unknown is a factor, but if the Chinese even acheived a lesser degree of equality with the F-22, then it has some superior charactoristics over the F-35. Charactoristics that can be used as strengths against the F-35, whose strengths would be EW and stealth.

Is the F-35 the best solution for the Asian Pacific, to counter the T-50 & J-20?

I don't disagree J20 may surpass Raptor in a few aspects, but across full spectrum of what makes an air superior platform, no, I don't think it can be a match for the Raptor, if you look at raptor, its way more sleek than J20 hence it would be more stealthier. then some other key factors (engines, radar) favor the Raptor as well.

F35 on the other hand are supposed to outnumber the foes, unless China makes over a thousand of J20, chances are they are still have to be in a defensive position, which buy USAF time to R&D next gen platform

youre drawing RCS and sig mgmt conclusions based on one platform looking more 'sleek' than another ... espescially another that is in prototype/mule stage. you're commentary is dragging the snr of this subforum down ....

Now china is even making as space plane to attack our satellites.

g3143 wrote:

Now china is even making as space plane to attack our satellites.

Links? It would seem far more efficient and cheaper to build lasers or self dependant missiles or fighter launched missiles. A 'space plane' would be vulnerable to attack or interception or even a well placed MIRV assault if the situation was dire.

chrisrt wrote:

g3143 wrote:

Now china is even making as space plane to attack our satellites.

Links? It would seem far more efficient and cheaper to build lasers or self dependant missiles or fighter launched missiles. A 'space plane' would be vulnerable to attack or interception or even a well placed MIRV assault if the situation was dire.

Like this Chinese space-plane?

http://www.sinobeat.info/2010/04/29/chi ... -test-fly/

Shrug

TEG

Hm, will it be equipped with energy weapons and vectored in position to attack? It might take plenty. I'd hope that a retaliatory attack would take place immediately. It would obviously take some time to get to its targets and I'm sure it would be tracked non-stop.

Thanks for the link. I hadn’t known about that yet.

chrisrt wrote:

Thanks for the link. I hadn’t known about that yet.

No problem Chrisrt Cheers

TEG

J-20: China's ultimate aircraft carrier-killer? By Stephen Trimble on February 9, 2011

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... craft.html

Thanks for sharing spazsinbad. I had been leaning towards a similar conclusion as the Russian analyst cited by Flight International's web site, although I hadn't found the time to back out the relative CG and mean chord dimensions (too much work at my day job). I had been leaning in that same direction in large part due to the relatively high wing loading that this airplane appears to have been designed to - very different from such airplanes as the F-22 or Russia's T-50. Demonstrating that the airplane is statically stable (which is effectively what the Russian analyst has shown) achieves the same end. This airplane is not an air superiority fighter in the classical sense. The anti-shipping role makes much more sense, given China's strategic goals.

Thanks again for sharing.

spazsinbad wrote:

J-20: China's ultimate aircraft carrier-killer? By Stephen Trimble on February 9, 2011

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... craft.html

"It is worth to notice that the J-20's air intakes resemble those on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II ("diverterless" supersonic inlet, DSI). This gives move ground to assert that the J-20 is optimized for supersonic regimes and supercruise, much like the F-35."

Interesting assumption...

Here are some links to new J-20 porn - photos and video:

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/10/aweso ... h-fighter/

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-j ... ign=recirc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJSVmpV1Kb0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq1fZou_1Y

tmofarrvl wrote:

Demonstrating that the airplane is statically stable (which is effectively what the Russian analyst has shown) achieves the same end.

Well, he didn't show anything.
He said what he did, because J20 is competition to PAKFA.
However, we know that this isn't true and J20 is indeed unstable aircraft as this photo shows.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/imag ... verted.jpg

Quote:

This airplane is not an air superiority fighter in the classical sense. The anti-shipping role makes much more sense, given China's strategic goals.

Dunno about China's strategic goals, but J20 is an air superiority fighter by design. in heavy fighter class.
However, a high performance aircraft can be used in multitude of roles, like F15 and F16 are showing for decades now.

cola wrote:

tmofarrvl wrote:

Demonstrating that the airplane is statically stable (which is effectively what the Russian analyst has shown) achieves the same end.

Well, he didn't show anything.
He said what he did, because J20 is competition to PAKFA.
However, we know that this isn't true and J20 is indeed unstable aircraft as this photo shows.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/imag ... verted.jpg

How does that image show anything of the stability? Stable aircraft like the F-15, or even the Boeing 747, can maneuver. No, the Russian analyst is absolutely right. This photo shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is stable: http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-conte ... u-J-20.jpg

An unstable aircraft is one where the center of lift is ahead of the center of mass. The center of mass must lie between the main and nose landing gear, or the plane will tip over on the runway and bang its nose or tail on the pavement. The center of lift for its part pretty much has to be somewhere around the widest part of the wings.

Even the main gear of the J-20 is ahead of the wings. The farthest back point the center of mass could possibly be ... is in line with the wing root ... the farthest forward point the center of lift could possibly be.

Therefore, the center of mass must be ahead of the static center of lift. Proven. Fact. The design is statically stable. It relies on the little canards rather than the big wings to actively raise the nose. This is not inherently bad; it's one reason why perfectly stable business planes like the Beechcraft Starship should have canards, and get more efficient lift that way. The wings push the tail up, the center of mass is pulled down by gravity, trying to tilt the plane nose-down. So the canards have to push the nose up to keep the plane level. Both horizontal surfaces push up to keep the plane flying level. It's the canard version of why statically unstable aircraft like the F-16 get more efficient lift from having a rear tail. With everything pushing the same direction, turbulence will also tend to raise and lower the plane as a level whole like an elevator, rather than cause changes in pitch. The J-20 is probably more fuel efficient and longer ranged, and a less jittery bombing platform, with that arrangement. However, since the canards are smaller and will stall before the wings, that limits its potential rate of pitch.

A long-ranged, efficient cruiser with a rock-solid resistance to sudden changes in pitch suggests it's role is...what exactly?

My guess (I'm no engineer) is that the Chinese have gone with the larger platform in order to keep their options open regarding the J-20's role. They know that they'll eventually need at least a few LO combat aircraft of some kind in the future, but the East Asia security picture is currently in a state of rapid fluctuation. By going big, they can focus on getting the airframe and powerplant right for the time being without worrying about ending up with the wrong kind of fighter in 10 years. It won't be the perfect air-superiority fighter or strike-bomber, but at least they will have a *stealth* plane adequate for either task.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

J-XX stealth fighter