J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 02:39
by jessmo111
So now after seeing a little of what both planes can do do we really believe the J-20 stands a chance versus the F-35?

F-35


J-20 flight testing.

Now I know you will initially say "The J-20 is still flight testing" but I must point out that the F-35 is also 7g limited.

-Short 50+ degree high AOA fighter versus an F-111 sized fighter.
- very long movement Arm versus short and stubby.
-60klbs of thrust on whats possibly a 70k combat loaded fighter. Keep in mind the max weight is 80k with 26k of gas alone.
-Demonstrated 360 degrees of HOBS, 360 irst advanced Aesa. China claims the same, but I almost never buy electronics that are designed in China. When I did it was broken in the package day 1.

My guess is that the smaller more nimble F-35 is superior in nearly every regard.

Im not a sino-phobe. Im just stating my opinion

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 03:10
by white_lightning35
:cheers: woohoo! I get to say it first!

There is already another f-35 vs j-20 thread.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 03:24
by white_lightning35
On a side note, I don't think the j-20 is meant as a dogfighter. It seems like a strike aircraft aircraft like the f-35 is, which seems like a smart move. Why dogfight when you can blow up the enemy's planes on the ground, or their tankers and support aircraft?

Imo, the Chinese will pose a much greater threat than the Russians. They've had a while to study Sun Tzu. They will fight asymmetrically, have the money and willpower, and bide their time until the moment's right. Rather than going the Russian " RUSSIA STRONK! Check out cheap air show trick fighters and carrier with a built in smokescreen!" route. The U.S. needs someone like sun Tzu, but instead we have trump. Fingers crossed he'll actually listen to mattis and others.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 04:06
by steve2267
white_lightning35 wrote:The U.S. needs someone like sun Tzu, but instead we have trump. Fingers crossed he'll actually listen to mattis and others.


Doesn't the warrior monk, "Mad Dog" Mattis count?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 04:31
by lbk000
Mind the bias, don't start pushing BFM prowess because you suddenly have ammo favorable to the F-35. They're still both first and foremost dangerous BVR machines.

Things I think that matter more:
1) Combat radius for the J-20, has anyone done any speculative calculations for that?
2) The logistics of J-20 LO. Chinese don't have a tradition of being fastidious when it comes to maintenance; I wonder how their coating will hold up 10-20 years down the line?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 04:45
by white_lightning35
I certainly didn't mean to imply that the f-35 was some sort of dog fighting machine, which it is not. It is - or should be - a capable bvr air superiority fighter. However, it is the joint strike fighter first and foremost. It seems to me that it was made to destroy SAM's and other targets, while being strong in air to air combat, simply because of its stealth and sensors.

The size and shape of the j-20 also suggests to me that it is not a dogfighter. And it would seem strange that the Chinese could magically make advanced stealth technology on their first try.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 04:48
by white_lightning35
steve2267 wrote:
white_lightning35 wrote:The U.S. needs someone like sun Tzu, but instead we have trump. Fingers crossed he'll actually listen to mattis and others.


Doesn't the warrior monk, "Mad Dog" Mattis count?


Certainly. That's why I said that I really hope trump listens to mattis and others and doesn't stupidly think he can do it alone.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 05:08
by gta4
I do believe the op needs to check this


Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 06:46
by krorvik
jessmo111 wrote:I almost never buy electronics that are designed in China. When I did it was broken in the package day 1.


Hardly an argument for fighter jets (I agree though...) ;)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 06:51
by krorvik
white_lightning35 wrote: However, it is the joint strike fighter first and foremost. It seems to me that it was made to destroy SAM's and other targets, while being strong in air to air combat, simply because of its stealth and sensors.


That argument comes up from time to time. While I don't disagree on your points in general, the design target was for both roles - to be the best strike machine, and second only to the F-22 in AA. It is in fact a true multirole machine, as highlighted as the choice for NL, DK and NO for instance.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 06:53
by gta4
J20 is never claimed to have 360 deg DAS coverage. It lacks rear hemisphere coverage

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 09:55
by kimjongnumbaun
Planes built for totally different purposes. The F-35 is a strike fighter. The J-20 looks like it's designed to go far and carry anti-ship missiles to counter the US carrier threat.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 10:09
by disconnectedradical
Seems like the point of the thread is jessmo chanting "USA! USA!"

J-20's aerodynamics will depend on how well their WS-15 engines become. Right now it's using some souped up Flanker engine (Salyut AL-31FM2, based on the best information available) with about 32,000 lb of thrust. Funny enough the Salyut AL-31FM2 is something of a competitor to Saturn 117S engine, and apparently back in the 2000s Salyut cried foul when Saturn's engine got chosen for the Su-35 and the PAK FA.

Also, the J-20 isn't nearly as big as you think, the length is about 20.5 meters. The biggest thing about it is that the fuselage is quite long, which may point to quite a lot of gas.

Avionics, well I don't know much about Chinese avionics at all, but I'm doubting that they are as comprehensive as the F-35 in terms of software.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 12:09
by Dragon029
gta4 wrote:J20 is never claimed to have 360 deg DAS coverage. It lacks rear hemisphere coverage

The J-20's DAS or MAWS has 360 coverage:

rxkvMJW.png

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 12:31
by ricnunes
krorvik wrote:
white_lightning35 wrote: However, it is the joint strike fighter first and foremost. It seems to me that it was made to destroy SAM's and other targets, while being strong in air to air combat, simply because of its stealth and sensors.


That argument comes up from time to time. While I don't disagree on your points in general, the design target was for both roles - to be the best strike machine, and second only to the F-22 in AA. It is in fact a true multirole machine, as highlighted as the choice for NL, DK and NO for instance.


This!

I think that people must stop dismissing once and for all that the F-35 is an air-to-ground aircraft (due to the term "strike") with a secondary role of air-to-air. It is not!
The F-35 is a Multi-role fighter aircraft, hence the term Strike fighter - The Strike term means Multi-role and not "air-to-ground" - which means that it was designed to equally perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions alike, like for example its predecessor - The F-16.
Does anyone here says that the F-16 is an air-to-ground aircraft? I doubt it. However the F-16 is truly a Strike Fighter!
- The Rafale is a Strike Fighter
- The Gripen is a Strike Fighter
- The Hornet and Super Hornet are Strike Fighters

But I never (or rarely) see anyone questioning the air-to-air abilities of the aircraft mentioned above...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 12:42
by ricnunes
About the F-35 vs J-20 what I believe will happen is the following:

1- The F-35 detects the J-20 first with whatever means it possess
2- The F-35 shoots an AMRAAM
3- BOOOMMMMM, the J-20 explodes in a Fireball (I can almost hear the "great balls of fire" song from Jerry Lee Lewis in the background)
4- If the Chinese pilot survives (or whoever is flying the J-20) he will say to him(her)self: WTF!!!

Regarding the J-20 itself, no I don't think it will be a match for the F-35, however:
- I believe that the J-20 will be a combination of a stealthy Mig-31 (long range interceptor) but more maneuverable/agile (than the Mig-31) and a (longer range) interdiction aircraft in the lines of a (stealthy) Tornado or F-111.
- While and again not a match to the F-35 and by association not a match to the F-22, it will be an extremely and dangerous foe (and superior) to all other existing 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft (like the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, etc...)

Resuming I think that the J-20 is a very interesting concept specially for a country like China which despite having a military being modernized it still lags behind the USA (and quite a lot)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 14:40
by lbk000
ricnunes wrote:Resuming I think that the J-20 is a very interesting concept specially for a country like China which despite having a military being modernized it still lags behind the USA (and quite a lot)

It's a smart idea, perhaps the only idea. Stealth aircraft like the F-35 and J-20 represent the lynchpin of A2AD, which is the modern moniker of the fleet-in-being concept. By simply remaining as a threat at large, the J-20 makes planners think twice about deploying non-stealth assets and therefore significantly raises the cost of ensuring success for an offensive operation, so that even despite its lack of development in other areas, China's defense remains formidable enough to maintain its diplomatic clout.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 15:19
by sferrin
lbk000 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Resuming I think that the J-20 is a very interesting concept specially for a country like China which despite having a military being modernized it still lags behind the USA (and quite a lot)

It's a smart idea, perhaps the only idea. Stealth aircraft like the F-35 and J-20 represent the lynchpin of A2AD, which is the modern moniker of the fleet-in-being concept. By simply remaining as a threat at large, the J-20 makes planners think twice about deploying non-stealth assets and therefore significantly raises the cost of ensuring success for an offensive operation, so that even despite its lack of development in other areas, China's defense remains formidable enough to maintain its diplomatic clout.


Bet the USN is wishing it had an NATF about now.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 16:39
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
lbk000 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Resuming I think that the J-20 is a very interesting concept specially for a country like China which despite having a military being modernized it still lags behind the USA (and quite a lot)

It's a smart idea, perhaps the only idea. Stealth aircraft like the F-35 and J-20 represent the lynchpin of A2AD, which is the modern moniker of the fleet-in-being concept. By simply remaining as a threat at large, the J-20 makes planners think twice about deploying non-stealth assets and therefore significantly raises the cost of ensuring success for an offensive operation, so that even despite its lack of development in other areas, China's defense remains formidable enough to maintain its diplomatic clout.


Bet the USN is wishing it had an NATF about now.



Nah. More super hornets equal more jobs, more ships, more commands etc

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 16:42
by XanderCrews
white_lightning35 wrote:
Certainly. That's why I said that I really hope trump listens to mattis and others and doesn't stupidly think he can do it alone.


Sigh.

Where was all this hand wringing when Obama routinely fired generals including Mattis? Obama screwed the military six ways from Sunday and the Trump basically says exactly that, and Trump is the loose cannon?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 17:05
by white_lightning35
I was not saying Obama wasn't an idiot. I meant that there is a reason that presidents have cabinets, and that Mattis seems very qualified. Without getting too political, Trump probably does not understand the intricacies of foreign policy and military matters yet, at least compared to people who have been doing this for a long time would.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 20:21
by gta4
Dragon029 wrote:
gta4 wrote:J20 is never claimed to have 360 deg DAS coverage. It lacks rear hemisphere coverage

The J-20's DAS or MAWS has 360 coverage:

Image


That is not a rear hemisphere coverage.

In order to measure distance, you need at least two optical devices to track the same target. But according to your photo, the rear and upper hemisphere was covered with one single optical window. That is insufficient for distance measurement and thus could not target for short range AA missile.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 20:31
by manfredzhang
http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170703/51365644_0.shtml

Translation:

A high level discussion regarding “future air combat” was held in Beijing during which the “dogfighter is useless” comment posted above was revealed.
A few highlights:
Figures attending the discussion include Yang Wei, chief designer of J-20, Xu Yongling, test pilot and An Shidong, former Director in charge of Air Force military theory study.
The discussion generally recognize the USAF’s understanding of future air combat meaning things like situation awareness, relying on system rather individual aircraft, focusing on BVR engagement are the features of future air combat.
The discussion largely downplays the importance of dogfight and WVR engagement.
The discussion largely recognizes the result of the Red Flag exercise and F-35 as a fighter jet while in the meantime being very critical to so called “military specialist” e.g. Tyler Rogoway (did not mention his name) and Fox Trot Alpha who repeatedly bash F-35.
The discussion speaks very high of situation awareness and information processing and tries to persuade the air force to change their mind and shift their focus from maneuverability to information fusion.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 20:52
by SpudmanWP
Those are located in the same places on the J-20 as the EODAS sensors on the F-35.

EODAS does not measure distance either, nor does it have to.

The purpose of EODAS (in the A2A role) is to keep a track, in bearing only, of all WVR objects. When a missile is launched, it's guided in LOAL mode to the same bearing as the target where the seeker can acquire the target.

If two or more F-35s are in the area, then their two EODAS tracks will give you a precise location (which is automatically calculated & shared.. Yeah Data Fusion).

Image

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 01:52
by gta4
I am pretty sure F-35 could measure the distance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7bwPLxo6u8
look how targets are marked on the "minimap", with an angle and a distance.

And, F-35 has more optical windows than J-20, which allows for at least 2 windows to track 1 single target from any direction.
This is why it could measure distance:
F35 das.jpg

From your photo of j20, we can only say that there are some some optical windows that allow for room for DAS, but
1) no evidence shows DAS already installed
2) no evidence shows J-20 could track any target, especially the rear hemisphere (F-35 has a video as proof)
3) China has not proven its missiles supports LOAL.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 02:09
by SpudmanWP
In no official F-35 docs will you see anything about EODA "ranging", only "tracking".

Both the J-20 and F-35 have exactly 6 DAS sensors located in the same locations (back, nose, cheeks, and belly x2).

You can track something with only one sensor (think using only one eye). You can also estimate range by using shape recognition if you know what the target is, but that is CPU limited and not sensor limited.

Here is an early PDF showing EODAS features:

Image

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 03:27
by gta4
Both the J-20 and F-35 have exactly 6 DAS sensors located in the same locations (back, nose, cheeks, and belly x2).


Do you know multithreading in computer programming? 6 DAS devices could operate more than 6 optical lenses. There are some optical lenses at the root of F-35's tail, even though the sensors are not placed there.
This is confirmed OFFICIALY:
http://www.difesanews.it/archives/sched ... -fighter/2
f35 das official placement.jpg

F35 rear das.jpg



Please explain: why could F-35 DAS successfully measure distance from this OFFICIAL video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXoqb7GT6Lk&t=138s
f35 das measure distance.png

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 03:35
by gta4
Keep in mind: ranging is crucial for LOAL, otherwise it could not distinguish targets from the same direction (they are overlayed), making the missile pursue the wrong target, even causing friendly fire.

If F-35 supports LOAL, it must support ranging.

And, J-20 does not have those additional optical lenses at the root of the tail. China has not demonstrated any kind of HOBS or LOAL capability.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 04:31
by spazsinbad
Sensor Fusion is key to F-35 abilities: see graphics: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... on-engine/

SLDinfo use of light orange colour text bugs me much - attached is a 2 page PDF of the URL text at the quote below,
The F-35 and Advanced Sensor Fusion
NO DATE SLDinfo

"...Advanced fusion does three things for the pilot.
First, it assembles a single integrated picture from all of the sensors.
Second, it tasks the sensors to fill in missing data.
Third, it shares the information with everyone else on the network....

...The Distributed Aperture System
The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is a new and unique sensor. The DAS is comprised of six staring focal point arrays. These are infrared cameras flush-mounted on the skin of the airplane, which detect the entire sphere around the airplane – that’s 4 pi steradians for the mathematically inclined. The entire sphere is about 41,000 square degrees whereas the radar sees about 10,000 square degrees. There is an intersection of the two sensors however. Where they’re both looking through the same angular volume of space, fusion will work them synergistically, and they can queue each other. Fusion really does the queuing. As soon as one sensor detects something, fusion then queues every other sensor to look along that line of sight and try to find information about the track. The impressive thing is that this occurs without pilot involvement.

When fusion recognizes a DAS track is in the same angular space as the radar it will indicate to the Radar: “Radar, go look along this line of sight and get range on this track that DAS found.” Or if the radar has a track and it gimbals, or in other words, the track goes beyond the radar’s field of regard, fusion will tell DAS, “You keep updating this and hold onto the track for the pilot until it comes back into the field of regard of the radar or comes back into the field of regard of some other sensor on the airplane,” according to Skaff...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... or-fusion/

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 04:36
by cantaz
Guys, those aren't optical lenses, they're MADL antennas.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 05:46
by Dragon029
cantaz wrote:Guys, those aren't optical lenses, they're MADL antennas.

This ^; the white apertures are MADL antennas, the long / rectangular apertures on the leading / trailing edges are antennas for the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda and some of the other apertures are for satellite and VHF/UHF comms.

As for ranging:

1. The video that GTA4 linked shows all the targets on a single ring; I don't think radius = range in that display (which also isn't a native F-35 display / visor feature).

2. Ranging can be done either via multiple MADL'd F-35s (remembering that F-35s will almost never fly alone) intersecting bearings and elevations, or it can be done by using the radar or Barracuda's passive RF system. Ranging can also be done via analysis of target motion or size (though these methods are limited in their accuracy and the range at which they can be used).

As for LOAL, you don't need range data at all - it is very handy to have range data, but missiles can be told to launch along a vector, with the missile seeker scanning for the target in that direction - years ago for example a RAAF F/A-18A equipped with ASRAAMs and a JHMCS, but no form of DAS or high-end RF geolocation capability, and with no secondary support aircraft, was able to LOAL engage a target behind the aircraft's wingline / outside the ASRAAM's field of regard.

Having a 3D fix is preferable because as a missile turns around it doesn't have to scan along the length of a vector (taking valuable time when a LOAL is typically being made against a close-in high-level threat), but it's not outright required.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 08:21
by SpudmanWP
Here is a slide from Harris showing some the CNI apertures (comms for you guys that don't know what CNI is).

Image

Here is the Video in question with screenshots showing where the EODAS, MADL, and various CNI antenna are (1:45 mark).



Image

Image

Image

Here is a pic from someone else.

Image

Here is an MADL Antenna

Image

https://www.harris.com/sites/default/fi ... ionics.pdf

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 22:02
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:2. Ranging can be done either via multiple MADL'd F-35s (remembering that F-35s will almost never fly alone) intersecting bearings and elevations, or it can be done by using the radar or Barracuda's passive RF system. Ranging can also be done via analysis of target motion or size (though these methods are limited in their accuracy and the range at which they can be used).


Interesting, just like (or similar to) the Passive Sonar of a Submarine.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 22:05
by ricnunes
gta4 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:
gta4 wrote:J20 is never claimed to have 360 deg DAS coverage. It lacks rear hemisphere coverage

The J-20's DAS or MAWS has 360 coverage:

Image


That is not a rear hemisphere coverage.

In order to measure distance, you need at least two optical devices to track the same target. But according to your photo, the rear and upper hemisphere was covered with one single optical window. That is insufficient for distance measurement and thus could not target for short range AA missile.


I also find it hard to believe that the J-20 has something that resembles DAS.

However and perhaps those sensors which supposedly cover entire area around (360º) the aircraft are something like UV sensors and as such part of a MAWS?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 23:26
by citanon
Isn't the physical hardware of DAS just a set of high resolution near it cameras? The real magic is in the processing of the imagery and integration with other on board sensors.

The Chinese could certainly have put in the physical hardware and the wiring. Getting it perfectly integrated with everything else will be challenging. However now a days there's a lot of commercial work on 360 image recognition and sensor fusion going on for self driving vehicle. Who knows how far the can go on a test platform if they put in a few nvidia tegra processors and star off from open source research and codes.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 02:48
by zhangmdev
So far J-20 is using the traditional HUD. Is there any hint of something similar to F-35 HMDS?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 03:41
by gta4
So far no chiniese missiles have demonstrated any HOBS or LOAL capability.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 04:51
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:So far no chiniese missiles have demonstrated any HOBS or LOAL capability.


There are thousands of R-73s and Python 3s in PLAAF service. That's one of the things they didn't need to copy to obtain. The license manufacture of the Python for example under the PL8 would have given the PLAAF a substantial tech transfer on offbore sight technologies. The current SR AAMs in Chinese service are claimed to have substantially higher offbore sight capability than the R-73/PL8s. E.g. PL01 has a claimed 90deg offbore sight.

Chinese anti-ship missiles have LOAL. How capable are the LOAL is another issue as that is a far more complex tech to master and integrate. I don't think the PLAAF is currently relying on that.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 10:24
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:So far no chiniese missiles have demonstrated any HOBS or LOAL capability.

PL01 has a claimed 90deg offbore sight.


By "demonstrated" I mean "tested" not "claimed".

Everyone can claim big things. Remeber how Su-35 manufacture claimed 90 km detection range against F-22? It just got slapped over the face in Syria:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-f-2 ... over-syria

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 15:22
by zhangmdev
What's the purpose of that unique launch-rail-outside-closed-door configuration? If that is to expose the missile sensor for a while before launch, doesn't that cast doubt on the missile's Lock-On-After-Launch capability?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 14:56
by spazsinbad
Chinese Fighter Developments Revealed
27 Oct 2017 Reuben F. Johnson

"...Chinese sources state that the J-20 now has a reliable domestically produced powerplant. Previous models of the J-20 were powered with the Russian-made Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F engine. The Chinese engine can still not match the performance of the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, but it supposedly enables the J-20 to supercruise. There will be 100 J-20s in service by 2020 and another 100 by 2023, it is reported...."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... s-revealed

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 14:03
by mixelflick
200 J-20's in service by 2023

And by then, how many F-35's will be flying? 1,500 or more?? And in the air arms of at least half a dozen US allies. Even IF the J-20 is as good as the F-35, the numbers game doesn't work in their favor. With respect to the quality issue..

* The F-35 will be stealthier (especially all aspect stealth)
* The F-35 will have far superior sensors
* The F-35 will serve in a far greater number of roles (air to air, air to ground, ISR, E/W jamming etc).
* Worldwide logistical footprint vs. mainland China only

You can argue the J-31 will attempt something similar, but then again all of the F-35 attributes I listed will still hold true. I'm not one to under-estimate the enemy, but on numbers and quality I think it's obvious - the F-35 is going to win both.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2017, 14:24
by lamoey
mixelflick wrote:200 J-20's in service by 2023

And by then, how many F-35's will be flying? 1,500 or more?? And in the air arms of at least half a dozen US allies. Even IF the J-20 is as good as the F-35, the numbers game doesn't work in their favor. With respect to the quality issue..

* The F-35 will be stealthier (especially all aspect stealth)
* The F-35 will have far superior sensors
* The F-35 will serve in a far greater number of roles (air to air, air to ground, ISR, E/W jamming etc).
* Worldwide logistical footprint vs. mainland China only

You can argue the J-31 will attempt something similar, but then again all of the F-35 attributes I listed will still hold true. I'm not one to under-estimate the enemy, but on numbers and quality I think it's obvious - the F-35 is going to win both.


While I agree, it must also be taken in to account that the J-20 will not be spread all over the world, but most likely concentrated on specific targets closer to home. In boxing terms they basically have a decent jab, that will force the champ to stay at a distance.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 18:22
by talkitron
lamoey wrote:While I agree, it must also be taken in to account that the J-20 will not be spread all over the world, but most likely concentrated on specific targets closer to home. In boxing terms they basically have a decent jab, that will force the champ to stay at a distance.


Here is the IIIS 2018 infographic I also posted on the Rafale thread. China is spending a lot of money on AAMs. To a large extent, China needs only to knock out US tankers, AEW and other support aircraft with these newer, longer range AAMs. The J-20 is likely sufficient to survivablly fire these newer, longer range AAMs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 20:21
by marsavian
Thanks for clearing that up earlier regarding PL-15/PL-XX, seems my earlier source was the one confused. The only snag is very long range non-ramjet PL-XX is not carried internally/stealthy so will require a powerful radar to track the opponent before the launching aircraft (J-16) is discovered and intercepted. Only practical against a stealthy F-35 if the tracker is a J-20 that can get close enough to spot a F-35, track it and survive the whole of the PL-XX journey time which is still unlikely. Probably a technique better suited though against non-stealthy support aircraft as shown in the diagram. The ramjet version though at around 4m could fit into a J-20 bay and make life interesting even for AIM-120D/Meteor equipped F-35s. However ramjet technology for Chinese missiles is still a WIP.

https://www.popsci.com/amp/china-new-lo ... ir-missile
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/1144 ... romise.htm

Image

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 21:59
by marsavian
Noticed previous thread on this vs, F-35 vs J-20, ... posted for possible future merging ...

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52912

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2018, 06:34
by spazsinbad
J-20 stealth fighter's capabilities to be enhanced
13 Mar 2018 China Daily

"China will continue to improve and upgrade its cutting-edge J-20 stealth fighter jet, giving it more capabilities than merely penetrating an enemy's air defense networks, according to its chief designer. Yang Wei, a deputy director of science and technology at Aviation Industry Corp of China and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told China Daily in an exclusive interview that designers will develop variants of the radar-evading J-20 and will open research on its successor-a sixth-generation fighter jet.

"We are not complacent about what we have achieved. We will develop the J-20 into a large family and keep strengthening its information-processing and intelligent capacities. At the same time, we will think about our next-generation combat plane to meet the nation's future requirements," Yang said....

..."In the past, we had to follow others' paths when it came to designing military aircraft because our research and development capabilities were primitive in this regard, but now we have become capable of designing and making what we want to have," he said.

The senior designer said that the J-20 is the best fighter jet in China, so it would be used at the most crucial moments during a war. "Of course, it will be tasked with penetrating air defense networks, but that will not be its only mission. It definitely has multiple functions. How we will use it depends on its production and deployment scale," Yang said....

...In addition to the J-20, AVIC is testing the FC-31, another fifth-generation combat plane, and wants to use it to tap the international market for advanced fighter jets. The Air Force has made clear that it will not allow exports of the J-20."

Source: http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0313/c90000-9436307.html

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2018, 14:47
by spazsinbad
Fifth-generation Fighters Officially Move Into Next Phases
09 Mar 2018 Reuben F. Johnson

"...The J-20 is supposed to receive a new Chinese-made WS-15 engine, but for now the engines in different versions of the aircraft seen to date are variants of the Shenyang Liming Aero-Engine Group WS-10A that is installed in the Shenyang J-11B, or a Russian-made Salyut AL-31FM2/3 variant....

...on February 9, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) declared that its J-20 had completed all testing and had been commissioned into combat service. “It marks an important step for the J-20 to have comprehensive combat capabilities,” announced Shen Jinke, a spokesman for the PLAAF. “The stealth jets will improve the air force’s comprehensive fighting ability and enable it to better safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity.”

...the Chengdu aircraft seems to be operational in name only at this point. There are only eight of the J-20 prototypes flying, along with 20 or more “operational” aircraft. Analysts of the PRC’s defense industry also point out that there is a previous history of fighter aircraft being declared operational, but in reality they remain tethered to the production plant, as was the case with the Chengdu J-10.

Sources that spoke to AIN in Singapore also confirmed previous news reports that the J-20 has a substantial logistics tail in the form of specialized, climate-controlled hangars that maintain the aircraft at constant temperature and humidity levels. Extended exposure to the elements reportedly degrades the RCS reduction properties of the aircraft. “The number of these hangars and the process of constructing them is a limiting factor in the deployment of these aircraft,” reported one PRC aircraft analyst.

The WS-15 engine that is designed for the J-20 is not projected to be available before 2019. Until this time, the aircraft does not have an engine with the thrust levels required for it to achieve its specified performance, including the ability to supercruise. If the J-20 follows a similar path to that of the J-10, the introduction of a new, non-Russian engine will require a significant redesign of the inlet and the rear fuselage."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ext-phases

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2018, 18:24
by mixelflick
manfredzhang wrote:http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170703/51365644_0.shtml

Translation:

A high level discussion regarding “future air combat” was held in Beijing during which the “dogfighter is useless” comment posted above was revealed.
A few highlights:
Figures attending the discussion include Yang Wei, chief designer of J-20, Xu Yongling, test pilot and An Shidong, former Director in charge of Air Force military theory study.
The discussion generally recognize the USAF’s understanding of future air combat meaning things like situation awareness, relying on system rather individual aircraft, focusing on BVR engagement are the features of future air combat.
The discussion largely downplays the importance of dogfight and WVR engagement.
The discussion largely recognizes the result of the Red Flag exercise and F-35 as a fighter jet while in the meantime being very critical to so called “military specialist” e.g. Tyler Rogoway (did not mention his name) and Fox Trot Alpha who repeatedly bash F-35.
The discussion speaks very high of situation awareness and information processing and tries to persuade the air force to change their mind and shift their focus from maneuverability to information fusion.


They might subscribe to that theory (now), but it's questionable whether they thought that way during the J-20's genesis. More likely I think, is that China's first foray into stealth technology not be too ambitious. Meaning incorporating super-maneuverability (or even very maneuverable) component into the J-20 wasn't in the cards.

Think F-117. When Lockheed developed it, stealth was in its infancy in this country. The flat, faceted shape and other issues dictated the emphasis be on a low observable, stable strike platform strictly air to ground in its mission. The J-20 looks to be more advanced, but a as a low observable (if not VLO), stable missile and strike platform it excels. Plenty of gas for the Pacific theatre, it nonetheless has no intention of mixing it up with F-35's or F-22's. I see it strictly as a standoff missile platform against carrier strike groups, and perhaps tankers and AWACS (if its sensors are up to snuff).

A stealthy F-111 it will be, with all of the air to air shortcomings of the F-111B in particular...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2018, 22:13
by lbk000
So I woke up with lots of tin foil in my hair: maybe Tyler Rogoway, Carlo Kopp, et al. are all deep cover psyop agents trying to delay opfor doctrinal revision through chronic downplaying of Western capabilities.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2018, 23:33
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:The J-20 looks to be more advanced, but a as a low observable (if not VLO), stable missile and strike platform it excels. Plenty of gas for the Pacific theatre, it nonetheless has no intention of mixing it up with F-35's or F-22's. I see it strictly as a standoff missile platform against carrier strike groups, and perhaps tankers and AWACS (if its sensors are up to snuff).

A stealthy F-111 it will be, with all of the air to air shortcomings of the F-111B in particular...


Well my "interpretation" of the J-20 since "day one" was something like this:
- "Mig-31 meets F-111 with stealth/VLO features". Nothing that I read since then changed my mind in this regard.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2018, 16:19
by monkeypilot
According to East Pendulum, metamaterials may have been used for J-20. (for info, the author is an airbus engineer living Honkong and China for many years now). On French

http://www.eastpendulum.com/les-meta-ma ... et-le-j-20

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2018, 18:37
by blindpilot
monkeypilot wrote:According to East Pendulum, metamaterials may have been used for J-20. (for info, the author is an airbus engineer living Honkong and China for many years now). On French

http://www.eastpendulum.com/les-meta-ma ... et-le-j-20


By far the best quote in the story, google translated -
"... To make a "categorical" comparison, regardless of context and history, is like asking which one between a cook and a gardener plays better golf, with a baseball bat in a pool. ..."

MHO anyway,
BP

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:10
by zerion
Long article on China's Air Force developments, best read at source.

The Chinese Air Force’s Great Leap Forward

Of the three world superpowers, two have operational squadrons of stealth fighters. One is the US. The other is not Russia, but China...

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... rward.aspx

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 01:29
by weasel1962
Sources tend to be conservative when quoting PLAAF/PLAN figures.

On number of flanker-variants. What is clearly verified was 38 Su-27SK, 40 Su-27UBKs, 76 Su-30MK, 24 Su-30MK2 and recently 24 Su-35. This totals 202 flanker imports. A further 95 J-11As were licensed produced Su-27s. Serials have been counted for J-15s up to 24.

What is generally less able to verify are J-11B/D and J-16 numbers. Current estimates are 1XX J-11B/Ds and 20-80 J-16s. Based on serials identified, there would be at least 400+ flanker variants on a conservative basis and as many as 500+ on the higher end of the estimates.

On J-10s, I noted 516 J-10 records in scramble of which 178 are re-registered which leaves at least 338. Scramble lists 25 J-10, 285 J-10A, 18 J-10AH, 1 J-10AQ, 9 J-10AY, 59 J-10B, 25 J-10C, 86 J-10S, 8 J-10SY. In many cases, not all serials have been spotted even though larger numbers have been spotted in certain brigades. Example 18 J-10AH spotted for the single PLAN J-10 regiment which in normal estab would operate 24 (which is 1 less than what FlightGlobal quoted).

With 12-13 units (including 170 Brigade) already spotted. 375+ as an estimate of J-10 numbers appears to be supportable.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 05:33
by gta4
That fleet is not a match to F-35.
One F-35 can solo at least 3-4 flankers / J-10s

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 07:00
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:That fleet is not a match to F-35.
One F-35 can solo at least 3-4 flankers / J-10s


Which is why a lot of people are advocating F-35s for the ROCAF, particularly the Bs.

But if every F-22 can take 5-6, why would the USAF need the F-35 then? In reality the equation is not so binary.

The USAF, USN or USMC can take out a lot of PLA aircraft, but they will need to find enough air bases within operational radius. At the same time, the PLA will be attempting to target those same bases with ballistic missiles and long ranged cruise missiles so precisely they don't have to tango with the F-22s and F-35s.

The current PLAAF fleet, if operated by the USAF leadership and USAF pilots, has a small probability of achieving that win today with its current resources. 10 years ago, they would have zero chance even with USAF leadership and USAF pilots. 10 years from now...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 10:28
by pfo
Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 13:17
by botsing
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858

Where does this wild speculation come from that the F-16 was shot down? And what about the even wilder claim that it was shot down by a Chinese J-20?

An F-16 goes missing on a training mission and suddenly it must be shot down by a stealth fighter? Come one man, F-16.net is not some RT/Sputnik conspiracy junk site.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 14:04
by ricnunes
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858


<sarcasm mode=ON>

I'm pretty sure that Taiwanese F-16 was downed by a UFO (from extraterrestrial origin).

And it was the same UFO that downed all the F-16's that crashed over US Territory.

<sarcasm mode=OFF>

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 16:18
by stevedapirate
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:That fleet is not a match to F-35.
One F-35 can solo at least 3-4 flankers / J-10s


Which is why a lot of people are advocating F-35s for the ROCAF, particularly the Bs.

But if every F-22 can take 5-6, why would the USAF need the F-35 then? In reality the equation is not so binary.


In reality, the F-35 is much better suited to destroying large numbers of aircraft than the F-22 is, because the best way to destroy opposing aircraft is to hit them when they're on the ground, parked close together, and can't shoot back.

Each AMRAAM carried kills one fighter each on a good day. Each 2000 lb JDAM carried internally on an F-35 has a blast radius of 400 yards...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 16:32
by weasel1962
politically incorrect to talk about it but when one sees what cbu can do...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 16:43
by SpudmanWP
CBUs are fine as long as the dud-rate and self-destruct are up to snuff.

Just don't make them the same color as the air-drop food-aid packages :doh:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 20:03
by hythelday
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858


It was actually shot down by an unlimited range nuclear powered cruise missile Big P showed in one of his recent revelations. Launched by Su-57 from Syria too, BTW.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 23:41
by viper12
hythelday wrote:
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858


It was actually shot down by an unlimited range nuclear powered cruise missile Big P showed in one of his recent revelations. Launched by Su-57 from Syria too, BTW.


You got it all wrong ; it was the Arachnids, sorry, the Bugs that launched an asteroid from Klendathu, and it obviously hit the F-16. Would you like to know more ? :twisted:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2018, 00:34
by popcorn
:shock: The Devil's Sea has claimed another victim.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2018, 02:05
by weasel1962
Some people are very imaginative. Even the military has to officially dismiss defection rumors.

https://chinapost.nownews.com/20080306-127505

have there been any F-16 defections ever?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2018, 10:23
by pfo
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858

F-15 crashed 80 km south of Okinawa. Too mach crashes in east Asia. Again J-20 stealth kill?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=212007

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2018, 14:04
by botsing
pfo wrote:
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858

F-15 crashed 80 km south of Okinawa. Too mach crashes in east Asia. Again J-20 stealth kill?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=212007

Why don't you quit with this conspiracy theory nonsense?

Either come up with a viable hypothesis or stop spreading FUD.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2018, 00:08
by viper12
botsing wrote:
pfo wrote:
pfo wrote:Taiwan F-16 missing. Downed by J-20 (stealth kill)?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211858

F-15 crashed 80 km south of Okinawa. Too mach crashes in east Asia. Again J-20 stealth kill?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=212007

Why don't you quit with this conspiracy theory nonsense?

Either come up with a viable hypothesis or stop spreading FUD.


He's obviously wrong. It was the Goa'ulds that did it !

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2018, 04:03
by madrat
80km south of Okinawa is closer to the Phillipines than communist China. Must have been that secret Filipino stealth project...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2018, 12:23
by hythelday
Those half a dozen planes rhat crashed in CONUS over the past couple of months must have been brought down by J-20 too. Or the Russian's extra super long range S-600.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 01:29
by popcorn
pfo wrote:Su-57 (operated from chinese or north korean base) is also possible.

Agree completely but only if piloted by Lizard people. :doh:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 06:54
by hornetfinn
pfo wrote:
hythelday wrote:Those half a dozen planes rhat crashed in CONUS over the past couple of months must have been brought down by J-20 too. Or the Russian's extra super long range S-600.

Su-57 (operated from chinese or north korean base) is also possible.


I'd say that Shenyang F-5 from North Korea is also possible... :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 07:13
by weasel1962
North Korean trained suicide geese disguised as canadian are suspects. How many aircraft have already been taken down by such is a matter of open record...

Example:


I heard geese was carefully excluded from the menu when Trump met Kim in Singapore.

Some claim it may have been the Iranians....

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/01/mo ... geese.html

FBI is ducking the issue with no comments when asked if they are investigating. Many analyst agree its a wild goose chase.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 11:53
by madrat
What a stork sense of reality.
You came up with that theory on a lark.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 02:42
by weasel1962
For anyone who wants to have an estimate of China's air power today.

http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals ... %20web.pdf

This should be read as a high estimate which roughly translate into

33 J-20s
631 Flanker variants (J-11, J-16, Su-27/30/35)
589 J-10s (includes 84 SY trainers)
302 J-8s (includes 80 recon)
535 J-7s (excl trainers but mostly in reserve)
219 JH-7s
270 H-6 (includes 24 tanker and 55 combat capable trainers)

Q5s should not be included as these have been retired after the publication. Roughly 1,253 3G, 302 2G BVR, 535 2G fighters, 489 bombers totally ~2,500 combat aircraft

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 04:32
by gta4
And do you still believe J-20 has an empty weight of only 15 ton?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 05:35
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:And do you still believe J-20 has an empty weight of only 15 ton?


Actually, I don't. However I posted the links to demonstrate that there are people who have done calculations who dont necessarily confirm assumptions about j-20 weights. Personally, I dont have enough info to confirm the actual weight. I do read a lot of assumptions like how the F-35 can fly 3000 nm unrefuelled.

To date, what is factual is there isnt an authoritative calculation of what the actual empty weight of the j-20 is.

I woud however standby what I said about "60k lb thrust at roughly F-15 weights". No one has yet suggested J-20 exceeds F-15 take off weight of 81k lbs,

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 07:11
by gta4
So you are equivalent to say "J-20 carries less fuel and payload than F-15 at take-off"

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 07:26
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:So you are equivalent to say "J-20 carries less fuel and payload than F-15 at take-off"


Just highlighting that the 60lb engine thrust at approx F-15 take off weight should not differ too far from F-15 flight performance. More of a general statement. Don't recall any concrete data on fuel carried or payload being mentioned. Didn't want to belabor the point that the F-15 has an empty weight of 20k tons.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&start=1695

The post was really in response to a comment that the J-20 is sluggish, still not sure how that comment can be supported.

btw, that reminds me. Still waiting for that research paper...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 14:24
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:So you are equivalent to say "J-20 carries less fuel and payload than F-15 at take-off"


Just highlighting that the 60lb engine thrust at approx F-15 take off weight should not differ too far from F-15 flight performance. More of a general statement. Don't recall any concrete data on fuel carried or payload being mentioned. Didn't want to belabor the point that the F-15 has an empty weight of 20k tons.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&start=1695



20tons = 44000lbs. Are you sure?

Guess what? Even F-15E with GE129 has an empty weight of 33800 lbs:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1990-1266
F15EGE129weight.jpg

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 14:32
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:So you are equivalent to say "J-20 carries less fuel and payload than F-15 at take-off"


Just highlighting that the 60lb engine thrust at approx F-15 take off weight should not differ too far from F-15 flight performance. More of a general statement. Don't recall any concrete data on fuel carried or payload being mentioned. Didn't want to belabor the point that the F-15 has an empty weight of 20k tons.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&start=1695

The post was really in response to a comment that the J-20 is sluggish, still not sure how that comment can be supported.

btw, that reminds me. Still waiting for that research paper...


I also have to remind you that, the same guy has done another estimation on F-35, and according to him, F-35 has far better aerodynamic performance than J-20, and is 10000lbs lighter than J-20: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason ... ownS03.pdf (their estimation of F-35)
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/J20Spr11.pdf (their estimation of J-20. You cited this.)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 15:28
by weasel1962
Righto. I got sidetracked by Boeing's 45000lb class on its tech specs. Checking back its 33.5k lbs empty w.o CFT and 37.5k lbs w CFT = agreed.

Nevertheless, nothing posted has changed the basic argument. The J-20 is fitted with twin AL31FM2 engines, each with 31.5k lb thrust or 63k lbs.

https://www.rt.com/news/364947-china-fi ... t-airshow/

If assuming an F-15C with twin 220 driving 47,540 lb thrust on a 33,500 lb empty weight derives a thrust weight ratio of 1.42. A J-20 with 63k lbs thrust on 44000 lb empty weight derives a thrust weight of 1.43. No one ever claimed an F-15C was sluggish.

Agree F-35 is an awesome plane. The F-35 may be better than a J-20 but it is not objective to ignore the J-20 has many features that enable it to similarly beat the F-15. Firstly, it has less drag with no external tanks. It has greater thrust in its engines. And like the F-15C, its A2A internal only so far. 6-8 missiles is not a heavy weapons load. So really, its a function of how much fuel it carries, even if the 44,000lb empty weight is validated, which it is not. If its lighter...

P.s. The F-35A has a 1.48 thrust-empty weight ratio but the F-35B has less. Doesn't mean anything right because the B carries less fuel to compensate for the diff.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 15:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
gta4 wrote:
20tons = 44000lbs. Are you sure?

Before you make that leap, check to see if they are using Metric or US tons in their statements. Being in the US myself, I always default "ton" to 2,000lb. If I mean to specify 1,000kg I will say Metric Ton or Tonne. An F-15E is close to 40,000lb empty with the CFTs, and an F-22 is close to 44,000lb empty. It is not unreasonable to assume a 20-ton or 20-tonne weight class for a large LO aircraft with internal weapons bays.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 17:20
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
gta4 wrote:
20tons = 44000lbs. Are you sure?

Before you make that leap, check to see if they are using Metric or US tons in their statements. Being in the US myself, I always default "ton" to 2,000lb. If I mean to specify 1,000kg I will say Metric Ton or Tonne. An F-15E is close to 40,000lb empty with the CFTs, and an F-22 is close to 44,000lb empty. It is not unreasonable to assume a 20-ton or 20-tonne weight class for a large LO aircraft with internal weapons bays.

The J-20 appears to be larger than the F-22 by pretty good amount. I would be very surprised if it had an empty weight less than 44,000lbs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 21:56
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:Righto. I got sidetracked by Boeing's 45000lb class on its tech specs. Checking back its 33.5k lbs empty w.o CFT and 37.5k lbs w CFT = agreed.

Nevertheless, nothing posted has changed the basic argument. The J-20 is fitted with twin AL31FM2 engines, each with 31.5k lb thrust or 63k lbs.

https://www.rt.com/news/364947-china-fi ... t-airshow/

If assuming an F-15C with twin 220 driving 47,540 lb thrust on a 33,500 lb empty weight derives a thrust weight ratio of 1.42. A J-20 with 63k lbs thrust on 44000 lb empty weight derives a thrust weight of 1.43. No one ever claimed an F-15C was sluggish.

Agree F-35 is an awesome plane. The F-35 may be better than a J-20 but it is not objective to ignore the J-20 has many features that enable it to similarly beat the F-15. Firstly, it has less drag with no external tanks. It has greater thrust in its engines. And like the F-15C, its A2A internal only so far. 6-8 missiles is not a heavy weapons load. So really, its a function of how much fuel it carries, even if the 44,000lb empty weight is validated, which it is not. If its lighter...

P.s. The F-35A has a 1.48 thrust-empty weight ratio but the F-35B has less. Doesn't mean anything right because the B carries less fuel to compensate for the diff.


Again, you are terribly wrong.
F15C weights only 28400 lbs empty. You can't tell 15C from 15E.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 23:23
by fbw
gta4 wrote:
Again, you are terribly wrong.
F15C weights only 28400 lbs empty. You can't tell 15C from 15E.


The F-15C has not had an empty weight below 30,000lbs in a long time. The OEW is nearly 32,000lbs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 02:55
by weasel1962
wrightwing wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
gta4 wrote:
20tons = 44000lbs. Are you sure?

Before you make that leap, check to see if they are using Metric or US tons in their statements. Being in the US myself, I always default "ton" to 2,000lb. If I mean to specify 1,000kg I will say Metric Ton or Tonne. An F-15E is close to 40,000lb empty with the CFTs, and an F-22 is close to 44,000lb empty. It is not unreasonable to assume a 20-ton or 20-tonne weight class for a large LO aircraft with internal weapons bays.

The J-20 appears to be larger than the F-22 by pretty good amount. I would be very surprised if it had an empty weight less than 44,000lbs.


It is longer but shorter wingspan and lower height with roughly equivalent wing area. Also a question of building materials.

http://www.china-arms.com/2016/01/china ... se-report/

Most sources appear to quote 19.4tons, which is ~300kg lighter than f-22. At that empty weight, its 1.48 thrust-empty weight ratio.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 13:09
by gta4
fbw wrote:
gta4 wrote:
Again, you are terribly wrong.
F15C weights only 28400 lbs empty. You can't tell 15C from 15E.


The F-15C has not had an empty weight below 30,000lbs in a long time. The OEW is nearly 32,000lbs.


28400 lbs is what I get from F-15C MSIP manual
f15 empty weight.png

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 13:28
by gta4
First, we should define what "operational empty weight" (OEW) includes. Does it inclue pilot? gun-ammo? launchers? pylons? missiles? CFTs?

Secondly, we should not apply different standard when comparing aircraft performances. From Sukhoi website a single seater flanker takes-off at 23430 kg with 5270 kg fuel, 2 R73s and 2 R27s, which gives it an OEM of nearly 17500 kg. However, the single seater flanker is always reported to have an empty weight of 16400 kg on some forums or websites. That is not fair. That is not OEM, but "recovery weight" by US standard.

A single seater super hornet has a recovery weight of 30564 lbs and an OEM of 31500 lbs. A way to verify this: from Super hornet block II flight manual, the total fliying weight of a super hornet with 5 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s and a FLIR pod and 60% internal fual is 43768 lbs (5 AIM-120s + 1 pod means 2 tripple launchers are used). A double seater super hornet has an OEM of 32000 lbs, which is always confused by some amateurs as the empty weight of single seater.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 13:30
by basher54321
Standard Aircraft Characteristics - the original document is dated Feb 1992

There is another one from the same year with CFTs with empty weight as 30,963 lbs but not seen anything later on that front.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 14:02
by fbw
gta4 wrote:First, we should define what "operational empty weight" (OEW) includes. Does it inclue pilot? gun-ammo? launchers? pylons? missiles? CFTs?

Secondly, we should not apply different standard when comparing aircraft performances. From Sukhoi website a single seater flanker takes-off at 23430 kg with 5270 kg fuel, 2 R73s and 2 R27s, which gives it an OEM of nearly 17500 kg. However, the single seater flanker is always reported to have an empty weight of 16400 kg on some forums or websites. That is not fair. That is not OEM, but "recovery weight" by US standard.

A single seater super hornet has a recovery weight of 30564 lbs and an OEM of 31500 lbs. A way to verify this: from Super hornet block II flight manual, the total fliying weight of a super hornet with 5 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s and a FLIR pod and 60% internal fual is 43768 lbs (5 AIM-120s + 1 pod means 2 tripple launchers are used). A double seater super hornet has an OEM of 32000 lbs, which is always confused by some amateurs as the empty weight of single seater.


Operating empty weight includes unrecoverable fuel, lubricant, aircrew, sometimes countermeasures. It does not include weapons, pods or any of those things above.

I don’t know when your F-15C manual is dated from, the 1985 flight manual states 29,000 OEW. That was pre-MSIP II. Aircraft gain weight over time. Boeing and the USAF had F-15 OEW as 31,700 and the F-15E with CFT as 37,500, which is interesting because the “C” is now near the original empty weight of the F-15E. The AESA adds weight as well. One indication of how much weight the f-15 has gained is that Boeing considered removing the the ballast in the nose as aircrafts C.G. had shifted over the years (actually this was flight tested many years ago, Pre-Boeing). Addition- post Boeing, and it was simulated, a war college paper (1991) weight ~29,000 lbs. author does not list MSIP II upgrades in avionics weight changes though.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a244044.pdf

Edit- interestingly AvWeek too lists the F-15C’s empty weight as 31,700 and the “E” without CFT as 33,070. In short, I don’t think we’re going to get a completely accurate updated weight, but it certainly does not weight the same as it did 27 odd years ago. Those numbers above look reasonably accurate, as i went back and referenced the 1993 F-15E flight manual and it listed OEW without CFT as 33,500 and with at 37,500.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 16:59
by gta4
When computing air combat performance, CFT should not be included, and you are using f15c's weight with CFT to compare against a 15e without CFT.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 17:05
by fbw
gta4 wrote:When computing air combat performance, CFT should not be included, and you are using f15c's weight with CFT to compare against a 15e without CFT.


Where are you getting that idea from? The F-15C weights I listed don’t include CFT, why would they? The F-15C’s empty weight (without CFT) was roughly 29,000lbs pre MSIP II and APG-63(v)3. That was 27 years ago. The USAF lists OEW as 31,700. That should give you a good idea how much weight the F-15C has gained over the years.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 17:47
by elvis1
I too have gained a bit of weight since 1992 :oops: . It is nice to know it also happens to jets!

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 20:29
by spazsinbad
elvis1 wrote:I too have gained a bit of weight since 1992 :oops: . It is nice to know it also happens to jets!

:devil: Thanks for that. :mrgreen: Elvis HAS NOT LEFT THE BUILDING! :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 23:06
by gta4
Just paste a reliable source of 31700 lbs.

I have only seen 30700 lbs, not 31700 lbs.

Fred Clifton (f15 16 fulcrum pilot ) lists F15C to have only gained 1500 lbs compared to F15A in a recent interview.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 00:24
by fbw
gta4 wrote:Just paste a reliable source of 31700 lbs.

I have only seen 30700 lbs, not 31700 lbs.

Fred Clifton (f15 16 fulcrum pilot ) lists F15C to have only gained 1500 lbs compared to F15A in a recent interview.


Official enough for you? ( if that’s not good enough I have two more) That’s OEW which is generally 600-800+lbs over empty weight (probably on the high side for a twin engine aircraft)
http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/ ... -15-eagle/

Exactly, the latest F-15C have added at least 1500lbs of structural weight and equipment. You were stating 28,400lb empty weight. What I was showing you all along was that the OEW showed an “empty” weight over 30,000lbs.

That took four posts, when only one was needed. Obviously an aircraft that weighed 28,400 in 1992 and then added OBOGS, GPS, JTIDS, an AESA array and associated equipment isn’t going to weigh the same it did then.

And for reference, manufacturer’s empty weight is pretty irrelevant after the aircraft has been in service for years. The average weight growth is 5% and up, and there is considerable variation within a fleet.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 00:52
by gta4
Without knowing what is included in the 31700 lbs, it makes no difference with 30700 lbs.

I have plenty of official data showing a post msip F15C at 30700 lbs includes everything except usable fuel and missiles.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 00:55
by fbw
gta4 wrote:Without knowing what is included in the 31700 lbs, it makes no difference with 30700 lbs.

I have plenty of official data showing a post msip F15C at 30700 lbs includes everything except usable fuel and missiles.


Great, what did my OP say? “It’s been a long time since the F-15C weighed under 30,000lbs” . Then I gave you the definition for OEW (unusable fuel, engine lubricant, crew, (sometimes) chaff/flares, 20mm shells, etc). Does not include pylons, weapons, etc.

Get it?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 00:59
by gta4
Calculating aircraft performance is very sensitive to weight changes. You need to be cautious.

We know what a 30700 lbs F15C includes, but we don't know what a 31700 lbs F15C includes. What if it already includes launchers and missiles and gun ammo and pilot (like the F16Block52+ manual), and you count it twice in T/W ratio calculation? That is unfair.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 01:03
by fbw
gta4 wrote:Calculating aircraft performance is very sensitive to weight changes. You need to be cautious.

We know what a 30700 lbs F15C includes, but we don't know what a 31700 lbs F15C includes. What if it already includes launchers and missiles and gun ammo and pilot (like the F16Block52+ manual), and you count it twice in T/W ratio calculation? That is unfair.

It doesn’t. One, I have seen zero information post 1992 for an empty weight of 30,700 (or any empty weight other than OEW since then and won’t unless an updated flight manual becomes available). What you are listing probably refers to basic aircraft weight. You need a pilot yes? Countermeasures are always carried, as is 20mm (though not a full load). And if you think about it, the numbers add up 300lbs of 200mm, 180lb pilot, few hundred pounds of countermeasures, etc.

The number on the fact sheet is accurate, if you doubt it look up the fact sheet for the F-15E and compare it to the flight manual (pretty much spot on).

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 01:06
by gta4
Sorry man, there is no strict OEW deffination. It may vary with different aircrafts.

I have plenty of F16 flight manual showing OEM with missiles and launchers.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 01:09
by fbw
gta4 wrote:Sorry man, there is no strict OEW deffination. It may vary with different aircrafts.

I have plenty of F16 flight manual showing OEM with missiles and launchers.



Ok, refer to your first post. Do you still think the F-15C weighs under 30,000lbs empty/dry? If so, I can’t help you.

P.s. adding the wing pylons and C/L pylon add over 1,000 lbs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 01:31
by gta4
Energy,USAF Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual Vol.1 chapter 9

F15C post msip, 4 sparrows 4 aim9s 50%fuel, 40033lbs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 01:34
by gta4
fbw wrote:
gta4 wrote:Sorry man, there is no strict OEW deffination. It may vary with different aircrafts.

I have plenty of F16 flight manual showing OEM with missiles and launchers.



Ok, refer to your first post. Do you still think the F-15C weighs under 30,000lbs empty/dry? If so, I can’t help you.

P.s. adding the wing pylons and C/L pylon add over 1,000 lbs.


it is over 30000lbs doesnt mean it exceeds 31000lbs without missiles and launchers.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 01:40
by gta4
So I have proven that a post msip F15C with 2 tripple launchers and pilot and everything else is 30550 lbs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:07
by fbw
gta4 wrote:So I have proven that a post msip F15C with 2 tripple launchers and pilot and everything else is 30550 lbs.


Is there something wrong with your head II should know about? You’ve so far proven yourself wrong several times over.
1. “The F-15C weighs 28,400lbs”- based on a flight manual what from 30 years ago? Now I listed a short incomplete list of updates since then. Do you think those were weight neutral?

2. You then state empty weight is 30,700lbs based on “multiple sources”...and posted none.

3. You tell me to give you proof, I do. FROM the USAF. I also tell you to cross reference that with the F-15E fact sheet and flight manual because, surprise! The USAF knows what their aircraft weigh and what OEW means.

4. You now come back with this? 30,550lbs? What happened to your “multiple source 30,700lbs?

Sorry to break it to you. You started out deep in the hole and have just switched out for a bigger shovel. Enough.

I mean if you want to sound more authoritative you can always throw “pedal turn” in there in another of your posts. It would complete the irony since I was the one who explained to you what that meant.
Back to my original statement “The F-15C has not weighed under 30,000lbs empty for a long time”. Nothing else needed to be said. It is correct, stop wasting time and room.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:34
by weasel1962
fbw, i see you got the same treatment from gta4 as i did. In my case, he asked for research papers which I did and guess what, he stil insists he is right without posting even a link in his case.

My suggestion is dont bother arguing with him. Your facts are already noted.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:39
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:fbw, i see you got the same treatment from gta4 as i did. In my case, he asked for research papers which I did and guess what, he stil insists he is right without posting even a link in his case.

My suggestion is dont bother arguing with him. Your facts are already noted.


Your have no idea what research paper is. It needs peer review.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:41
by gta4
fbw wrote:
gta4 wrote:So I have proven that a post msip F15C with 2 tripple launchers and pilot and everything else is 30550 lbs.


Is there something wrong with your head II should know about? You’ve so far proven yourself wrong several times over.
1. “The F-15C weighs 28,400lbs”- based on a flight manual what from 30 years ago? Now I listed a short incomplete list of updates since then. Do you think those were weight neutral?

2. You then state empty weight is 30,700lbs based on “multiple sources”...and posted none.

3. You tell me to give you proof, I do. FROM the USAF. I also tell you to cross reference that with the F-15E fact sheet and flight manual because, surprise! The USAF knows what their aircraft weigh and what OEW means.

4. You now come back with this? 30,550lbs? What happened to your “multiple source 30,700lbs?

Sorry to break it to you. You started out deep in the hole and have just switched out for a bigger shovel. Enough.

I mean if you want to sound more authoritative you can always throw “pedal turn” in there in another of your posts. It would complete the irony since I was the one who explained to you what that meant.
Back to my original statement “The F-15C has not weighed under 30,000lbs empty for a long time”. Nothing else needed to be said. It is correct, stop wasting time and room.


30550 is very close to 30700, and I have given what 30550 includes, while you cannot give what 31700 includes.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:45
by gta4
If 31700 is without pilot, pylons and launchers, that contradicts the total flying weight given by USAF test report.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:52
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:fbw, i see you got the same treatment from gta4 as i did. In my case, he asked for research papers which I did and guess what, he stil insists he is right without posting even a link in his case.

My suggestion is dont bother arguing with him. Your facts are already noted.


Your have no idea what research paper is. It needs peer review.


Actually no, it does not. Nevertheless, how do you know it was not peer-reviewed? Expecting proof from you is an exercise in futility.

gta4 wrote:If 31700 is without pilot, pylons and launchers, that contradicts the total flying weight given by USAF test report.


Like fbw said, you have no idea with OEW means.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:53
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:fbw, i see you got the same treatment from gta4 as i did. In my case, he asked for research papers which I did and guess what, he stil insists he is right without posting even a link in his case.

My suggestion is dont bother arguing with him. Your facts are already noted.


Your have no idea what research paper is. It needs peer review.


Actually no, it does not. Nevertheless, how do you know it was not peer-reviewed? Expecting proof from you is an exercise in futility.


Does the estimation come with an error range? If no, it means nothing.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 03:05
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:Does the estimation come with an error range? If no, it means nothing.


Like I said, expecting proof from you is an exercise in futility. Just trying to deflect from the issue with more questions. Since when must a volumetric analysis throw up an error range? LxHxB must give an exact amount unless L,H or B have a range themselves, right? Simple math.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 03:33
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:Does the estimation come with an error range? If no, it means nothing.


Like I said, expecting proof from you is an exercise in futility. Just trying to deflect from the issue with more questions. Since when must a volumetric analysis throw up an error range? LxHxB must give an exact amount unless L,H or B have a range themselves, right? Simple math.


Then you need to give the distribution of the estimation.

I doubt you know the distribution function, though

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 03:35
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:fbw, i see you got the same treatment from gta4 as i did. In my case, he asked for research papers which I did and guess what, he stil insists he is right without posting even a link in his case.

My suggestion is dont bother arguing with him. Your facts are already noted.


Your have no idea what research paper is. It needs peer review.


Actually no, it does not. Nevertheless, how do you know it was not peer-reviewed? Expecting proof from you is an exercise in futility.

gta4 wrote:If 31700 is without pilot, pylons and launchers, that contradicts the total flying weight given by USAF test report.


Like fbw said, you have no idea with OEW means.


If this paper is reviewed carefully, a mistake will be pointed out immediately:

The structual weight of estimated J20 is even inferior than the much smaller F35, which is absurd.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 03:41
by gta4
Another proof of why 31700 lbs cannot be used to calculate t/w ratio directly:

If 31700 lbs is used to calculate T/W directly, F15C will have lower T/W than F35A, which contradicts a survey based on 31 usaf pilots (year: 2016)

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52503

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 04:06
by weasel1962
gta4 wrote:Another proof of why 31700 lbs cannot be used to calculate t/w ratio directly:

If 31700 lbs is used to calculate T/W directly, F15C will have lower T/W than F35A, which contradicts a survey based on 31 usaf pilots (year: 2016)


Welcome to the debate about 20 years late. The detractors of the F-35 have been highlighting that the TW of the F-35 is not as good as 3G fighters due to the heavy weight of the F-35 hence proponents of keeping F-22 in production. That's why the RAAF and whole carlo kopp saga of RAAF should not buy F-35 but F-22 instead.... But eventually the F-22 production was terminated with the counter-argument, that a simple TW measurement cannot be utilised due to the drag of external fuel tanks, munitions, even discounting stealth.

The F-15E has a clean performance that is probably better than the F-35. In combat conditions, the difference is not so noticeable at the combat radius the USAF intends to operate under. The J-20 has the advantage of twin engines like the F-15E with no drag caused by external carriage.

One biggie was that the Chinese had little access to carbon fibers to enable light weight construction but chinese espionage cannot be underestimated. Carbon fiber imports are one of the items on embargo since day 1. Yet T-800 commericla production started in China in limited quantities in 2012 and went big by 2016. J-20 production started serial production at end 2015, coincidence? Notwithstanding that T1000 is now what US is capable of, the older F-22s and F-35s are build, I think with T-800s. Eventually a 6Gen fighter would take advantage of that but the Chinese are not that far behind.

Just a few days ago, announcement on the use of T-800 for helo and just before that 50+% for CR929 construction.

And a few months back T1000 production in China
https://www.yicaiglobal.com/content/china’s-own-100-ton-t1000-carbon-fiber-production-line-goes-operation

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 04:11
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:
gta4 wrote:Another proof of why 31700 lbs cannot be used to calculate t/w ratio directly:

If 31700 lbs is used to calculate T/W directly, F15C will have lower T/W than F35A, which contradicts a survey based on 31 usaf pilots (year: 2016)


Welcome to the debate about 20 years late. The detractors of the F-35 have been highlighting that the TW of the F-35 is not as good as 3G fighters due to the heavy weight of the F-35 hence proponents of keeping F-22 in production. That's why the RAAF and whole carlo kopp saga of RAAF should not buy F-35 but F-22 instead.... But eventually the F-22 production was terminated with the counter-argument, that a simple TW measurement cannot be utilised due to the drag of external fuel tanks, munitions, even discounting stealth.

The F-15E has a clean performance that is probably better than the F-35. In combat conditions, the difference is not so noticeable at the combat radius the USAF intends to operate under. The J-20 has the advantage of twin engines like the F-15E with no drag caused by external carriage.

One biggie was that the Chinese had little access to carbon fibers to enable light weight construction but chinese espionage cannot be underestimated. Carbon fiber imports are one of the items on embargo since day 1. Yet T-800 commericla production started in China in limited quantities in 2012 and went big by 2016. Notwithstanding that T1000 is now what US is capable of, the older F-22s and F-35s are build, I think with T-800s. Eventually a 6Gen fighter would take advantage of that but the Chinese are not that far behind.

Just a few days ago, announcement on the use of T-800 for helo and just before that 50+% for CR929 construction.


I suggest you read carefully. F35 does not have the power like F15, but it doesnt mean it is underpowered compared to other fighter jets. In fact it can easily out accelerate a clean flanker, with 20% advantage margin.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53270

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 04:25
by gta4
Welcome to get back to the debate.

I seriously suspect a F35 can solo 2 or even more J20s close in.

In the horizontal, the F35 snaps around on a dime (J turn).

In the vertical, it loops extremely tight, and all pilots interviewed admitts F35 is on par with F15/16 in a climbing battle. (2016 report. F15/16 jettision their external stores)

It does not need to worry about energy because it recovers energy 20% faster than a CLEAN flanker.

What has the J20 demonstrated?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 02:40
by weasel1962
I haven't really followed carbon fiber production for sometime. Looks like T1200 is what has been achieved outside of China. China is planning to produce T1200 by 2020. Research is already started for T2000.

With ultra thin carbon (nano)fibers, planes will even be visually transparent in some cases. Interesting tech with all the development into lightweight or integrated airframe construction materials, not surprising that there is already talk of 6G fighters.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 12:55
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:Welcome to get back to the debate.

I seriously suspect a F35 can solo 2 or even more J20s close in.

In the horizontal, the F35 snaps around on a dime (J turn).

In the vertical, it loops extremely tight, and all pilots interviewed admitts F35 is on par with F15/16 in a climbing battle. (2016 report. F15/16 jettision their external stores)

It does not need to worry about energy because it recovers energy 20% faster than a CLEAN flanker.

What has the J20 demonstrated?


Which Flanker though? The SU-27, the SU-30 or the SU-35?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 16:13
by gta4
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:Welcome to get back to the debate.

I seriously suspect a F35 can solo 2 or even more J20s close in.

In the horizontal, the F35 snaps around on a dime (J turn).

In the vertical, it loops extremely tight, and all pilots interviewed admitts F35 is on par with F15/16 in a climbing battle. (2016 report. F15/16 jettision their external stores)

It does not need to worry about energy because it recovers energy 20% faster than a CLEAN flanker.

What has the J20 demonstrated?


Which Flanker though? The SU-27, the SU-30 or the SU-35?


20% better than Su27.

20+% better than Su30 because Su30 is heavier and still uses the same engine.

10% better than Su35.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 18:58
by gta4
A computer simulation of close range gun fight between aircraft A and B.

Aircraft A: has far better conventional turn capability than fulcrums and flankers (aircraft A can acheive almost 30 deg/sec SUSTAINED!)
Aircraft B: similar to F-35, it can perform J-turn. However its other performances are inferior to F-35. Its T/W is only 0.75.

Result: Aircraft B dominates the dogfight. Even we give some initial positional advantage to A for free, this advantage is quickly neutrlized in less than one turn.

FULL PDF:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=54146

@garrya Yes this maneuver can be countered by going vertical. However F-35 welcomes any jet to fight in the vertical. F-35 itself is a very tough player in the vertical.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 14:37
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:Welcome to get back to the debate.

I seriously suspect a F35 can solo 2 or even more J20s close in.

In the horizontal, the F35 snaps around on a dime (J turn).

In the vertical, it loops extremely tight, and all pilots interviewed admitts F35 is on par with F15/16 in a climbing battle. (2016 report. F15/16 jettision their external stores)

It does not need to worry about energy because it recovers energy 20% faster than a CLEAN flanker.

What has the J20 demonstrated?


Which Flanker though? The SU-27, the SU-30 or the SU-35?


20% better than Su27.

20+% better than Su30 because Su30 is heavier and still uses the same engine.

10% better than Su35.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510


Great info. Thanks! :)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 16:48
by swiss
Image

Image

I think this two Pictures shows, that the Chinese still have a way to go. Even for "simple" things like the glass design for the EOTS.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 20:28
by SpudmanWP
The J-20's "EOTS" can only see forward.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 04:01
by gta4
1) J-20 lacks rear hemisphere targeting.
2) J-20 lacks A-A missile that supports LOAL.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 09:55
by weasel1962
J-20 EOTS may be more than forward hemisphere only since there are at least 6 identified locations for the EO sensors.

https://plarealtalk.com/j-20-sensors-an ... 69e9071495

As to LOAL capability, there seems to be a mistaken assumption that the PLA will send J-20s to dogfight with any plane (or for that matter that the USAF will send the F-35 to dogfight any plane, even though it can do that).

I'm not sure what is the basis for the confidence of what China does not have but what is definite that they have are PL-10 missiles which seems to have superceded R-73s as the PLAAF primary WVR missile. What is known about the PL-10 in open source can be googled or baidu-ed, Since most of the information is unverifiable, I would be surprised if anyone outside the PLAAF could say what they have or don't have with any degree of certainty.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 11:27
by gta4
weasel1962 wrote:J-20 EOTS may be more than forward hemisphere only since there are at least 6 identified locations for the EO sensors.

https://plarealtalk.com/j-20-sensors-an ... 69e9071495

As to LOAL capability, there seems to be a mistaken assumption that the PLA will send J-20s to dogfight with any plane (or for that matter that the USAF will send the F-35 to dogfight any plane, even though it can do that).

I'm not sure what is the basis for the confidence of what China does not have but what is definite that they have are PL-10 missiles which seems to have superceded R-73s as the PLAAF primary WVR missile. What is known about the PL-10 in open source can be googled or baidu-ed, Since most of the information is unverifiable, I would be surprised if anyone outside the PLAAF could say what they have or don't have with any degree of certainty.


Correction: leaving space for EOTS installation does not mean it is already installed.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 16:14
by SpudmanWP
weasel1962 wrote:J-20 EOTS may be more than forward hemisphere only since there are at least 6 identified locations for the EO sensors.

This is no different than the pairing of EOTS and EODAS on the F-35. The F-35's EOTS is used for long ranged IRST and for to act as a LTP for designating and guiding laser guided munitions. The F-35's EOTS can see to the front, sides, below, and to the rear of the F-35. EODAS is only used for relatively short ranged (WVR) tracking of targets and is very limited in it's ability to ID a target. It cannot be used to guide a laser guided munition.

Image

The J-20's version of EOTS, on the other hand, cannot see below, extreme sides, bottom, or to the rear. If they added LTP functionality to it this means that it cannot designate for it's own bombs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 03:45
by gta4
Something embarassing after the RIAT dispaly:
After seeing these maneuvers:
F-35 turn and climb small.gif

Lots of Chinese J-20 fanboys are enraged. They sped up J-20 maneuver video by 80% intentionally to compete against F-35, hoping no one had seen the original video.

However, the original video was found, almost immediately.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 06:08
by popcorn
Fancy editing in lieu of fancy flying? LOL

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 12:06
by Dragon029
Some recent pictures showing how the J-20's EOTS is limited in FOV:

Image
Image

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 15:50
by element1loop
gta4 wrote:Lots of Chinese J-20 fanboys are enraged. They sped up J-20 maneuver video by 80% intentionally to compete against F-35, hoping no one had seen the original video. However, the original video was found, almost immediately.


LOL ... maybe dig up the J-31 Smokey 'n the Bandit video then do a little compare of the respective launch, initial climb, best turn, etc. Hard to explain away.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 15:17
by gta4

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 15:28
by ricnunes
I could be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if that J-20 "EOTS" is actually a "simple IRST" instead of something more comprehensive as we see in the F-35 (EOS/TGP+IRST).
The forward centered aspect of that thing could IMO indicate this.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 16:52
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:I could be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if that J-20 "EOTS" is actually a "simple IRST" instead of something more comprehensive as we see in the F-35 (EOS/TGP+IRST).
The forward centered aspect of that thing could IMO indicate this.


The F-35s IRST is mounted in a similar position. The J-20 also has the little windows for it's EOTS scattered about it's airframe as the F-35 does.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 17:32
by SpudmanWP
You are confusing EOTS with EODAS.

The EOTS in the F-35 is a single sensor in the nose and contains IRST/FLIR/LTP functions and can rotate in the full 360 to see anywhere in front of, to the side, and to the rear of the F-35 in the lower hemisphere (see pic for FOV). It has a very long range (> 50nm).

EODAS in the F-35 is comprised of 6 IIR sensors that allow for short range tracking of airborne objects, full 360 coverage, MLD/MAWS functions, BDA, etc.

The EOTS FOV:

Image


The six EODAS locations are:

Image

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 18:05
by sferrin
Didn't have the time to look up the acronyms. Thought they were saying the J-20 just had an IRST vs the F-35s full spherical coverage. The J-20 has an EODAS like the F-35. Re. the FOV of the IRST perhaps with the J-20 the intent is primarily air-to-air. :shrug:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 18:15
by SpudmanWP
I would agree that the J-20's IRST is primarily (if not entirely) for A2A functionality.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 02:06
by gta4
And I would agree that F35's spherical coverage is better suited for A2A. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 03:06
by Dragon029
The J-20 still has its own spherical IR sensor suite as well. Whether or not it operates more like the DAS or the MLD is uncertain, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like the former.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 06:39
by weasel1962

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 07:21
by gta4
How many.times do I nees to say this?
Those optical windows only prove that space are provided for installation, but nothing can prove that hardware is already installed and functional.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 13:01
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:How many.times do I nees to say this?
Those optical windows only prove that space are provided for installation, but nothing can prove that hardware is already installed and functional.


Are you saying you believe they put them there for show?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 14:31
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:How many.times do I nees to say this?
Those optical windows only prove that space are provided for installation, but nothing can prove that hardware is already installed and functional.


Are you saying you believe they put them there for show?

Not for permanant show, but could be empty for now.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 15:41
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:How many.times do I nees to say this?
Those optical windows only prove that space are provided for installation, but nothing can prove that hardware is already installed and functional.


Are you saying you believe they put them there for show?

Not for permanant show, but could be empty for now.


Could be but the intent is definitely to have a setup similar to the F-35. I certainly wouldn't discount them. China isn't Russia.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2018, 03:02
by elvis1
sferrin wrote: China isn't Russia.


My vote for "quote of the day"

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2018, 06:18
by gta4
sferrin wrote:[
Could be but the intent is definitely to have a setup similar to the F-35. I certainly wouldn't discount them. China isn't Russia.


Intention is not always realizable.

Similar shape does not equal to similar performance.

We have lots of examples from China.

(i.e. The Yilong 2 drone looks like MQ9 reaper, but with significantly lower performance.)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 11:16
by hornetfinn
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:[
Could be but the intent is definitely to have a setup similar to the F-35. I certainly wouldn't discount them. China isn't Russia.


Intention is not always realizable.

Similar shape does not equal to similar performance.

We have lots of examples from China.

(i.e. The Yilong 2 drone looks like MQ9 reaper, but with significantly lower performance.)


Definitely this. Even the best Chinese thermal imaging systems are far behind those developed and in use in USA. They simply lack the technology to manufacture required components. It's also not just the sensors themselves, but the overall infrastructure they must be connected to achieve real capability. They need very high-speed databuses to transmit the data to very capable signal processing and computing system. If the sensors are just simple missile launch detectors then they don't need nearly as much, but they also don't offer nearly the performance as EO DAS in F-35.

I also wonder what kind of sensor fusion system they can have developed as that's not easy to do and requires quite a lot of development work and powerful computing and networking system.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 01:21
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:I could be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if that J-20 "EOTS" is actually a "simple IRST" instead of something more comprehensive as we see in the F-35 (EOS/TGP+IRST).
The forward centered aspect of that thing could IMO indicate this.


The F-35s IRST is mounted in a similar position.


The point is that the F-35 "IRST" isn't only an IRST. Like Spudman said it's a FLIR/IRST "combo" which can see/look "backwards". Now looking at the pic shared by dragon the similar mount on the J-20 seems to be able to look forwards only (with limited sideways capability) hence why I believe that such mount on the J-20 is an IRST only.


sferrin wrote:The J-20 also has the little windows for it's EOTS scattered about it's airframe as the F-35 does.


Those IMO, I believe are missile launch detectors (MLD) and not DAS like the F-35. Perhaps those J-20 sensors could have a limited air-to-air capability against aircraft but certainly nothing "too fancy" like the air-to-ground and navigation capabilities of the F-35 DAS.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 12:54
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:[
Could be but the intent is definitely to have a setup similar to the F-35. I certainly wouldn't discount them. China isn't Russia.


Intention is not always realizable.

Similar shape does not equal to similar performance.

We have lots of examples from China.

(i.e. The Yilong 2 drone looks like MQ9 reaper, but with significantly lower performance.)


Sure. But China is pouring WAY more money into defense hardware than the US is and they're making rapid advances. Keep in mind, your iPhone ain't made in America. Neither are your monitors, cameras, etc. etc. etc. China has almost twice the number of supercomputers in the Top 500 as the US. Ten years ago the US had more than everybody else put together on that list. Assuming China can't do what the US is doing is a recipe for disaster.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 13:53
by element1loop
That's one of the benefits of having not built nor had to maintain a legacy of such a preponerous special-munitions force. More money for conventional forces. They have a structural advantage there.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 15:06
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:Keep in mind, your iPhone ain't made in America. Neither are your monitors, cameras, etc. etc. etc.


Well, neither is the iPhone made exclusively in China. Here:
https://www.lifewire.com/where-is-the-i ... de-1999503

Moreover development, design and operating systems (software) which requires actual "know-how" is actually made in the USA.
I believe that "know-how" is the key word here. Despite all China's recent technological advancements, China still falls short compared to the USA or even the western world in terms of producing "know-how". For example how many US researchers and engineers move to China to produce knowledge? Now compare vice-versa...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 17:13
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:Keep in mind, your iPhone ain't made in America. Neither are your monitors, cameras, etc. etc. etc.


Well, neither is the iPhone made exclusively in China. Here:
https://www.lifewire.com/where-is-the-i ... de-1999503

Moreover development, design and operating systems (software) which requires actual "know-how" is actually made in the USA.
I believe that "know-how" is the key word here. Despite all China's recent technological advancements, China still falls short compared to the USA or even the western world in terms of producing "know-how". For example how many US researchers and engineers move to China to produce knowledge? Now compare vice-versa...


The need for "know-how" doesn't end with design. All the design expertise in the world isn't worth much if you can't build it. There are Chinese-made chips in US weapons systems. If China decided to turn off the tap we'd be up $hit creek. Think about that.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 20:59
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:The need for "know-how" doesn't end with design. All the design expertise in the world isn't worth much if you can't build it. There are Chinese-made chips in US weapons systems. If China decided to turn off the tap we'd be up $hit creek. Think about that.


Well, don't forget that:
1- the US/west still have and will have manufacturing facilities. They don't produce in mass like in the past because of cost factors but design expertise is still and will continue to be based on the US/west.
2- it's much easier to transition from "know-how" to full manufacturing than vice versa. Resuming, China knows how to manufacture electronics in full scale but designing brand new electronics and develop controlling software (purely based on "know-how"") is a "different beast".

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 22:49
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:The need for "know-how" doesn't end with design. All the design expertise in the world isn't worth much if you can't build it. There are Chinese-made chips in US weapons systems. If China decided to turn off the tap we'd be up $hit creek. Think about that.


Well, don't forget that:
1- the US/west still have and will have manufacturing facilities. They don't produce in mass like in the past because of cost factors but design expertise is still and will continue to be based on the US/west.
2- it's much easier to transition from "know-how" to full manufacturing than vice versa. Resuming, China knows how to manufacture electronics in full scale but designing brand new electronics and develop controlling software (purely based on "know-how"") is a "different beast".


Why would you assume China isn't any good at software?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 02:49
by elvis1
China is run by a person trained as a Chemical Engineer--China is now destined to rule the World.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 09:49
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:[
Could be but the intent is definitely to have a setup similar to the F-35. I certainly wouldn't discount them. China isn't Russia.


Intention is not always realizable.

Similar shape does not equal to similar performance.

We have lots of examples from China.

(i.e. The Yilong 2 drone looks like MQ9 reaper, but with significantly lower performance.)


Sure. But China is pouring WAY more money into defense hardware than the US is and they're making rapid advances. Keep in mind, your iPhone ain't made in America. Neither are your monitors, cameras, etc. etc. etc. China has almost twice the number of supercomputers in the Top 500 as the US. Ten years ago the US had more than everybody else put together on that list. Assuming China can't do what the US is doing is a recipe for disaster.


Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.

Suppose we have two products, A and B, A incorporates much more high tech features than B, then making A is much more convincing than making B.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 12:18
by kimjongnumbaun
China can't even make a jet engine that has similar reliability compared to Western ones. This is technology the West has had since the 80s and 90s. While China is making strides, they are still behind and aren't going to be comparable to Western standards, especially for even more advanced meta-materials like RAM coating.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 13:02
by sferrin
kimjongnumbaun wrote:China can't even make a jet engine that has similar reliability compared to Western ones. This is technology the West has had since the 80s and 90s. While China is making strides, they are still behind and aren't going to be comparable to Western standards, especially for even more advanced meta-materials like RAM coating.


Jet engines are not electronics. South Korea and Japan don't build world class fighter engines either. I guess they suck at electronics too. :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 13:03
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 14:29
by lamoey
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


Just want to point out that there is a big difference between designing and manufacturing.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 15:29
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


Missiles that can turn 180 deg after launch, which China can't make.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 15:31
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


Submarine that can go as deep as 600 m, which China can't make.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 15:33
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


Glider that has a glide ratio of more than 50:1, which China can't make.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 15:34
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


i7 quadcore CPU chips, which China can't make.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 15:47
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


Ball pens that can sustain 6000 ft usage, which china can't make, and this is confirmed by the prime minister of china.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 15:48
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


GTA V, the technology that required to make a detailed and open world cannot be realized elsewhere.

The NPC traffic alone is amazing. It never gets stuck at tight corners and its pathfinding algorithm always works, which make some "made-in-china" open world game child's play by comparison.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 18:06
by sferrin
lamoey wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:Not making Iphone doesn't prove anything. Because US is making products that incorporate much more high tech features than IPhone.


Such as?


Just want to point out that there is a big difference between designing and manufacturing.


My point exactly. GTA's grasp of reality seems tenuous at best.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 03:13
by tphuang
First post on this forum as someone who has followed PLAAF for a while. I think there is quite a bit of understanding on J-20 and China as a whole.

To start off, I think it's important to note that SCMP or the various papers that write fluff pieces or or more critical articles on Chinese military projects are not good sources. So if you are offended that some people in China thinks J-20 is as good as F-22 or F-35, you shouldn't be. Amongst people that actually really matter or "insiders" per se, I doubt many of them think J-20, while an outstanding achievement for Chinese MIC, is as good as F-35. In fact, I would say that most of them can appreciate how good F-35 since they actually have to deal with countering it. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Chinese air force regard F-35 as their biggest threat. Even more than F-22, since F-35 is going to be everywhere.

Is J-20 at its current configuration 5th generation by Western standard? Probably not. But it's definitely a generation ahead of J-10/Su-27 series that it will be replacing. Here is a few things to consider when you simply look at youtube videos and some fanboy posted articles online.

It just entered into FTTC last year, which means they just started the task of really expanding its flight envelope, developing tactics for different missions and training with other aircraft. China has a very censured media. If you think they are letting you know how fast J-20 is designed to turn or will be capable of turning in a couple of years, you are out of your mind. It took years for J-10 to get officially declassified and only then did we see about how maneuverable it was compared to the aircraft it was replacing and even Su-27. Don't expect J-20 to be less maneverable than Su-27 even if maneuverability was not the primary focus in its design.

As for copying off F-22/F-35, it's not that simple. Even if they hacked all of the data and files, they simply can't replicate it. They don't have the engine, parts, production tooling, aerospace workers that America has. Sure, they can get enough data to know how to achieve lower signature. That saved them years of research and testing. But they still need to design it using parts that they do have and what their local industry is capable of producing. Nobody is going to sell them F-119 engine. Nobody is going to hand them all the production tooling for J-20. They will have to figure it out. And just as importantly, they have to train their workers the process of producing aircraft of higher workmanship and build quality. J-20 is clearly a generation ahead of J-10 in that regard. Maybe even more. Up to this point, all they've had are the old Soviet manufacturing lines, Su-27 assembly line and J-10 production line. And those Soviet production tooling they received for Su-27 license production are very low quality, Even back in the 90s when they first got it, they were surprised at how poor it was after seeing what Western countries had during the pre-embargo years. So when you look at J-20, it's a mix of a lot of things. And now they are in charging of not only producing more J-20s but also properly maintaining them over the years while not suffering degradation in stealth. All of these are things I'm sure they've learnt from F-22/F-35, but also have to figure out themselves.

For its radar and avionics, this is one area I think will surprise a lot of people. Think about it this, 30 years ago when J-7 was their main fighter, the radar was so bad that pilots would routinely pick up target fighters with their eyes before radar picked them up. 20 years ago was when they finally put an aircraft into service that used slotted array radar. 15 years ago was when their domestic radar was good enough to be picked on J-10 over Russian/Israeli designs. 5 years ago was when the first electronically scanned radar entered service with J-10B. And now, J-20's radar will already be a second generation AESA radar (J-10C/J-16 are first generation). If you are wondering how China has managed to get their production of T/R modules low enough to already be on second generation AESA radar. Their domestic electronics industry has certainly improved a lot. In addition, KJ-2000 project received a lot of help from Israelis as part of Phalcon purchase. They ended up not getting it due to Washington pressure, but they received something much more valuable. Israel showed them how to produce it on a larger scale. Report on this came out when KJ-2000 officially got introduced a few years ago. And you saw them producing AESA radar on 052C and 052D before the technology matured to the point that all their new fighter jets are now equipped with them. That's just shows how much they have progressed in the past 30 years. I personally think it would be wrong to assume they cannot build avionics systems on J-20 that they intend to. Maybe it will take a couple of more years and maybe the pilots won't even know how to use it, but it will be produced.

As for missiles, this is another area I don't think you should underestimate them. For the longest time, their short range AAM was the most advanced weapon that they had. They had full license production of Python-3 in the late 80s. The Israelis really showed them how to mass produce a modern SRAAM. And they've had years to refine that and finally put PL-10 (with IIR seeker, HOBS capability, lock-after-launch capability and TVC) into service in the recent years. Imo, there is no reason to think PL-10 is not at least a full generation ahead of Python-3 and R-73 after they've had the 2 of them for over 25 years. They might not have been tested in real battle, but there has been extensive testing before entering service.

As for the size of the aircraft, they made a conscious decision a while back to focus on heavy fighter jet going forward. You are not going to see another mainline fighter jet that is single engined after J-10. One issue is that the domestic aeroengine is too unreliable right now that they simply can't put it on a single engined aircraft. The more important reason is that they need something with greater space/power generation to install more powerful radar/avionics and greater payload/range/internal storage to be able to operate scenarios where it might have to operate alone. Also, having two engines helps compensate for the lower T/W ratio of the engine that are available to them.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 04:11
by popcorn
tphuang, nice first post..welcome...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 10:27
by gta4
And they've had years to refine that and finally put PL-10 (with IIR seeker, HOBS capability, lock-after-launch capability and TVC)


Even PLAAF official has not claimed these features.
It looks lisk IRIS-T does not mean it has the same performance as IRIS-T.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 17:19
by SpudmanWP
Is J-20 at its current configuration 5th generation by Western standard?


IMHO, yes.

They are obviously making every effort in the areas of signature management (RAM, protrusions, alignment, saw-tooth edges, internal bays, etc), internal sensors (IRST/FLIR), MAWS, AESA, digital cockpit, etc that "should" result in a fighter that everyone can agree upon meets the vague spec of being "5th gen".

What they lack is experience which is what makes the J-20 both a surprise when it was revealed and an unknown quantity as to it's capabilities.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 18:10
by mixelflick
But...... the engine(s).

Are the current motors capable of super-cruising? I would think not, but maybe you know more. I do agree with all of your other points with respect to classifying it as a 5th gen bird...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 18:30
by SpudmanWP
SC is not a 5th Gen "requirement", just icing on the cake.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 18:37
by element1loop
J20 is definitely aiming at much lower RCS than anything they've built so far. I mostly doubt its engines (of course) and its empty weight (which I doubt is impressive), and maybe stealth qualities in other bands. But these are not necessarily impediments to how they wish to employ them to be effective. I think it will be effective, a challenge which will push the LM jets to evolve faster, plus necessitate a large buy of F-35s to hedge the lack of F-22A to deal with them, if China can mass produce them. That said, there are many existing and achievably prospective ways to reliably defeat it. What matters is the systems behind a jet. The F-35s greatest advantages won't even be part of a singular F-35. And that will probably be the J20s biggest weakness.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 19:47
by citanon
It seems to me the best way to defend against a stealthy fighter is probably a bunch of other stealthy fighters working together as a stealthy IADS in the sky backed by something with a VHF radar like the E-2D advanced Hawkeye.

However, even if we assume 4 ships of F35s with proper backup will win 100% of the time against J20s, the dilemma for the US is: if China sends up two pairs of J20s in two different directions to spot or attack high value targets, how many assets does the defense need to picket them? Possibly much greater than 1:1.

At what point does that asymmetric expenditure of resources start to really draw away your resources for offensive operations and is that an effective strategy to sustain an AA/AD bubble? How do you counter it?

Seems like the trump card in that situation would actually be the B-21.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 19:52
by swiss
tphuang wrote:And now, J-20's radar will already be a second generation AESA radar (J-10C/J-16 are first generation).


Is it really confirmed, that the J-16 has a combat ready AESA Radar?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 23:15
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:The need for "know-how" doesn't end with design. All the design expertise in the world isn't worth much if you can't build it. There are Chinese-made chips in US weapons systems. If China decided to turn off the tap we'd be up $hit creek. Think about that.


Well, don't forget that:
1- the US/west still have and will have manufacturing facilities. They don't produce in mass like in the past because of cost factors but design expertise is still and will continue to be based on the US/west.
2- it's much easier to transition from "know-how" to full manufacturing than vice versa. Resuming, China knows how to manufacture electronics in full scale but designing brand new electronics and develop controlling software (purely based on "know-how"") is a "different beast".


Why would you assume China isn't any good at software?


Name me one great software, which is so great that is used worldwide which was developed in China?
Specially and namely an operating system and if it's not asking too much, an operating system used worldwide developed in China?

Also GTA's point about GTA V and AI is found indeed. Developing an AI (namely a competent AI) is the hardest part in Software development. Developing a fine AI in an open world game such as GTA (pick any version since 3) is far harder than developing the AIs which we have on Drones/UAVs.
Another excellent example of a PC game with a great AI is while being quite old, SWAT 4 which it even models personality for the AIs.
China is yet to manage to develop such "high grade" AIs.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 00:36
by citanon
ricnunes wrote:
Name me one great software, which is so great that is used worldwide which was developed in China?
Specially and namely an operating system and if it's not asking too much, an operating system used worldwide developed in China?

Also GTA's point about GTA V and AI is found indeed. Developing an AI (namely a competent AI) is the hardest part in Software development. Developing a fine AI in an open world game such as GTA (pick any version since 3) is far harder than developing the AIs which we have on Drones/UAVs.
Another excellent example of a PC game with a great AI is while being quite old, SWAT 4 which it even models personality for the AIs.
China is yet to manage to develop such "high grade" AIs.


China is actually pretty far advanced in the AI field:


Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 02:54
by gta4
the dilemma for the US is: if China sends up two pairs of J20s in two different directions to spot or attack high value targets, how many assets does the defense need to picket them? Possibly much greater than 1:1.


1. Can J20 track (not only detect) our HVTs like B2?
2. Why not attack their HVTs since non of their HVTs is VLO and their escort are mostly low performance Gen. 4 (compared to Gen. 5)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 03:04
by tphuang
element1loop wrote:J20 is definitely aiming at much lower RCS than anything they've built so far. I mostly doubt its engines (of course) and its empty weight (which I doubt is impressive), and maybe stealth qualities in other bands. But these are not necessarily impediments to how they wish to employ them to be effective. I think it will be effective, a challenge which will push the LM jets to evolve faster, plus necessitate a large buy of F-35s to hedge the lack of F-22A to deal with them, if China can mass produce them. That said, there are many existing and achievably prospective ways to reliably defeat it. What matters is the systems behind a jet. The F-35s greatest advantages won't even be part of a singular F-35. And that will probably be the J20s biggest weakness.


I think that's a good point. It's not particular helpful to talk about whether one aircraft looks better than another on paper. Although, it's a lot of fun.

They've produced imo a pretty good design in J-20, probably better than what I expected them to be able to at this point. But they are really still at crawling stage. Having quantity matters. Having other complimentary pieces matter. Having the right tactic matters. Having the ability to produce and maintain them. All of this stuff USAF has had years of experience now. And USAF has had experience training F-22 against all different types of opposing aircraft and air defense system. J-20 will only be able to train against S-400 and flankers. Good lesson for India to not rely on Russian weapons.

LockMart can crank things up and produce hundreds of F-35 a year if needed. China doesn't have the industrial capability to do that. It doesn't have the ability to produce enough engines to do that. But it does have a generation of engineers that came about as part of J-10 project and also a lot of resources. And now it will have to learn how to mass produce J-20 at an acceptable quality and then maintaining them well. That's a big step forward for the workers involved. Again, the most stealthy design in the world isn't going to be very good if mass production can produce things up to the specs. At the same time, the best fighter jet in the world isn't going to be very helpful if it is only available 10% of the time. Russian fighter jets were notoriously bad in that aspect.

In a way the greatest strength for J-20 is its mystery. If China is smart, it would do all it could to hide its capabilities. You will never see it be exported. They will be very careful about who will get a closer look at it.

On a side note, the entire Russian su-57 project seems like a joke to me when I compare that to the effort China has put into J-20.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 03:10
by tphuang
swiss wrote:
tphuang wrote:And now, J-20's radar will already be a second generation AESA radar (J-10C/J-16 are first generation).


Is it really confirmed, that the J-16 has a combat ready AESA Radar?


this is J-10C's radar, you can judge for yourself if it's AESA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z57dDzrbb-g/V ... _radar.jpg

this is J-10B's radar, thought to be PESA. Notice the antennas
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dfc4wkM1_VY/ ... _radar.jpg

I don't have any photo of J-16 radar, but the shape of its nose + Chinese paper would indicate that it's using AESA radar. It's supposedly a little more advanced than the J-10C radar.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 03:29
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:China is yet to manage to develop such "high grade" AIs.


https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/5- ... e-learning

"According to the Times Higher Education, in the period between 2011 and 2015, China published over 41,000 papers on AI. That's almost twice as much as the US number."

As far as software in general, the US has been at it FAR longer than China. Taking a snapshot of conditions today, and thinking it will stay that way forever is a mistake. Look at the rate of change.

Top 500.jpg

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 04:30
by citanon
gta4 wrote:
the dilemma for the US is: if China sends up two pairs of J20s in two different directions to spot or attack high value targets, how many assets does the defense need to picket them? Possibly much greater than 1:1.


1. Can J20 track (not only detect) our HVTs like B2?
2. Why not attack their HVTs since non of their HVTs is VLO and their escort are mostly low performance Gen. 4 (compared to Gen. 5)


I don't think J20 is meant to go after the the hard to find targets likes the B2. I think it's meant to hold our awacs, tankers, surface combatants and, post CBGs at risk, and none of those are VLO.

If the J20 has the range to create a contested airapace thats dangerous for our non vlo assets, then that provides them a way to limit the reach of our fifth gen fighters without directly confronting them. Then their land based IADS are also safer and can provide protection to their land based assets.

I think the b21 is one asset that has the range to break through the stalemate and attack or find their high value targets directly.

Another interesting option might be a stealthy tanker to give the f35 longer legs in conjunction with an engine upgrade.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 06:09
by element1loop
tphuang wrote:In a way the greatest strength for J-20 is its mystery. If China is smart, it would do all it could to hide its capabilities. You will never see it be exported. They will be very careful about who will get a closer look at it.


Yes, I have my doubts about Russia getting access to either of the Chinese LO prototypes. People forget that Russia only sold its defence tech family jewels to all buyers because it was flat broke and was desperately trying to preserve a viable defence sector by selling all it could, and rebuild some useful relationships.

China is not in that position, and now has strong incentives to protect its technology from every other state, including Russia.

BTW, welcome to the forum, roughly where are you situated?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:30
by swiss
tphuang wrote:this is J-10C's radar, you can judge for yourself if it's AESA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z57dDzrbb-g/V ... _radar.jpg

this is J-10B's radar, thought to be PESA. Notice the antennas
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dfc4wkM1_VY/ ... _radar.jpg

I don't have any photo of J-16 radar, but the shape of its nose + Chinese paper would indicate that it's using AESA radar. It's supposedly a little more advanced than the J-10C radar.


Thanks for the Pictures tphuang.

Yes could be a AESA. And if, is it a Prototype, or ready for a combat mission? I think its really difficult to say, how advanced the Chinese are in AESA tech.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 18:50
by ricnunes
citanon wrote:
China is actually pretty far advanced in the AI field:




While your point is indeed interesting, what you posted is face recognition technology which obviously uses AI but otherwise has been around us for a considerably amount of time by now.
What the Chinese did was to implement a well known technology (face recognition) in a massive scale using a massive number of street and building cams.



sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:China is yet to manage to develop such "high grade" AIs.


https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/5- ... e-learning

"According to the Times Higher Education, in the period between 2011 and 2015, China published over 41,000 papers on AI. That's almost twice as much as the US number."

As far as software in general, the US has been at it FAR longer than China. Taking a snapshot of conditions today, and thinking it will stay that way forever is a mistake. Look at the rate of change.



Thanks for the link sferrin.
However I must say that publishing papers is not the same thing as designing and building "tangible" systems. Actually and according to the link that you posted/shared:

"On top of that, the US ranks as the top country with the most AI companies. With over 1000 companies and US$10 billion in venture capital, the US is likely to become an AI superpower. Then there's companies like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Not only do they publish a significant amount of papers, but they also invest heavily in AI."

So the US is still by far the leading country when it comes to AI.

Obviously I share your "concern" that things don't stay the same forever or thinking that they will is indeed a mistake.

I agree that the China is probably growing faster than the US/West right now. However and on the other hand we don't know if China will be able to keep up this same growing level in the future or if the US/West won't grow faster compared to today.
No-one can guess the future, that's the only certainty. However looking at the US (or even the British empire before it) I believe that what makes it a (sustainable) top superpower is the fact that it's multicultural where people, namely the "best brains" from all over the world converge to it in order to develop studies and research which IMO makes the US what it is now.
When China starts doing this then I believe that they could indeed be the "next top superpower". But honestly I'm not seeing this happening right now (certainly not at the same levels as the US/West).

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 21:00
by zhangmdev
AI is a blanket term grouping a number of vastly different techs, from translating foreign language to driverless cars. The idea of neural network was proposed decades ago, but only is all in rage recently because advance of computering power. It is not some secret jealously guarded by the rivaling states. There is awful a lot research papers published every year using machine learning to solve loads of problems. Baidu can hire some AI guru from Mircosoft or Google, raise some money, setup a computer farm, showcase some cool demo, instantly it is the world leader in the race of AI. It is not like manufacturing some aircraft or building a submarine.

A computer can defeat human in Go is not exactly useful. IBM Watson is cool, but do you trust it doing the job of a doctor? Like deciding what cancer treatment a patient needs? AI promises to automate a huge variety of the jobs, from truck-drivers to doctors. If that actually happens, its impact on the society is remain to be seen. But a large swath of the working population out of job is not something exactly promising and bright.

AI is a buzz word media uses to promise a hopeful and bright future, like the high temperature super conducting material in the 1980s, and human genome in the 1990s. Big money chases the next big thing. Whether the bright future will be realized is uncertain. The fusion power is always decades in the future. Virtual reality. Quantum computing and quantum communication. All those things states and corporations are investing heavily into. Which one will be the next big thing tipping the balance of world power, forging the next empire? That is anyone's guess.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 02:04
by gta4
Publishing papers does not mean much. How are they cited?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 02:54
by tphuang
element1loop wrote:
tphuang wrote:In a way the greatest strength for J-20 is its mystery. If China is smart, it would do all it could to hide its capabilities. You will never see it be exported. They will be very careful about who will get a closer look at it.


Yes, I have my doubts about Russia getting access to either of the Chinese LO prototypes. People forget that Russia only sold its defence tech family jewels to all buyers because it was flat broke and was desperately trying to preserve a viable defence sector by selling all it could, and rebuild some useful relationships.

China is not in that position, and now has strong incentives to protect its technology from every other state, including Russia.

BTW, welcome to the forum, roughly where are you situated?


I'm in the great city of New York =)

swiss wrote:
tphuang wrote:this is J-10C's radar, you can judge for yourself if it's AESA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z57dDzrbb-g/V ... _radar.jpg

this is J-10B's radar, thought to be PESA. Notice the antennas
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dfc4wkM1_VY/ ... _radar.jpg

I don't have any photo of J-16 radar, but the shape of its nose + Chinese paper would indicate that it's using AESA radar. It's supposedly a little more advanced than the J-10C radar.


Thanks for the Pictures tphuang.

Yes could be a AESA. And if, is it a Prototype, or ready for a combat mission? I think its really difficult to say, how advanced the Chinese are in AESA tech.


Initial J-10C entered service maybe 4 years ago and first few J-16 (think of it as Chinese F-15E) entered service maybe 3 years ago. It's generally believed that they are both using AESA radar and also supported by a new generation of avionics compared to what was previously on J-10/11s. They probably have close to 200 fighter jet using AESA radar by the end of this year. They are making pretty quick advances in this area. It's gotten mature enough that they are already planning to export AESA radar for the next batch of JF-17s to PAF.
http://www.ecns.cn/military/2018/03-28/297294.shtml
https://twitter.com/dafengcao/status/932646429918609408

The one they have for JF-17 has about 1000 T/R modules. A few years back, a Chinese article talking about Chinese AESA radar development said J-20's radar will have about 1850 T/R modules. Not sure how much power per T/R module. My guess is that technology wise will be somewhere between APG-77 and APG-81. So I think this is one area they are really far ahead of the Russians at this point.

If it's not for their trouble with engine development, they really don't even need the Russians anymore.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 17:37
by tphuang
element1loop wrote:
tphuang wrote:In a way the greatest strength for J-20 is its mystery. If China is smart, it would do all it could to hide its capabilities. You will never see it be exported. They will be very careful about who will get a closer look at it.


Yes, I have my doubts about Russia getting access to either of the Chinese LO prototypes. People forget that Russia only sold its defence tech family jewels to all buyers because it was flat broke and was desperately trying to preserve a viable defence sector by selling all it could, and rebuild some useful relationships.

China is not in that position, and now has strong incentives to protect its technology from every other state, including Russia.

BTW, welcome to the forum, roughly where are you situated?


Thank you, i'm at NYC =)

swiss wrote:
Thanks for the Pictures tphuang.

Yes could be a AESA. And if, is it a Prototype, or ready for a combat mission? I think its really difficult to say, how advanced the Chinese are in AESA tech.

I think the first couple of J-10C (China's block 50 F-16?) joined service 3 years ago and same with J-16 (China's F-15E?). Their radar+avionics are probably a generation ahead of the J-10/11 that they are replacing.

And here is my old friend Andre's comment on J-16 radar
https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/stat ... 7937597440

By the end of this year, they will probably have about 100 of each (maybe more J-10C) in service, so they do have quite a few jets with AESA radar. They've made enough progress here to be even exporting it on JF-17 to PAF.

http://www.ecns.cn/military/2018/03-28/297294.shtml
https://medium.com/@skunkworksLH/nriets ... 31ed69e94c

The ecns article is mostly a fluff piece. Since China doesn't export its best military stuff, my point is they see first generation AESA radar to not be anything special at this point. KLJ-7A is said to have 1000 T/R modules.

An article from a few years ago said J-20's radar is supposedly going to have around 1850 T/R modules. I'm not sure if that is the case, but I would not be surprised due to its size. Not sure how much power per module, but their intention is to use the large size of J-20 to hold a more power radar and EW suite to counter a more technologically advanced adversary like F-35.

They are quite a bit ahead of Russians in this area by now, but they still do rely on Russians for engine. Which is a huge problem since Russian engines are at least one generation behind and have bad reliability.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 18:16
by tphuang
tphuang wrote:
swiss wrote:
tphuang wrote:And now, J-20's radar will already be a second generation AESA radar (J-10C/J-16 are first generation).


Is it really confirmed, that the J-16 has a combat ready AESA Radar?


this is J-10C's radar, you can judge for yourself if it's AESA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z57dDzrbb-g/V ... _radar.jpg

this is J-10B's radar, thought to be PESA. Notice the antennas
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dfc4wkM1_VY/ ... _radar.jpg

I don't have any photo of J-16 radar, but the shape of its nose + Chinese paper would indicate that it's using AESA radar. It's supposedly a little more advanced than the J-10C radar.

I think the first couple of J-10C (China's block 50 F-16?) joined service 3 years ago and same with J-16 (China's F-15E?). Their radar+avionics are probably a generation ahead of the J-10/11 that they are replacing.

And here is my old friend Andre's comment on J-16 radar
https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/stat ... 7937597440

By the end of this year, they will probably have about 100 of each (maybe more J-10C) in service, so they do have quite a few jets with AESA radar. They've made enough progress here to be even exporting it on JF-17 to PAF.

http://www.ecns.cn/military/2018/03-28/297294.shtml
https://medium.com/@skunkworksLH/nriets ... 31ed69e94c

The ecns article is mostly a fluff piece. Since China doesn't export its best military stuff, my point is they see first generation AESA radar to not be anything special at this point. KLJ-7A is said to have 1000 T/R modules.

An article from a few years ago said J-20's radar is supposedly going to have around 1850 T/R modules. I'm not sure if that is the case, but I would not be surprised due to its size. Not sure how much power per module, but their intention is to use the large size of J-20 to hold a more power radar and EW suite.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 18:18
by ricnunes
@zhangmdev,

I fully agree with you and I would even add the following to your excellent post:
- One of the main reason that makes AI so "popular" today is the miniaturization of components, the so-called "nano-technology" which obviously is the "engine" behind the advance of computering power.
IMO the modern "technological advance" is indeed nano-technology and not AI.

It's interesting that you mentioned "neural networks". I studied them when I attained my degree in the late 1990's and I must say that while the concept is interesting (basically an attempt to mimic the human brain) IMO it is one of those ideas that only looks good on paper (speaking of papers by the way, LoL) but in practical terms they are not that great specially when compared with more lets say, "conventional ways" of implementing AIs.
For example and continuing speaking of games, this case PC combat flight simulations, I remember when IL-2 Sturmovik came out that one of the main criticism of that game was precisely a very weak AI (which I fully subscribe) however when the developer was confronted with this, what the developer (A Russian guy) claimed in his game/sim defense was that its AI was the most advanced because it was implemented using neural networks. But in the end who cares about this when many if not most of the other sims had and have a far superior AI (which fights better against the player and other AIs) and weren't implemented using neural networks?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 12:53
by gta4
Facial recognition is not high end AI. It has been around for ages.
Casinos in Las Vegas have been using this technology to detect former cheaters on their black lists.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 19:16
by tphuang
to swiss, sorry I couldn't get the reply working for some reason.

Anyways, here is my long time friend Andres posting on J-16 (think of it has Chinese F-15E) and of what radar it uses.
https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/stat ... 7028834310

Both J-10C (think of block 50 F-16 with AESA radar) and J-16 are thought to be China's first AESA equipped fighters. They have been in service about 3 years and there probably will be 100 J-16 and maybe 125 J-10Cs by the end of this year. As usual, progress on these things are constrained by engine supply and reliability issues. J-10C's radar is thought to have around 1200 T/R modules and J-16 probably over 1500 T/R modules.

J-20's radar based on an article from a few years back (not sure if true) will have around 1850 T/R modules. Not sure about the power output per module, but definitely expected to be pretty powerful. That's kind of China's play here. Use a large airframe to hold powerful radar and EW suite. They are definitely ahead of Russia in this area at this point. The fact that they are willing to export AESA radar to PAF for JF-17 shows that they don't consider a first generation AESA radar to be anything too special at this point.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 22:13
by citanon
gta4 wrote:Facial recognition is not high end AI. It has been around for ages.
Casinos in Las Vegas have been using this technology to detect former cheaters on their black lists.


That's not the impressive part. The impressive part is that China has scaled this up to track millions of people simultaneously in large metropolises, and its being systematically pushed into every corner of life.

For example, consumers in China can now pay for things with just their face. The same network that track your face also tracks your gait, emotional state, estimate your physical characteristics like age and height, male female, and can help judge intent, all at the same time. Some of the systems are more accurate and have more function than US systems because they have free access to massive amounts of data with no privacy constraints.

China is much more enthusiastic about building large scale infrastructure and systems than we are here in the US. In the process they are learning things we are not. They are not ahead of our private sector, but they may be ahead of our defense sector.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 22:21
by swiss
tphuang wrote:to swiss, sorry I couldn't get the reply working for some reason.


No Problem.

Anyways, here is my long time friend Andres posting on J-16 (think of it has Chinese F-15E) and of what radar it uses.
https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/stat ... 7028834310

Both J-10C (think of block 50 F-16 with AESA radar) and J-16 are thought to be China's first AESA equipped fighters. They have been in service about 3 years and there probably will be 100 J-16 and maybe 125 J-10Cs by the end of this year. As usual, progress on these things are constrained by engine supply and reliability issues. J-10C's radar is thought to have around 1200 T/R modules and J-16 probably over 1500 T/R modules.

J-20's radar based on an article from a few years back (not sure if true) will have around 1850 T/R modules. Not sure about the power output per module, but definitely expected to be pretty powerful. That's kind of China's play here. Use a large airframe to hold powerful radar and EW suite. They are definitely ahead of Russia in this area at this point. The fact that they are willing to export AESA radar to PAF for JF-17 shows that they don't consider a first generation AESA radar to be anything too special at this point.


Thanks for the link. As i said, it could be they have already a 1 gen AESA. But im very careful with Informationen about Russia and China in therms of Military technology.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 00:49
by ricnunes
citanon wrote:That's not the impressive part. The impressive part is that China has scaled this up to track millions of people simultaneously in large metropolises, and its being systematically pushed into every corner of life.

For example, consumers in China can now pay for things with just their face. The same network that track your face also tracks your gait, emotional state, estimate your physical characteristics like age and height, male female, and can help judge intent, all at the same time. Some of the systems are more accurate and have more function than US systems because they have free access to massive amounts of data with no privacy constraints.


I believe you're missing the point here and the point is that China didn't develop anything new (using your examples). What China did was to take something that already existed (facial recognition for example) and implemented it in a massive scale.
Except for the massive size, what you mentioned is not in any way more advanced than what exists in the US/West or Japan.

This is basically what China did and as been doing with industry but now applied to some Information Technologies (ITs) fields.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 13:23
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
citanon wrote:That's not the impressive part. The impressive part is that China has scaled this up to track millions of people simultaneously in large metropolises, and its being systematically pushed into every corner of life.

For example, consumers in China can now pay for things with just their face. The same network that track your face also tracks your gait, emotional state, estimate your physical characteristics like age and height, male female, and can help judge intent, all at the same time. Some of the systems are more accurate and have more function than US systems because they have free access to massive amounts of data with no privacy constraints.


I believe you're missing the point here and the point is that China didn't develop anything new (using your examples). What China did was to take something that already existed (facial recognition for example) and implemented it in a massive scale.
Except for the massive size, what you mentioned is not in any way more advanced than what exists in the US/West or Japan.

This is basically what China did and as been doing with industry but now applied to some Information Technologies (ITs) fields.


I believe it's you who's missing the point. So what if China isn't creating the bleeding edge? If they're stealing your technology and producing it 5x what you are you're still f--ked. And they are FAR ahead in ballistic missile technology and hypersonics. Their conventional ballistic missile force is second to none (and second place ain't close). As pointed out (that you seem to have glossed over) they're far ahead in supercomputing and the gap is increasing at an increasing rate. They have far greater ship-building capacity, with at least FOUR dry docks of the capability of Newport News. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 14:13
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:I believe it's you who's missing the point. So what if China isn't creating the bleeding edge? If they're stealing your technology and producing it 5x what you are you're still f--ked.


If you can't develop anything new and rely on what others have developed or from stealing from others than you'll always lag behind, no matter how you put it.


sferrin wrote:And they are FAR ahead in ballistic missile technology and hypersonics. Their conventional ballistic missile force is second to none (and second place ain't close).


Care to share a source?
Better in hypersonics?? Where? As far as I know the only country that is somehow close to develop true hypersonic technology - and IMO true "hypersonic technology" is SCRAMJET - is the US and even then it's not that close yet to develop a fully functional technology of this sort.
If you're talking about "hypersonics" as in Rocket technology than let me say to you that even Canada, Norway and a bunch of other countries has this technology as well.
Heck the US has a rocket technology where the rocket stages can return back to earth autonomously (Falcon 9) - speaking of hypersonics and AI together, eh?
And how about China? Let's see: Old Soviet based technology including a manned spacecraft which is a copy of the Soviet-era Soyuz.

Better in ballistic missile technology, care to expand this?
I now you're talking about those Chinese Anti-Ship ballistic missiles but just because the US/West doesn't have them doesn't mean that they lag behind in such technology.
Did it occurred to you that the US/West prefers Cruise missile technology (in which they are far ahead of China) instead of ballistic missiles?
I would even speculate that perhaps one of the reasons why China is developing this Anti-Ship ballistic missile technology is because it lags behind in Cruise missile technology (but I could be wrong here)? And yes, I know that China also has cruise missiles as well but they are hardly a match to US/Western cruise missiles.

Speaking of US and Ballistic missiles, remember that one of the best Ballistic missiles ever made was Pershing 2 which the US retired by its own will (as part of Nuclear Weapon reduction treaties). So the US has this technology as well but it simply prefers to invest on other technologies.


sferrin wrote:As pointed out (that you seem to have glossed over) they're far ahead in supercomputing and the gap is increasing at an increasing rate.


Size isn't all, you know (as with everything in life) :wink:


sferrin wrote:They have far greater ship-building capacity, with at least FOUR dry docks of the capability of Newport News. That's just the tip of the iceberg.


According to your logic here then South Korea would/should have a better Navy than the US by now...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 14:51
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:I believe it's you who's missing the point. So what if China isn't creating the bleeding edge? If they're stealing your technology and producing it 5x what you are you're still f--ked.


If you can't develop anything new and rely on what others have developed or from stealing from others than you'll always lag behind, no matter how you put it.


Can't develop anything new? Really? You mean like their Type 055 cruiser, their conventional ballistic missile force, the J-20, their new class of carrier, ASATs, supersonic antiship missiles, mobile ICBMs, etc. etc. etc.?


ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:And they are FAR ahead in ballistic missile technology and hypersonics. Their conventional ballistic missile force is second to none (and second place ain't close).


Care to share a source?


The fact you're even trying to debate this point suggests you need to hit the books. See DF-15, DF-16, DF-17, DF-21, and DF-26. These are all conventionally armed ballistic missiles, most with terminal guidance. Then there's their nuclear armed DF-31 and DF-41.


ricnunes wrote:Better in hypersonics?? Where? As far as I know the only country that is somehow close to develop true hypersonic technology - and IMO true "hypersonic technology" is SCRAMJET - is the US and even then it's not that close yet to develop a fully functional technology of this sort.


Scramjets aren't the only hypersonics technology. There are also boost gliders.

ricnunes wrote:I now you're talking about those Chinese Anti-Ship ballistic missiles but just because the US/West doesn't have them doesn't mean that they lag behind in such technology.


No, I'm talking about their entire force. And yes, the fact that the US doesn't have them does mean they lag behind. Would you say that, "just because Russia doesn't have stealth aircraft doesn't mean they lag behind in such technology"?

ricnunes wrote:[Did it occurred to you that the US/West prefers Cruise missile technology (in which they are far ahead of China) instead of ballistic missiles?


Actually many countries, China included, have Tomahawk-equivalent missiles. The US however, does NOT have any equivalent to China and Russia's supersonic cruise missiles.

ricnunes wrote:Speaking of US and Ballistic missiles, remember that one of the best Ballistic missiles ever made was Pershing 2 which the US retired by its own will (as part of Nuclear Weapon reduction treaties). So the US has this technology as well but it simply prefers to invest on other technologies.


You don't seem to understand how the real world works. Just because you could do something once doesn't mean you can now. People change jobs, retire, and die over time, and frequently take the knowledge with them. As for the Pershing II, I'm guessing you didn't know that China has several equivalents, and one or two that are argueably better?

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:They have far greater ship-building capacity, with at least FOUR dry docks of the capability of Newport News. That's just the tip of the iceberg.


According to your logic here then South Korea would/should have a better Navy than the US by now...


South Korea isn't building carriers in them. China just launched their second carrier and are building their third complete with EM catapults and arresting gear, and are launching warships at a much greater rate than the US.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 16:33
by zhangmdev
US is half-heartedly fighting an endless war with a bunch of guys on sandals carrying AK-47 and RPG. Ballistic missiles, supersonic ASCMs, hypersonic booster gliders, ASATs are useless in this kind of war.

Science and technology has hardly progressed since the 1970s, when most things are known, it is expected someone with enough funding eventaully will have all the fancy equipments you have or once had. It is like China once guarded the secrets of silk and porcelain by threat of death, but the West eventually learned the secrets, and the fake ones were actually better than the real ones. Unless there is some kind of breakthrough, envolving things to a next stage, advantages will be lost, and US will have to face competitions on an equal footing.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 23:46
by citanon
I don't think the situation vis China is as dire as Sferrin says, but ricnunes is also missing the point.

Military capabilities are about systems. China is taking sophisticated technology and successfully implementing large scale systems that work well. These expertise transfer to the defense realm.

China is now also a world leader in quantum physics and materials research, has very significant capabilities in advanced manufacturing and is making rapid advances in sensors and electronics. Those all have significant military implications.

Ricnunes you also have some misconceptions about the AI field. There is not "cutting edge" AI technology per se. The fundamental technology behind AI, deep learning, hasn't changed all that much in 30 years. What's new is the ability to marry vast computing power with large datasets to build very deep neural nets, and then use them in clever applications with clever training methods. China has access to the same technology sets and talent pools as us in AI. This isn't the same sort of deep hard technology like jet engine manufacturing. The race is to develop applications, and they are going strong in all sectors.

Another thing China has going for it is scale and energy. For example, Mike Griffin and others have said recently that China has been doing hypersonic tests at a much faster rate than the US. Are they actually ahead in either glider or powered hypersonics? I doubt it. DF-21 typer maneuvering warheads were already on the Pershing 2. The US has a lot of black activities going back decades. From the confidence in the industry, especially LM, you get the sense that the US is pretty far along in both powered and unpowered hypersonics.

Also, although China has strung together some of the world's fastest supercomputers, the US is still ahead substantially in silicon IC fabrication. Our supercomputers tend to be more geared towards real applications, with better software support and actual utilization. Our systems tend to be more power efficient, and with ORNL's summit, we just retook the top spot on the Top500 list:

https://www.top500.org/lists/2018/06/

And these lists tend to overlook the massive specialized systems employed by industry.

Overall, I think we are still ahead, but we cannot be complacent for even a moment. China is a competitive monster, and they are hungry to get ahead.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 10:19
by zero-one
To me, competition drives innovation.
If you notice, When the Soviets fell, military innovation seemed to fall with it.
It did not stop, but priorities went from building the best possible, to building the cheapest possible.

After the Soviets fell
F-22 production was cut short, LCS is perfectly geared to take out speedboas with RPGs, Hi-MARS is basically a cheaper, smaller MLRS platform. the Virginia class, although very capable was not really aimed to improve upon the Sea-Wolf, rather its primary purpose was simply to match the Sea-Wolf in most areas with cheaper production costs. Anti-Ship missile development basically stopped after the Harpoon block 2.

but now, with the resurgence of competition, we see a resurgence in high end weapons development. LRSB, PCA, LRASM, Hypersonics, DI weapons and rail guns. even the Virginia class is getting some massive upgrades that can make her totally superior to the Sea-Wolf itself (correct me if I'm wrong on that)

Something tells me China has a lot to do with recent developments

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 14:04
by gta4
When estimating China's current level of technology, it's good to keep in mind that their performance is always super hyped by their fan base. When making citations, ignore internet forum threads, they always claim things that China's military official won't even claim.

Yilong 2 (the drone) is a good example.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 14:26
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:When estimating China's current level of technology, it's good to keep in mind that their performance is always super hyped by their fan base. When making citations, ignore internet forum threads, they always claim things that China's military official won't even claim.

Yilong 2 (the drone) is a good example.


"When it comes to China, don't listen to nobody 'bout nothin'", then? :roll:

I don't typically frequent Chinese forums. Most of my knowledge of Chinese systems comes from other sources.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 15:44
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:When estimating China's current level of technology, it's good to keep in mind that their performance is always super hyped by their fan base. When making citations, ignore internet forum threads, they always claim things that China's military official won't even claim.

Yilong 2 (the drone) is a good example.


"When it comes to China, don't listen to nobody 'bout nothin'", then? :roll:

I don't typically frequent Chinese forums. Most of my knowledge of Chinese systems comes from other sources.


I mean, only trust reliable sources, including: research papers that have gone through peer review and are published on academic journals (not blogs), conference proceedings, and test reports.

Unreliable sources are: articles or comments that have not passed peer review / not published on academic journals, especially by those who have made false claims before (i. e. Dr. Kopp who made false claims on the Flanker family).

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 15:51
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:When estimating China's current level of technology, it's good to keep in mind that their performance is always super hyped by their fan base. When making citations, ignore internet forum threads, they always claim things that China's military official won't even claim.

Yilong 2 (the drone) is a good example.


"When it comes to China, don't listen to nobody 'bout nothin'", then? :roll:

I don't typically frequent Chinese forums. Most of my knowledge of Chinese systems comes from other sources.


I mean, only trust reliable sources, including: research papers that have gone through peer review and are published on academic journals (not blogs), conference proceedings, and test reports.



Photos are good to, if they're from a reputable source. Not every photo that makes one uncomfortable is automatically photoshopped. For instance there are good photos out there of the 3rd Chinese carrier under construction as well as FOUR Type 055s fitting out.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 16:01
by gta4
sferrin wrote:

Photos are good to, if they're from a reputable source. Not every photo that makes one uncomfortable is automatically photoshopped. For instance there are good photos out there of the 3rd Chinese carrier under construction as well as FOUR Type 055s fitting out.


Similar appearance does not mean similar performance.

A photo of Chinese anti-air destroyer (Type 055) shows some VLS, but it does not mean it can engage as many sea-skimming supersonic targets as Aegis. China has not conducted any tests against super sonic anti-ship missile, so its capability against SM-6 missile (anti-ship mode) is questionable.

A photo of PL-15 shows similar configuration like the German IRIS-T missile, but it does not mean it has the LOAL capability. High off bore sight (HOBS) is not equivalent to LOAL.

A photo of Yilong 2 (the drone) shows similar shape like the Reaper, but its speed and ceiling and payload capability are significantly lower.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 16:43
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:

Photos are good to, if they're from a reputable source. Not every photo that makes one uncomfortable is automatically photoshopped. For instance there are good photos out there of the 3rd Chinese carrier under construction as well as FOUR Type 055s fitting out.


Similar appearance does not mean similar performance.

A photo of Chinese anti-air destroyer (Type 055) shows some VLS, but it does not mean it can engage as many sea-skimming supersonic targets as Aegis. China has not conducted any tests against super sonic anti-ship missile, so its capability against SM-6 missile (anti-ship mode) is questionable.


The Type 055 is likely much more capable. The cells are larger than even those on the Zumwalt. The radars are AESAs and the panels are larger than those on Aegis as well. It's also got both a 30mm CIWS as well as a RAM knockoff. As for testing, what you meant to say, was that as far as you know China hasn't conducted any tests against supersonic antiship missiles. I'd say, conservatively, you're approximately 100% incorrect there. China would conduct those types as a matter of course to determine the limits of the system. The US was doing that all the way back in the late 70s. You're telling me you think China can't do now what the US did almost half a century ago? Really?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 00:44
by ricnunes
citanon wrote:Ricnunes you also have some misconceptions about the AI field. There is not "cutting edge" AI technology per se. The fundamental technology behind AI, deep learning, hasn't changed all that much in 30 years. What's new is the ability to marry vast computing power with large datasets to build very deep neural nets, and then use them in clever applications with clever training methods. China has access to the same technology sets and talent pools as us in AI. This isn't the same sort of deep hard technology like jet engine manufacturing. The race is to develop applications, and they are going strong in all sectors.


With all due respect, it seems that you missed one or more of my previous posts.
In one of them I posted just what you did post on the quoted part above, only using different words. So the only misconception here that I see, is your interpretation of my posts (or some of them).

Using what you posted above, China isn't as strong as the US/West in software development which obviously affects AI.
The US still leads in miniaturized components and development of new hardware such as a newer and more powerful processors. All of this affects Information Technologies, including AI.
Of course this may chance in the future, but so far this hasn't happened.
Moreover, in order to develop groundbreaking and newer technologies, free sharing of information is usually the paramount key.
Free sharing of information is something that doesn't exist in China of at least sharing of information is at best limited there.
This, like it or not limits the development of newer and groundbreaking technologies, hence why China had been (and I believe it will continue to) to adapt stuff/technologies that others develop. This leaves me back to the point mentioned above -> Software development. In order to have good programmers you need people who are can think freely and are allowed to it and above all encouraged to do it so! This is not something that is allowed lightly in China. So once again, it's no surprise that the US/West leads in software development and IMO it will likely continue to do it so.

Anyway, my 2 cents here...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 00:48
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:The Type 055 is likely much more capable. The cells are larger than even those on the Zumwalt.


It seems to me that you have some sort of fixation with "size".
Again, bigger doesn't mean better. Not even close.

For example the Soviet cruise missiles of the Colds War era were HUGE, much, much bigger than the ones from the US/NATO or the same era. Does this mean that they were better? I don't think so...

sferrin wrote:You're telling me you think China can't do now what the US did almost half a century ago? Really?


I can't speak for gta, but I don't think he meant that.
However it seems to me that you think that technological evolution is some sort of a linear progression. Let me tell you that it is not. China may be growing "faster" today if we look at it in for example some Excel spreadsheet but it doesn't mean that this growth curve is sustainable in the future and also in the future that the growth curve of US/West will keep a steady "low rate".
Like gta correctly said, competition drives development. Learning, knowledge or free sharing of ideas are on the US/West side, so the US/West have all the potentialities of increasing exponentially their "technological evolution curve"! Can China do the same? I doubt it. I would bet that China "technological evolution curve" is already at their max/top.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 02:03
by gta4
The Type 055 is likely much more capable. The cells are larger than even those on the Zumwalt.

If bigger size means better performance, the Kirov cruiser from 1960s is far more capable than type 055.
As for testing, what you meant to say, was that as far as you know China hasn't conducted any tests against supersonic antiship missiles. I'd say, conservatively, you're approximately 100% incorrect there. China would conduct those types as a matter of course to determine the limits of the system. The US was doing that all the way back in the late 70s. You're telling me you think China can't do now what the US did almost half a century ago? Really?

Even Chinese official has not claimed this.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 02:05
by gta4
So far, no reliable source can prove that type 055 can intercept SM-6 missile (anti-ship mode)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 02:16
by gta4
Their are official sources proving that MK41 VLS supports simultaneous multiple missile launch, and I have Chinese official files claiming there is an interval of more than 1 second between each launch for Chinese VLS (I will upload it later)

See? Bigger does not mean better.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 04:58
by castlebravo
gta4 wrote:Their are official sources proving that MK41 VLS supports simultaneous multiple missile launch, and I have Chinese official files claiming there is an interval of more than 1 second between each launch for Chinese VLS (I will upload it later)

See? Bigger does not mean better.


The figure I've heard for Mk41 VLS is 2 seconds between launches, but With a Burke having two VLS systems, it should be able to shoot one every second. If you are trying to figure out how fast a Burke can engage AShCMs as they come over the horizon with SARH SAMs like the SM-2 and ESSM (Blk1), the ability of the three AN/SPG-62 Fire Control RADARs to illuminate targets may be a bigger bottleneck than how fast the ship can launch missiles.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 05:11
by popcorn
ESSM Blk2 has an active seeker so that should help.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 06:18
by gta4
castlebravo wrote:
gta4 wrote:Their are official sources proving that MK41 VLS supports simultaneous multiple missile launch, and I have Chinese official files claiming there is an interval of more than 1 second between each launch for Chinese VLS (I will upload it later)

See? Bigger does not mean better.


The figure I've heard for Mk41 VLS is 2 seconds between launches, but With a Burke having two VLS systems, it should be able to shoot one every second. If you are trying to figure out how fast a Burke can engage AShCMs as they come over the horizon with SARH SAMs like the SM-2 and ESSM (Blk1), the ability of the three AN/SPG-62 Fire Control RADARs to illuminate targets may be a bigger bottleneck than how fast the ship can launch missiles.


I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise. Given there are only 2 MK41 VLSs, at least 2 missiles were launched simultaneously from one VLS.

Simultaneous multiple missile launch is also confirmed by official MK41 data sheet, if you google it.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 07:29
by skyward
MK41 module can only fire one missile at one time. However, MK41 module is make up of only 8 cell. Burke class ship will have many MK41 modules. Therefore, it will be able to fire missiles simultaneously.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 13:49
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:The Type 055 is likely much more capable. The cells are larger than even those on the Zumwalt.


It seems to me that you have some sort of fixation with "size".
Again, bigger doesn't mean better. Not even close.


Jesus, I feel like I'm talking to a twelve year old. Bigger cells means you have the ability to deploy much more capable weapons. That's why the MK57s are bigger than the Mk41. That's why the USN was looking at bigger still cells. (Northrop Grumman's Modular Launch System for example.) You aren't going to stuff KEI capability in a MK41.

ricnunes wrote:[For example the Soviet cruise missiles of the Colds War era were HUGE, much, much bigger than the ones from the US/NATO or the same era. Does this mean that they were better? I don't think so...


You're comparing apples and oranges. A supersonic antiship missiles with a thousand or two thousand pound warhead is not the same as a subsonic land attack missile.

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:You're telling me you think China can't do now what the US did almost half a century ago? Really?


I can't speak for gta, but I don't think he meant that.
However it seems to me that you think that technological evolution is some sort of a linear progression. Let me tell you that it is not. China may be growing "faster" today if we look at it in for example some Excel spreadsheet but it doesn't mean that this growth curve is sustainable in the future and also in the future that the growth curve of US/West will keep a steady "low rate".


China is pouring more money, manpower, and effort into defense (where it matters. Most of our defense spending is on wages, pensions, and the VA.)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 13:53
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise.


Post it.

1-2 second interval is what you typically see in live Tomahawk launches. The Russian cruise missile launches shown were definitely faster by comparison.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 14:40
by tphuang
gta4 wrote:
As for testing, what you meant to say, was that as far as you know China hasn't conducted any tests against supersonic antiship missiles. I'd say, conservatively, you're approximately 100% incorrect there. China would conduct those types as a matter of course to determine the limits of the system. The US was doing that all the way back in the late 70s. You're telling me you think China can't do now what the US did almost half a century ago? Really?

Even Chinese official has not claimed this.


Is this a joke? Pretty much every Chinese naval air defense system on defense exhibitions show for export claim that they can shoot down supersonic missile. For example, here is the export version of HQ-10 (China's RAM)

http://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/2012 ... s-air.html

They have plenty of supersonic test drones that they've tested these things on.

And of course, the type 1130 CIWS on the new ships that they've put on all the new important ships can handle multiple supersonic missiles of up to mach 4.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 19:41
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:Jesus, I feel like I'm talking to a twelve year old.


You don't need to be rude! Was I ever rude to you by any chance?? :roll:


sferrin wrote:Bigger cells means you have the ability to deploy much more capable weapons. That's why the MK57s are bigger than the Mk41. That's why the USN was looking at bigger still cells. (Northrop Grumman's Modular Launch System for example.) You aren't going to stuff KEI capability in a MK41.


You could be theoretically right with "Bigger cells means you have the ability to deploy much more capable weapons" if you're comparing missile capabilities having the same technology.
However the point here is that US/West Missile technology is likely more advanced than Chinese (and Russian) so the fact that the Chinese are building bigger VLS is probably not to have more capable weapons (compared to US/Western weapons) but simply because their weapons/missiles needs to be bigger in order to have a competitive chance against US/Western weapons/missiles.


sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:[For example the Soviet cruise missiles of the Colds War era were HUGE, much, much bigger than the ones from the US/NATO or the same era. Does this mean that they were better? I don't think so...


You're comparing apples and oranges. A supersonic anti-ship missiles with a thousand or two thousand pound warhead is not the same as a subsonic land attack missile.


No, I'm not. And this is actually related with what I said in my previous paragraph of this post - During the Cold War, Soviet missile technology lagged behind the US/NATO counterpart specially in terms of miniaturization which by its turn affected seeker size which means that the Soviets didn't have the capability to develop relatively small long range cruise missiles such as the Harpoon, Exocet, etc... So what was the alternative for the Soviets? To develop small-aircraft sized anti-ship cruise missiles that could be launched from warships and heavy bombers and due to their very big (I would say HUGE) size their were built to be supersonic in order to have a better chance penetrating enemy air defenses.

It's not much different to what the Chinese are doing with all the examples that you gave, although I concede (can a 12 year kid concede? And I'm conceding much more than you...) that the technological lag/difference between China and US is probably closer than the Soviet Unit and US gap specially during the later stages of the Cold War.


sferrin wrote:China is pouring more money, manpower, and effort into defense (where it matters. Most of our defense spending is on wages, pensions, and the VA.)


Again, because China still lags behind. I'm believe (or I want to believe) that once China gets really close to the US that we'll see the US pouring even more money on defense (where "it matters").

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 22:51
by zhangmdev
There is an old Chinese saying can be translated as "what comes later stays on top". Basically it means new things are supposed to be better than old things, and will replace old things. The strength and weakness of old things is known, so the late comer has the advantage. China constantly seeks to outdo what the West has done, or is doing. Make it bigger, faster, carrying more missiles, and build them as quick as possible. "No expense is spared."

The media is littered with "China has done in 5 years what the West did in a century." "Not even the US has similar weapon system deployed." "China mades it more capable at a fraction of the cost." The wikipedia page of FAST (radio telescope) keeps a section, with a vivid image, showing how much it is superior to the Arecibo Observatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hund ... bservatory

The media and internet treats China like some kind of celebrity. Every image of shipyard of Dalian or Shanghai sends the fanbase chasing tails. Every quote from some supposed insider conveys a sense of jubilance or foreboding, depends on who you are talking to. But remarkably how little information is out there. People can argue for years about the capabilty of certain system, how advanced it is, or how much a gap is still there, but the jury is still out. The producer don't release specifications. The military don't publicize operational record. The day of reckoning, aka a shooting war in the west Pacific, obviously is not something looking forward to.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 23:55
by SpudmanWP
what comes later stays on top

That only applies when both sides of the equation are at equal tech levels.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 00:31
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
what comes later stays on top

That only applies when both sides of the equation are at equal tech levels.

It also wrongly presupposes that whoever is currently on top is complacent and does not build on his lead.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 00:41
by SpudmanWP
The West's lead in engine tech is just one example of how that Chinese proverb is wrong.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 02:05
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise.


Post it.

1-2 second interval is what you typically see in live Tomahawk launches. The Russian cruise missile launches shown were definitely faster by comparison.


It was 10 years ago, however, this capability is already confirmed officially, so no need to prove it again.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 02:08
by gta4
zhangmdev wrote:There is an old Chinese saying can be translated as "what comes later stays on top".

We have many counterexamples from china, like Yilong 2 the drone.
Comes later than the Reaper, and is significantly underperformed.

And think about J-31 vs F-35, Song Class Submarine vs Seawolf

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 02:22
by gta4
sferrin wrote:China is pouring more money, manpower, and effort into defense (where it matters. Most of our defense spending is on wages, pensions, and the VA.)

Are you kidding?
1) How come you have the illussion that China is pouring more money into defense than US?
2) When it comes to man power, quality-wise or quantity-wise? Keep in mind: US defense corps have top science / engineering talents in their candidate pool around the globe because they can provide competitive compensation even compared to finance and / or banking, while in china and other asia countries, top talents seldom go to defense companies due to very low salary.

U.S has made gliders with L/D greater than 50 in 1970s, while china can't make it until now.
China has the greatest quantity of mathmaticians, but never won the Feilds Medal.
No inventions that changed human history were made by China P.R..

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 08:34
by zero-one
There was a time (Early 2000's to around 2014) when China really looked like it was going to overtake the US.
they said that the Chinese GDP (nominal) would be bigger by 2012, then it was pushed to 2015, then they said its gona be 2018, 2023, now I see figures like 2030.

China also had the fastest super computer for a while, that was unitl IBM made Summit and regained that top spot.

In 2012 the largest companies by market capitalization list was littered with Chinese companies, jump to 2017 and they have been pushed down to below top 5 spots. The top 10 is littered with US companies.

Face it, China had a good run for a while, but that is slowly drawing to a close, India has better economic growth prospects now. And Trump, like him or not, knows business. The US is making a comeback and I don't think China can catch them anymore

P.S. I'm not American

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 10:32
by tphuang
SpudmanWP wrote:The West's lead in engine tech is just one example of how that Chinese proverb is wrong.

You picked the one area that China is the weakest in to try to prove your point. Bravo. Missiles is not that. They got a lot of help from Russians on this area and it's one of the few areas that Soviet Union was probably close to par with West on.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 12:29
by hornetfinn
China is pretty seriously lagging behind in some key technological areas:

- Jet engines like already mentioned many, many times

- Domestic IC industry. Meaning their CPUs, memory products, FPGAs, DSPs etc. Here they are still at least 2-3 generations behind and have rather limited product types. Chinese companies buy most of these components from Taiwanese, South Korean, Japanese and Western sources. Especially the more advanced ones.

- Sensor technology. This is tied to domestic IC industry which limits their abilities in making advanced sensors. They can't make truly modern thermal imaging cameras or AESA radar components because of this. Sure they have made some IIR and AESA radar systems, but those systems have been available for USA for about 20-25 years.

- Advanced materials. Sure they have made composite materials and other similar, but the kind of products that have been made in Western countries for 30 years or so. For example this: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201806/1 ... 1ff3a.html

It seems like they are pretty far behind in this field as T800 is not nearly the current state of the art.

Sure they have advanced a lot and keep on improving, but they also still have a lot to do to match most advanced Western systems. Things might well look slightly different in 30-40 years, but now there is rather big gap between China and USA when it comes to technology. But China is definitely getting stronger compared to most other countries, most notably Russia and India.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 13:35
by gta4
tphuang wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The West's lead in engine tech is just one example of how that Chinese proverb is wrong.

You picked the one area that China is the weakest in to try to prove your point. Bravo. Missiles is not that. They got a lot of help from Russians on this area and it's one of the few areas that Soviet Union was probably close to par with West on.


There are many areas, not just engine.
High gliding ratio glider is a very good example.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 22:22
by tphuang
hornetfinn wrote:China is pretty seriously lagging behind in some key technological areas:
- Sensor technology. This is tied to domestic IC industry which limits their abilities in making advanced sensors. They can't make truly modern thermal imaging cameras or AESA radar components because of this. Sure they have made some IIR and AESA radar systems, but those systems have been available for USA for about 20-25 years.


They are definitely behind. But saying they can't achieve anything because of their weak engine industry is a stretch. Engine is their weakest field. And their platforms will always be hampered due to subpar engine solutions. But in other areas, they are less behind due to combination of getting more help abroad or more investment. Missiles is one area they actually do pretty well in. So it's kind of laughable to say they haven't tested against supersonic missiles, when they publicly advertise that an export system like FL-3000N can counter multiple supersonic targets.

And you significantly underestimate how well they do in IIR and AESA radar systems. In military field, they received tremendous help 15 years ago in these areas from Israel. And that has really fast tracked their deployment on platforms. Both KJ-2000 and 052C operationalized larger AESA platform 12 years ago. And since then, they have advanced to the point where the Russians were visiting CIDEX exhibition several years ago to source different Chinese components (including T/R modules) for Russian systems. J-10C operationalized AESA radar before any European fighter jet was able to do so.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 02:33
by gta4
tphuang wrote:J-10C operationalized AESA radar before any European fighter jet was able to do so.


Rafale with AESA entered service (about mid 2013) earlier than J-10C, about 3 years earlier than J-10C.

Chinese weapons are always hyped by their fanbase. They can't distinguish "testing" from "operational". Whenever a photo of J-10C with radar under maintenance appears they will claim it's operational.

Worse still, U.S. media tend to cite Chinese internet forum threads instead of reliable sources such as research papers that passed peer review, test report, patents, etc.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 03:00
by tphuang
gta4 wrote:Rafale with AESA entered service (about mid 2010) earlier than J-10C, about 4 years earlier than J-10C.

Chinese weapons are always hyped by their fanbase. They can't distinguish "testing" from "operational". Whenever a photo of J-10C with radar under maintenance appears they will claim it's operational.

Worse still, U.S. media tend to cite Chinese internet forum threads instead of reliable sources such as research papers that passed peer review, test report, patents, etc.


Looks like I underestimated French progress on RBE2, but according to this article http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 8696/.html, the first productions only joined service with RBE2 in late 2012 and with other sensor upgrades in later 2013. Not that much earlier than J-10C.

Every nation's fanbase hype their weapons. That's normal. in terms of sourcing, US media does have a bad habit of picking up lower quality sources, but the people that really follow Chinese military like Andres, myself and several others have a lot of experience separating the higher quality and lower quality sources. And of course there is people like Ken Allen, who knows far more about the subject than these so called research papers. And there is a lot of really quality stuff out there that people dismiss because it's not in English. If you are stuck waiting on research paper to come out on something regarding China, it will be really outdated.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 13:22
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:China is pouring more money, manpower, and effort into defense (where it matters. Most of our defense spending is on wages, pensions, and the VA.)

Are you kidding?
1) How come you have the illussion that China is pouring more money into defense than US?


I gather reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

gta4 wrote:U.S has made gliders with L/D greater than 50 in 1970s, while china can't make it until now.


That would matter if it were the 70s. It isn't though, is it?


gta4 wrote:[China has the greatest quantity of mathmaticians, but never won the Feilds Medal.
No inventions that changed human history were made by China P.R..


You mean like gun powder and rockets? :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 13:25
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:Again, because China still lags behind. I'm believe (or I want to believe) that once China gets really close to the US that we'll see the US pouring even more money on defense (where "it matters").


More than likely what will happen is the Republicans will f--k up colossally, the Democrats will be back in power, and we'll see Obama-like (or worse) treatment of the military.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 14:24
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:There was a time (Early 2000's to around 2014) when China really looked like it was going to overtake the US.
they said that the Chinese GDP (nominal) would be bigger by 2012, then it was pushed to 2015, then they said its gona be 2018, 2023, now I see figures like 2030.


This kinda reminds me of Japan in the 1980's.
"Everyone" (note the quotes) at that time claimed that Japan would surpass the USA but then the 1990's came up...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 14:42
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Again, because China still lags behind. I'm believe (or I want to believe) that once China gets really close to the US that we'll see the US pouring even more money on defense (where "it matters").


More than likely what will happen is the Republicans will f--k up colossally, the Democrats will be back in power, and we'll see Obama-like (or worse) treatment of the military.


I guess you missed the excellent point made by zero-one which I quoted in my previous post.

And guess what? China is not growing (now) nearly as fast as it was during the past decade.


sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:[China has the greatest quantity of mathmaticians, but never won the Feilds Medal.
No inventions that changed human history were made by China P.R..


You mean like gun powder and rockets? :roll:


I believe that gta4 meant China's People Republic (a.k.a. Communist China) although the correct name would be People's Republic of China (PRC).
Powder and "rockets" were invented by Imperial China centuries ago. Whatever it's interesting that you mentioned China's invention of powder. What they did with it? They invented fireworks and self-propelled spears.
Once the west invented the power (quite later than China granted), the west invented mobile field artillery (real artillery guns), naval guns, rifles, handguns, etc...

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 15:47
by zhangmdev
In the 17th century, the Ming dynasty had to buy cannons and firearms from the West. Portuguese jesuit helped China making European bronze and cast iron cannons, called "red barbarian cannon". Ming gunsmiths quickly mastered the technology. (Sound familiar?) But too bad once the Manchu empire got hands on some of those siege weapons the Ming dynasty was quickly finished.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2018, 20:33
by tphuang
gta4 wrote:
tphuang wrote:J-10C operationalized AESA radar before any European fighter jet was able to do so.


Rafale with AESA entered service (about mid 2013) earlier than J-10C, about 3 years earlier than J-10C.

Chinese weapons are always hyped by their fanbase. They can't distinguish "testing" from "operational". Whenever a photo of J-10C with radar under maintenance appears they will claim it's operational.

Worse still, U.S. media tend to cite Chinese internet forum threads instead of reliable sources such as research papers that passed peer review, test report, patents, etc.

I underestimated French progress, but they still only entered service just a year before J-16 and J-10C first started entering service PLAAF. Doesn't change my point that this is one area they are doing better than people on this forum have given them credit for. And given how quickly they got to this point, it's folly to dismiss what they are putting on J-20 and the IIR seekers on their latest missiles. None of this is to say they are close to catching America. There are areas where they are really far behind like engine and then there are areas where they are not that far behind.

Every fanbase hype their own weapons. That seems to be pretty standard.

As for US media sourcing, I agree that they are not great on Chinese military. However, there is a lot of amaterus like Andres that have followed these things for a long time and do a decent job of dissecting good and bad sources. If you don't put the effort in, then you will assume everything is bad. And then there is the Ken Allen and Dennis Blasko of this world, who really have good assessment of how things area. If you are waiting for research paper to come, you will always have an outdated view.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 02:13
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:China is pouring more money, manpower, and effort into defense (where it matters. Most of our defense spending is on wages, pensions, and the VA.)

Are you kidding?
1) How come you have the illussion that China is pouring more money into defense than US?


I gather reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

gta4 wrote:U.S has made gliders with L/D greater than 50 in 1970s, while china can't make it until now.


That would matter if it were the 70s. It isn't though, is it?


gta4 wrote:[China has the greatest quantity of mathmaticians, but never won the Feilds Medal.
No inventions that changed human history were made by China P.R..


You mean like gun powder and rockets? :roll:


1) Show me the source please, such as research papers that passed peer review.

2) That matters until now. If your jet has low L/D, your jet suffers from low kinematic performance.

3) Gun powder and rocket were not invented by China.P.R. Read carefully, I mean P.R (after the republic was created in 1949)

4) And you are ignoring this:
gta4 wrote: When it comes to man power, quality-wise or quantity-wise? Keep in mind: US defense corps have top science / engineering talents in their candidate pool around the globe because they can provide competitive compensation even compared to finance and / or banking, while in china and other asia countries, top talents seldom go to defense companies due to very low salary.
China has the greatest quantity of mathmaticians, but never won the Feilds Medal.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 04:00
by gta4
A great part of China's GDP is made up of real-estate trading. That does not translate into high tech R&D does it?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 12:16
by hornetfinn
tphuang wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:China is pretty seriously lagging behind in some key technological areas:
- Sensor technology. This is tied to domestic IC industry which limits their abilities in making advanced sensors. They can't make truly modern thermal imaging cameras or AESA radar components because of this. Sure they have made some IIR and AESA radar systems, but those systems have been available for USA for about 20-25 years.


They are definitely behind. But saying they can't achieve anything because of their weak engine industry is a stretch. Engine is their weakest field. And their platforms will always be hampered due to subpar engine solutions. But in other areas, they are less behind due to combination of getting more help abroad or more investment. Missiles is one area they actually do pretty well in. So it's kind of laughable to say they haven't tested against supersonic missiles, when they publicly advertise that an export system like FL-3000N can counter multiple supersonic targets.

And you significantly underestimate how well they do in IIR and AESA radar systems. In military field, they received tremendous help 15 years ago in these areas from Israel. And that has really fast tracked their deployment on platforms. Both KJ-2000 and 052C operationalized larger AESA platform 12 years ago. And since then, they have advanced to the point where the Russians were visiting CIDEX exhibition several years ago to source different Chinese components (including T/R modules) for Russian systems. J-10C operationalized AESA radar before any European fighter jet was able to do so.


I don't think I underestimate their capabilities in IIR and AESA systems. I do think you underestimate the technological level achieved in USA, European countries, Israel, Japan and South Korea. Those countries have fielded first AESAs 20-30 years ago and now have large number of them operational. One difference to China is that those countries also had large number of very advanced MSA and PESA radars than what China had and have not always hurried to AESA technology. Making a decent AESA has not been a problem for those countries for some 30 years now, but making it significantly better than PESA or even MSA radar has not been always economical. For example there are E-2D, E-3 and AEGIS systems which use PESA technology but are still really powerful systems with huge capabilities. Sure they will be replaced with AESA systems sometime in the future, but there is no pressing need for that in the near future. China on the other hand had and have lots of rather unimpressive PESA and MSA radar systems.

IIR is another similar thing as technology has been available for 30 years also in USA and France at least. ASRAAM for example has been operational for 20 years already. Same with Javelin and Spike ATGMs. AIM-9R could've been even earlier than those, but was cancelled due to cost considerations. China has just shown their first IIR guided ATGM and PL-10 AAM. That's great improvement in their technology and increases their capabilities but ASRAAM, AIM-9X, MICA-IR, IRIS-T and Python-5 for example are at least equal in capabilties, likely a lot more mature and available in large numbers.

I do agree that China seems to have pretty clear lead over Russia in IIR and AESA systems.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 13:07
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:1) Show me the source please, such as research papers that passed peer review.


Show me "research papers that passed peer review" that show the US is producing more military hardware than China. Oh right, there aren't any. :roll: Stop being obsessed with a phrase you saw on tumblr and open your eyes. China is producing more military hardware each year than the US.

gta4 wrote:2) That matters until now. If your jet has low L/D, your jet suffers from low kinematic performance.


Show me Chinese fighter that has be proven by "research papers that passed peer review" to have such a low L/D that it is a terrible fighter.

gta4 wrote:Gun powder and rocket were not invented by China.P.R. Read carefully, I mean P.R (after the republic was created in 1949)


There you go, moving goalposts again.


gta4 wrote: When it comes to man power, quality-wise or quantity-wise? Keep in mind: US defense corps have top science / engineering talents in their candidate pool around the globe because they can provide competitive compensation even compared to finance and / or banking, while in china and other asia countries, top talents seldom go to defense companies due to very low salary.
China has the greatest quantity of mathmaticians, but never won the Feilds Medal.


"US defense corps have top science / engineering talents"

Yeah, most of them are Chinese and go back home once they've learned all they can here.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 13:45
by hornetfinn
sferrin wrote:"US defense corps have top science / engineering talents"

Yeah, most of them are Chinese and go back home once they've learned all they can here.


Out of curiosity, is that so? I've worked with pretty decent number of US defense corp engineering people and I've never seen any Chinese or even Chinese Americans or any kind. I'm sure those people exist, but I seriourly doubt you can say that most US defense corp top science and engineering talents are Chinese.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 13:52
by gta4
Yeah, most of them are Chinese and go back home once they've learned all they can here.


You need to be serious on this one.

Show me a top aerospace conference whose best student paper was awarded to a Chinese student.

Show me a Chinese Nobel prize or Fields Medal winner, except the only lady who won the medical one which has nothing to do with defense/aerospace

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 14:01
by gta4
sferrin wrote:Show me Chinese fighter that has be proven by "research papers that passed peer review" to have such a low L/D that it is a terrible fighter.


If you compare this with the drag polar of F-16, this is a terrible fighter indeed.
j-10 grid.jpg

f16 drag polar.jpg

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 14:12
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:Show me Chinese fighter that has be proven by "research papers that passed peer review" to have such a low L/D that it is a terrible fighter.


If you compare this with the drag polar of F-16, this is a terrible fighter indeed.
j-10 grid.jpg


So overlay it with the F-16 (both armed, not clean) and show where the differences are significant and why. (Keep in mind that all fighters are a set of tradeoffs. What may be of primary importance to once customer may not be to another. For example an F-4 isn't as clean as an F-106 but an F-106 couldn't do what the USN wanted.)

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 14:23
by sferrin
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 13739.html

The US has nothing at all like this. Sure, it has airplanes. Their reaction time is a joke compared to missiles. Basically, China can hit anything it wants with conventional warheads, out to about 2500 miles from its border, within minutes. The US couldn't hit something 100 miles off it's coast in minutes, let along thousands of miles.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 14:27
by gta4
You are a joke, completely.
Can China intercept US ballistic missile? At least US have developed several ballistic defense systems.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 14:30
by gta4
Basically, China can hit anything it wants with conventional warheads

Can't US do this already 50 years ago?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 17:40
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:You are a joke, completely.
Can China intercept US ballistic missile? At least US have developed several ballistic defense systems.


Wow. Pot/kettle much? The US doesn't HAVE any conventional ballistic missiles (outside of ATACMs anyway). :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 17:42
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
Basically, China can hit anything it wants with conventional warheads out to about 2500 miles from its border, within minutes.

Can't US do this already 50 years ago?


With what?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 18:34
by blindpilot
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:
Basically, China can hit anything it wants with conventional warheads out to about 2500 miles from its border, within minutes.

Can't US do this already 50 years ago?


With what?


Um 270ish 1000+ mile (designed to limit German missiles range) Pershing II's with INS and active radar, maneuvering, dial a yield warheads? But then there was the whole INF treaty stuff. One can only speculate that the Russians were accomodating, because they didn't want to see what Reagan could actually deploy (Pershing III options) if the US started building with the tech they had in the 70's. But hey who knows? The Soviets could have just been being nice and sweet? And the US could have been clutzes who couldn't design and build anything ... yeah that's the Reagan era ... right. <sarc off>

The US had ready to deploy, and go, proven designs and technology, beyond Pershing, that could have whatever range, warhead, and guidance the services(Reagan) wanted... 50 years ago. The Chinese are just tackling the easier stuff from then (read "from Clinton/Israeli" gifts) and they may or may not be "proven." The US warplans as if they are, but that doesn't make it so.

FWIW,
BP

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 18:36
by tphuang
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think I underestimate their capabilities in IIR and AESA systems. I do think you underestimate the technological level achieved in USA, European countries, Israel, Japan and South Korea. Those countries have fielded first AESAs 20-30 years ago and now have large number of them operational. One difference to China is that those countries also had large number of very advanced MSA and PESA radars than what China had and have not always hurried to AESA technology. Making a decent AESA has not been a problem for those countries for some 30 years now, but making it significantly better than PESA or even MSA radar has not been always economical. For example there are E-2D, E-3 and AEGIS systems which use PESA technology but are still really powerful systems with huge capabilities. Sure they will be replaced with AESA systems sometime in the future, but there is no pressing need for that in the near future. China on the other hand had and have lots of rather unimpressive PESA and MSA radar systems.

IIR is another similar thing as technology has been available for 30 years also in USA and France at least. ASRAAM for example has been operational for 20 years already. Same with Javelin and Spike ATGMs. AIM-9R could've been even earlier than those, but was cancelled due to cost considerations. China has just shown their first IIR guided ATGM and PL-10 AAM. That's great improvement in their technology and increases their capabilities but ASRAAM, AIM-9X, MICA-IR, IRIS-T and Python-5 for example are at least equal in capabilties, likely a lot more mature and available in large numbers.

I do agree that China seems to have pretty clear lead over Russia in IIR and AESA systems.


In a way, I think we are not that far apart, but I would love for you to show me when was the first time European countries and South Korea operationalised their AESA radar. I don't think the gap between US and Japan/Europe are that large on civilian level. But I believe due to the amount of R&D America has injected into its military project, it has a fairly large gap in the performance of its radar system over Europe. As for Japan, they may have installed an AESA radar on F-2, but it doesn't have great performance. I think that speaks to their lack of experience and R&D in fighter jet development. And that will continue, because Japan will continue to rely on American MIC. My belief is that due to amount of R&D that China has put into its MIC in the past 25 years, increased interaction with West and increasing availablility of advanced COTS technology, that has allowed them to do better in military field than what you would expect. They were somehow able to put AESA radar on 052C and KJ-2000 12 years ago. They are certainly not as powerful as E-3C or SPY-1D, but they were huge achievements for China back then. And they would not have gotten there without Israeli help and a developing local industry that was aided by gov't measures to "encourage" foreign companies to share some technology.

When these systems first entered service, they had huge problems. It took several years before they built the 3rd 052C. In the recent PLAN buildup, the only other gap like this is with their nuclear submarine. And a newer AESA radar system was installed on 052D and now on 055 after they sorted out various production problems and cooling issues they encountered on the first generation radar. And they are now comfortable enough to add a X-band AESA radar on top of 055 mask also. That to me shows progression and maturation of their AESA technology. And eventually they got to the point where they are comfortable putting it on their fighter jet. And if you compare KLJ-7 with KLJ-7A, their advertised tracking range vs 3 m^2 targets almost doubled. Now numbers they provide is all advertising nonsense, but it shows the AESA radar is a huge upgrade over MSA radar developed less than 15 years ago.

At this point, they can't expect their systems to be as mature or capable as American/European ones. They just need to put something in the same ball park into service and then make incremental upgrade. That's kind of the deal with J-20. It has an underpowered engine, not as stealthy and all the sensors/softwares don't have the capability and sophistication of F-35. But you still have to put it into service, test it in action and improve it.

You simply don't see this kind of progress in engine field and I think that's due to how well the engine technology gets guarded by the major players like GE/RR/PW and how much R&D is needed.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 20:17
by lrrpf52
At least the conversation is mentioning AWACS, which are critical nodes in 4th Gen aerial warfare, and becoming more marginalized in 5th Gen.

So there isn't a production model J-20 yet, but J-20 compares with F-35 in what exact way? Where will they get the engines it needs? At what level are they at integrating sensor fusion and links?

How's their maintenance, spare parts, engine replacement, and training pipeline for all these skill sets?

How many AWACS does China have, versus US/Coalition PACOM air forces?

4 x KJ-2000s
7 x KJ-200s

Within H+1, those would be flaming scrap metal headed to the lawn dart grave, even with a matured, operational J-20 attempting to defend them. A matured, operational J-20 does not exist.

AESA radars? Everyone seems to forget the US's Bell Labs Nike Zeus system from the early 1960s, the Japanese ship and land-based AESAs of the 80s and 90s, before they put AESA on the F2 and AAM-4B A2A missile.

As it sits, the superior APG-63(V)3 AESA can't detect the F-22 even when the F-15C+ pilot cheats. Where does detection ability of the Chinese attempts at AESA fall in that regard? I commonly see this assumption that if you have an AESA, you can detect VLO airframes. See the APG-63(V)3 above. J-10s and Flankers are nothing but manned targets in a 5th Gen environment. China is going to have to learn that lesson either by admission or the hard way.

The ruthless slaughter the PLAAF would experience against the US, Japanese, and South Korean air forces would be of such a humiliating nature, that it would shake the foundations of the current global power scheme.

The Chinese can't afford for this weakness to ever be exposed in a military skirmish, so they do what pissant dictators do and assert themselves in the South China Sea, claim every island and insane space into international waters like it's cool, and see what they can get away with.

If they keep it up, one of their hothead pilots or ship captains is going to get his pee pee smacked hard, and there won't be a thing Xi can do about it that is beneficial in the long run for China.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 20:39
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:
I don't think I underestimate their capabilities in IIR and AESA systems. I do think you underestimate the technological level achieved in USA, European countries, Israel, Japan and South Korea. Those countries have fielded first AESAs 20-30 years ago and now have large number of them operational. One difference to China is that those countries also had large number of very advanced MSA and PESA radars than what China had and have not always hurried to AESA technology. Making a decent AESA has not been a problem for those countries for some 30 years now, but making it significantly better than PESA or even MSA radar has not been always economical. For example there are E-2D, E-3 and AEGIS systems which use PESA technology but are still really powerful systems with huge capabilities. Sure they will be replaced with AESA systems sometime in the future, but there is no pressing need for that in the near future. China on the other hand had and have lots of rather unimpressive PESA and MSA radar systems.



So in your opinion, the Chinese AESA Radars are roughly on the same level as the latest western PESA/MSA?

BTW. I'm a bit confused with the Generation of AESA Radars. As far as understand a APG-63(v)2 and APG-77 is 1 Generation. APG-63(v)3, APG-79, APG-80, APG-77v1 and RBE2 AESA are 2 Generation. And the APG-81 is a 3 Generation AESA?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 21:06
by tphuang
I don't get why this needs to turn into "my stuff is bigger" kind of contest. Are we grown ups here?

If you really care to know how plaaf looks at things. Back in the 80s, the Soviet backfire bombers can fly over Beijing without escorts and bomb the capital city and fly back without ever worrying about J-7s being able to intercept it. F-35 is the greatest single threat they face right now, but that's not more severe than what they've had to face before.

Anyway, the current model of j-20 is production. It's in service with FTTC. That's where a new jet entering service go to develop combat tactics, flight techniques and training programs. It's got a long way to go, but it has to start somewhere. WS-15 is estimated to be 5 to 7 years away from entering service. This is Chinese time line, not Russian time line. By that time, they should have a lot more experience with producing, maintaining something like J-20, having the entire situation sorted out and having the availability of J-20 raised to a more acceptable level. And through all the training, they will be able to continually improve on the software part of things. F-35 is fantastic machine. America has had a long experience with all this. It's going to take time for CAC to raise J-20's sensor fusion level. Fortunately, software upgrade is something that can continuously happen throughout the lifetime. If you look at what they did from J-10A to J-10B/C, you can see they are capable of making huge progress in that time frame. And that's the point of putting them into service, get feedbacks, discover the appropriate tactics, learn how to minimize weaknesses (like the rear profile) and improve into J-20A with the appropriate engine.

As for AESA radar, will they even be flipping that on? Wouldn't that just increase the likelihood of getting picked up by F-35? I guess they will be trying these scenarios out to figure out. They have enough assets near the border with AWACS, shipborne radar and various land based radar that J-20 really should just rely on other assets. But what do I know.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2018, 21:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
swiss wrote:
BTW. I'm a bit confused with the Generation of AESA Radars. As far as understand a APG-63(v)2 and APG-77 is 1 Generation. APG-63(v)3, APG-79, APG-80, APG-77v1 and RBE2 AESA are 2 Generation. And the APG-81 is a 3 Generation AESA?

It isn't that simple.

APG-63(v)2/3, APG-79, APG-80, and RBE2 are all MSA radars that were upgraded with an AESA antenna (oversimplified). They were not designed from the ground up as an AESA radar integrated into a fused sensor suite. APG-77/(v)1 and APG-81 were. As such even APG-77 will be more advanced as a whole system than APG-63(v)3, as it has improved back-end processing capability. SABR is (oversimplified) an APG-81 with modified software and a resized antenna to be used in any platform.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 01:36
by weasel1962
How many AWACS does China have, versus US/Coalition PACOM air forces?


Not easy to keep track of numbers as China is running multiple AEW/AWACS production and test programs. KJ-2000 and KJ-200 appear to have reached its maturity and has stopped production. The latter at ~11 with 6 in PLAAF and 5 in PLAN. Not surprising since balance beam tends to be less effective than the rotodome.

The current production variant is the KJ-500 with the rotodome is currently at least 16 to as high as 20s. The latest spotted being the 4th in PLAN and the remainder being operated by the PLAAF. Its easier to keep track today with the availability of sat pics covering known airbase locations like Shaanxi Aircraft Corporation's airfield at Hanzhong where 8 new KJ-500 were spotted earlier this year.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/

The program that is carefully watched by China watchers (and the Pentagon) is the KJ-600. With the 3rd aircraft carrier expected to be CATOBAR, the current variant (previously KL-200) is expected to be the likely variant that will operate off the aircraft carrier.

Japan operates 4 E767, 13 E2C + 2 E-2Ds, Korea eventually 4 E-7As, Taiwan 6 recently upgraded E-2Ks. PACAF doesn't forward base its E-3s. E-2s do accompany the CVN based in Japan.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 06:09
by mk82
lrrpf52: So there isn't a production model J-20 yet......

The J-20 is actually in LRIP now (i.e. “Block 1” production model).

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 09:17
by h-bomb
weasel1962 wrote:
How many AWACS does China have, versus US/Coalition PACOM air forces?


Japan operates 4 E767, 13 E2C + 2 E-2Ds, Korea eventually 4 E-7As, Taiwan 6 recently upgraded E-2Ks. PACAF doesn't forward base its E-3s. E-2s do accompany the CVN based in Japan.


You may want to look at a little base called "Kadena" try the home page: https://www.kadena.af.mil/

But I will give you a clue: 961st Airborne Air Control Squadron - E-3 AWACS

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 15:07
by weasel1962
h-bomb wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
How many AWACS does China have, versus US/Coalition PACOM air forces?


Japan operates 4 E767, 13 E2C + 2 E-2Ds, Korea eventually 4 E-7As, Taiwan 6 recently upgraded E-2Ks. PACAF doesn't forward base its E-3s. E-2s do accompany the CVN based in Japan.


You may want to look at a little base called "Kadena" try the home page: https://www.kadena.af.mil/

But I will give you a clue: 961st Airborne Air Control Squadron - E-3 AWACS


I stand corrected. 18th wing. Had the impression that the E-3s were only based at Elmendorf and Tinker. (missed Al Dhafra as well)

A simple google would have done the trick,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _squadrons

31+1 test in service,
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... try-awacs/

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 15:11
by ricnunes
tphuang wrote:If you really care to know how plaaf looks at things. Back in the 80s, the Soviet backfire bombers can fly over Beijing without escorts and bomb the capital city and fly back without ever worrying about J-7s being able to intercept it. F-35 is the greatest single threat they face right now, but that's not more severe than what they've had to face before.


While I can't speak for others, I don't believe that anyone here is dismissing the progress and advancements that the Chinese are having in military equipment, namely combat aircraft development (and electronics as well).
But one thing is to evolve and "close the gap" another completely different thing is to get parity let alone surpass.
Again technological advancement is not a "linear thing".

For the reasons that I posted previously (and more) I don't believe that China will get parity with the US (and even Europe in many regards) let alone surpass it, unless again if something drastically changes in China in its society/politics (which I don't believe will happen anytime soon).

And as such, China would always be at a great disadvantage in an open war with the US, something which I believe we all don't wish that will ever happen. And no, the J-20 won't (future tense) be a match for the F-35.
The J-20 will be improved much further and become much more effective and advanced that today? Yes indeed but guess what? So will the F-35.

IMO, the best that China can reach with all these advancements in military technology is to overtake Russia as the preferred military supplier to all those countries that cannot buy western military equipment (for a myriad of reasons, most of them political) which again, traditionally buy from Russia. Who knows if this isn't what China actually (and also) intends to?

BTW, while I don't always agree with you I do think that you make some good points.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 15:52
by gta4
While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm. China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 16:12
by SpudmanWP
After 2022, the F-35 should have no problem carrying LRASM via UAI.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 18:08
by sferrin
blindpilot wrote:Um 270ish 1000+ mile (designed to limit German missiles range) Pershing II's with INS and active radar, maneuvering, dial a yield warheads?


It did not have a conventional warhead, and it doesn't exist now. Go back and read what I said. I didn't say it was impossible for the US. I said WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY NOW. And we don't.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 18:10
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm.


An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.

gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 18:20
by weasel1962
...if the Marines don't get first dibs with their anti-ship himars/atacms.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 19:13
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:...if the Marines don't get first dibs with their anti-ship himars/atacms.


Only way that thing would have a prayer is if the other guy's navy was dumb enough to come within a couple hundred miles of the shore, let our air assets fly at will, and didn't take shots at the missiles as they were coming in.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 21:34
by SpudmanWP
F-35B with LRASM from an LHA/D.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 21:49
by usnvo
sferrin wrote: An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


Actually, since any Chinese Carrier Group is most likely to remain in port during any conflict, at least during the early phase precisely because of the submarine threat, the B1/LRASM (and ship attack Tomahawk) is still probably the biggest threat even if the SSN (or SSK for that matter) w/MK48 is the more deadly threat.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 21:56
by steve2267
usnvo wrote:
sferrin wrote: An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


Actually, since any Chinese Carrier Group is most likely to remain in port during any conflict, at least during the early phase precisely because of the submarine threat, the B1/LRASM (and ship attack Tomahawk) is still probably the biggest threat even if the SSN (or SSK for that matter) w/MK48 is the more deadly threat.


Unless I'm missing something... following your logic... the Chinese Carrier Groups would never leave port during any conflict, regardless the phase, as what capability do they truly have to decrease the USN SSN Mk48 threat? Cyber?

And if the Chinese Carrier Groups are reduced to occupying port berths during any conflict... why bother expending the funds to build them? To float around the world's oceans flying the PRC flag and (attempting to) intimidating nations?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2018, 23:11
by swiss
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
BTW. I'm a bit confused with the Generation of AESA Radars. As far as understand a APG-63(v)2 and APG-77 is 1 Generation. APG-63(v)3, APG-79, APG-80, APG-77v1 and RBE2 AESA are 2 Generation. And the APG-81 is a 3 Generation AESA?

It isn't that simple.

APG-63(v)2/3, APG-79, APG-80, and RBE2 are all MSA radars that were upgraded with an AESA antenna (oversimplified). They were not designed from the ground up as an AESA radar integrated into a fused sensor suite. APG-77/(v)1 and APG-81 were. As such even APG-77 will be more advanced as a whole system than APG-63(v)3, as it has improved back-end processing capability. SABR is (oversimplified) an APG-81 with modified software and a resized antenna to be used in any platform.


So a APG-77(v)1 is closer to the APG-81 thanks to the more advanced back-end. Would be also interesting what is the difference between a "2 Generation" and "3 Generation" AESA. Of cours the performance, and maybe to use the Radar as a Energy Weapon?

And i assume the APG-83 (SABR) is roughly on the same level as the APG-80. I know there was a intense discussion on F-16 wich one is better.

The RBE2 is a PESA when i remember correct.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 01:44
by weasel1962
sferrin wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:...if the Marines don't get first dibs with their anti-ship himars/atacms.


Only way that thing would have a prayer is if the other guy's navy was dumb enough to come within a couple hundred miles of the shore, let our air assets fly at will, and didn't take shots at the missiles as they were coming in.


Looking at the geography, its not as dumb as it seems. The islands along the okinawa chain pretty much close down the space that any PLAN vessel would have to travel from the north (where the cvs are based). If based at hainan, then they cant travel north.

All of the islands have airstrips that can fly in c130s to offload himars pretty quickly..

The atacms flies at mach 3 which reduces warning time to under 10 mins. The actual range is pretty decent.

Sure, missiles can get shot down but doesnt mean its not worth trying. Dont think the PLAN expect it either.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 07:25
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm.


An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


B1-B with LRASM is much faster, much more flexible as to where and when, will have better SA currency, unlikely to be counter-detected, much less likely to be counter-attacked than the SSN. I'd focus the SSN on killing subs and let the B1-Bs clean up the surface units, or at least thin them out (and the things that can hunt SSNs).

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 07:37
by element1loop
steve wrote:And if the Chinese Carrier Groups are reduced to occupying port berths during any conflict... why bother expending the funds to build them? To float around the world's oceans flying the PRC flag and (attempting to) intimidating nations?


Tricky to claim to be a globule souper power sans something a bit like a like a soup carrier. :drool:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 13:45
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:While the greatest threat to their carrier battle group is B1 + LRASM swarm.


An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


B1-B with LRASM is much faster, much more flexible as to where and when, will have better SA currency, unlikely to be counter-detected, much less likely to be counter-attacked than the SSN. I'd focus the SSN on killing subs and let the B1-Bs clean up the surface units, or at least thin them out (and the things that can hunt SSNs).


Yes, and no. I would not be at all surprised if a Virginia weren't already "riding herd" on any Chinese CVBG in the event of tension/conflict. As for situational awareness, I doubt an SSN is going to have difficulty locating a carrier it's been shadowing for weeks. Now if we did like the Soviets did back in the day and planned a combined attack, waves of LRASMs would certainly stir things up and make it easier for SSNs to sneak in a get off a slew of Mk48 shots.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 17:19
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:
sferrin wrote:
An SSN with Mk48s would be far more deadly.


B1-B with LRASM is much faster, much more flexible as to where and when, will have better SA currency, unlikely to be counter-detected, much less likely to be counter-attacked than the SSN. I'd focus the SSN on killing subs and let the B1-Bs clean up the surface units, or at least thin them out (and the things that can hunt SSNs).


Yes, and no.  I would not be at all surprised if a Virginia weren't already "riding herd" on any Chinese CVBG in the event of tension/conflict.  As for situational awareness, I doubt an SSN is going to have difficulty locating a carrier it's been shadowing for weeks.  Now if we did like the Soviets did back in the day and planned a combined attack, waves of LRASMs would certainly stir things up and make it easier for SSNs to sneak in a get off a slew of Mk48 shots.


That coordinated approach would get kills, but what bothers me is the opfor will probably detect the torpedo's terminal phase and detonation, and be able to determine the quadrant it approximately came from, which narrows things down a lot, even with a long-range curved swim-out shot.

With the proliferation of air-based ASW and high-performance digital active hull and dipping pingers, plus gobs of computer power, that's still dicey.

It tend to think the desirability of standoff applies to all platforms, especially big slow stealthy ones. And moreso to subs and their torpedoe employment ROE, due to the POB involved.

So I"ve come to the view that torpedo use against protected major naval units may be a bit like WVR IR missile use--likely to get a kill but at what cost? Thus (I think) use mines on defended units, use the Mk48s on subs and softer more isolated surface targets, and a standoff VLO missile salvo to actually shoot at heavy defended units.

A LRASM variant with bigger warhead and shorter range on an SSN makes sense. It provides the standoff to go after the heavy target with much better odds. As for targeting the distant unit, the recent-ish concepts for putting up thousands of cheap distributed micro cube SATs, with high-res EO sensors to detect, locate and track all manner of targets, can complement or actually more or less supersede sonar track techniques at standoff range.

i.e. serious aggressive ambush potential, with much lower risk of a sub crew loss.

.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 17:21
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:A LRASM variant with bigger warhead and shorter range on an SSN makes sense. It provides the standoff to go after the heavy target with much better odds. As for targeting the distant unit, the recent-ish concepts for putting up thousands of cheap distributed micro cube SATs, with high-res EO sensors to detect, locate and track all manner of targets, can complement or actually more or less supersede sonar track techniques at standoff range.

i.e. serious aggressive ambush potential, with much lower risk of a sub crew loss.

.


LRASM already has a 1000lb warhead, so I think it's fine there. It's main shortcoming is it's SLOW. A shame they cancelled LRASM-B.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 17:41
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:A LRASM variant with bigger warhead and shorter range on an SSN makes sense. It provides the standoff to go after the heavy target with much better odds. As for targeting the distant unit, the recent-ish concepts for putting up thousands of cheap distributed micro cube SATs, with high-res EO sensors to detect, locate and track all manner of targets, can complement or actually more or less supersede sonar track techniques at standoff range.

i.e. serious aggressive ambush potential, with much lower risk of a sub crew loss.

.


LRASM already has a 1000lb warhead, so I think it's fine there. It's main shortcoming is it's SLOW. A shame they cancelled LRASM-B.


If opfor didn't see the ambush coming, there's not so much imperitive to be any faster (I still want a bigger warhead though).

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 19:23
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/08/24/chinas_new_missile_force_new_ambitions_new_challenges_113739.html

The US has nothing at all like this. Sure, it has airplanes. Their reaction time is a joke compared to missiles. Basically, China can hit anything it wants with conventional warheads, out to about 2500 miles from its border, within minutes. The US couldn't hit something 100 miles off it's coast in minutes, let along thousands of miles.

To be fair, China has never demonstrated the capability to target and engage moving targets at that range. They've hit stationary targets at known coordinates, at ~200nm. It's quite another matter to detect, track, and provide precise targeting information on a moving target (that doesn't want to be found), 2500nm away. China has nowhere near the ISR capabilities/assets, that we do. Additionally, any situation where they'd consider attacking a carrier, you can rest assured that whatever sensors they had, would be operating under degraded conditions, if they hadn't been taken out entirely.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 19:48
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:If opfor didn't see the ambush coming, there's not so much imperitive to be any faster (I still want a bigger warhead though).



If it's a time sensitive target you want the speed too.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 20:01
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:To be fair, China has never demonstrated the capability to target and engage moving targets at that range.


It's not a matter of "if" but "when".

wrightwing wrote:They've hit stationary targets at known coordinates, at ~200nm.


They've done a lot more than that. Their DF-15, -16, -21, & -23 all have variants with terminally guided RVs like Pershing II had. The -21 and -23 both have more range than Pershing II had. The shortest range on the list, the DF-15B ranges to 500 miles.

wrightwing wrote:It's quite another matter to detect, track, and provide precise targeting information on a moving target (that doesn't want to be found), 2500nm away.


Who says it has to be limited to moving targets? Pershing II didn't have moving target capability but the USSR surely saw it as a threat regardless.

wrightwing wrote:China has nowhere near the ISR capabilities/assets, that we do.


Ours is spread across the world. They don't need as much.

wrightwing wrote: Additionally, any situation where they'd consider attacking a carrier, you can rest assured that whatever sensors they had, would be operating under degraded conditions, if they hadn't been taken out entirely.


What makes you think attacking a carrier is the only thing those missiles can do?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 21:06
by wrightwing
There's obviously a lot those missiles can do, against stationary targets, at known coordinates. That's not why people discuss them in relation to A2AD, though. They may have a ballistic range of X nautical miles, but that doesn't translate into a capability to threaten moving targets (i.e. carrier battle groups, hence the claim of being anti-ship ballistic missiles.) One of the reasons why we haven't deployed long range conventional ballistic missiles, is the concern that nuclear powers have no way to know which type of warhead is on the missile. A limited conventional attack, could have an unintended nuclear response.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 03:50
by gta4
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?


You can't find research papers that contradict my claim.

Basic principle:

If you can't find proof of neither "having a capability" nor "not having a capability", we should pick the latter.
This is the basic rule of discussion, otherwise, one can claim whatever she/he likes without proof contradicting it, such as:"sferrin is world's No.1". You can't find proof that confirms it, but you can't find proof that contradicts it either.

Remember how HR screen candidates? During a job interview, if the HR specialist can't confirm whether the candidate has the capability required or not, the candidate is assumed to not to have it.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 05:05
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:If opfor didn't see the ambush coming, there's not so much imperitive to be any faster (I still want a bigger warhead though).


If it's a time sensitive target you want the speed too.


You can't have it all. A hot fast noisy high-speed missile launch from a sub draws unwanted attention from many sensor types and leaves its own tell-tail. You want the sub-launch to be as low-profile as possible--as little hot boosting use as possible. A fast hot steep boost just points a finger at where the sub is.

Lower flight speed means exponentially less leading-edge plus skin IR emissions and far less airframe pre-heating in flight, prior to terminal homing. So keep it low-transonic in -35°C air.

Thus modern 360° hemisphereic naval staring-arrays of EO sensors near the top of the mast don't get an early whiff until it's too late to effectively react in time. Systems like Vampyre are sensitive enough to see the thermal effect of wind filling the sail of a sailing boat. So you need the weapon to be cold, low thermal transmissivity, looking almost like a hole in warmer ambient lower-atmosphere, when closing.

High-speed approach means very early detection, rapid alerting, low-maneuverability, multiple engagement opportunities, time for communications traffic to track and alert.

Direction to launcher is known by +/-5°, distance to launcher can be estimated, a systematic search can get under way--fast.

But a slow-cold weapon works and avoids all of that response action. A high-alt LO JSOW gravity glide-launch approach, thus limits both the radar and EO detection radius. The radar LO treatment does not need to be exceptional, as the IR emission will probably give it away first at some point on modern targets, especially if the approach is too fast in colder air (higher contrast). In which case even slower is better, hence gliding it in to a very short detection radius works, then a terminal fast dive. Sweep wings, let gravity accelerate it, to time-compress, once inside detection radius.

Someone mentioned glide ratios recently. Consider, a cold LRASM with a ~20:1 glide ratio could add 75nm to final range while still retaining a terminal dive capability from colder air, once it has crossed inside the IR and radar detection radius, for prevailing conditions.

If its time-sensitive then shoot earlier.

It's not as if such a target will be a 'pop-up' threat, it will have been tracked for days, at least. Hopefully the sub has laid some mines for it and its escorts first, before setting-up for a LRASM strike. They come looking for you and a mine wrecks them.

As far as I'm concerned subs are far from ideal for time-sensitive strikes, it's intrinsically a slow-paced stealthy mode of operation. Yes, it could go faster, take bigger risks, but why? That's not a good idea.

Let B1-B or B-21 do time-sensitive strikes.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 05:58
by element1loop
wrightwing wrote:One of the reasons why we haven't deployed long range conventional ballistic missiles, is the concern that nuclear powers have no way to know which type of warhead is on the missile. A limited conventional attack, could have an unintended nuclear response.


That logic cuts both ways--and apparently China isn't likewise concerned about the possibility.

Nor are many others who've thought about this (and I thoroughly agree with them), for instance:
Pentagon Shifts Focus From Ballistic Missile Defense

Aug 23, 2018


Lee Hudson | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The Pentagon is shifting its focus from ballistic missile defense to intercepting hypersonic and cruise missiles in order to keep pace with Chinese and Russian advances.

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves has even gone so far as to remove the word ballistic from the organization’s mission statement to emphasize a broader missile threat spectrum.

The reason? If the U.S. goes to war with a global power, Michael Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, believes it will be a conventional fight—nuclear, chemical or biological weapons will not be used—not involving attacks on each other’s homelands. ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/missile-defen ... le-defense


I think that this Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Michael Griffin, has got it perfectly correct. That is what it would be--a conventional war. The sort you can win. All the rest of it is unrealistic media sensationalism, as no one's going there.

Nuclear deterrence deters nuclear use and it keeps doing it relentlessly--even if in a conventional war, it won't cease to rigorously deter their first use, just because you're shooting precision theatre BM's or such at each others forces.

The Chinese have clearly concluded the same things hence their highly realistic and practical tactical emphasis on high-speed conventional ballistic strike--on everything, not just on nuclear powered carriers.

Plan for a high-intensity conventional conflict, yes, with BMs, as that is what you will be getting.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 06:28
by zhangmdev
Michael Griffin? Was he the Bush-era NASA admin? The man behind the Ares I? Not heard from him for a long time.

https://dod.defense.gov/About/Biographi ... d-griffin/

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 06:51
by element1loop
I think it's the same guy.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 07:16
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
BTW. I'm a bit confused with the Generation of AESA Radars. As far as understand a APG-63(v)2 and APG-77 is 1 Generation. APG-63(v)3, APG-79, APG-80, APG-77v1 and RBE2 AESA are 2 Generation. And the APG-81 is a 3 Generation AESA?

It isn't that simple.

APG-63(v)2/3, APG-79, APG-80, and RBE2 are all MSA radars that were upgraded with an AESA antenna (oversimplified). They were not designed from the ground up as an AESA radar integrated into a fused sensor suite. APG-77/(v)1 and APG-81 were. As such even APG-77 will be more advanced as a whole system than APG-63(v)3, as it has improved back-end processing capability. SABR is (oversimplified) an APG-81 with modified software and a resized antenna to be used in any platform.


So a APG-77(v)1 is closer to the APG-81 thanks to the more advanced back-end. Would be also interesting what is the difference between
a "2 Generation" and "3 Generation" AESA. Of cours the performance, and maybe to use the Radar as a Energy Weapon?

And i assume the APG-83 (SABR) is roughly on the same level as the APG-80. I know there was a intense discussion on F-16 wich one is better.

The RBE2 is a PESA when i remember correct.


There are two versions of RBE2. Old one was PESA and newer is AESA. Thales talks about "AESA RBE2" or "RBE2-AESA" and usually just "RBE2" (PESA version).

AESA generations are not well defined and every manufacturer uses their own definitions. Northrop Grumman has pretty decent documents about their definition of AESA generations:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... s/AESA.pdf

• First Generation: Ultra Reliable Radar - URR (1985)
• Second Generation: Advanced Tactical Fighter - ATF (1989)
• Third Generation: APG-77 (1996)
• Fourth Generation: APG-80 (F-16), APG-77(V)1 (F-22), APG-81 (F-35), and Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR)


https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... epaper.pdf

Northrop Grumman ES has been designing and perfecting airborne radar systems for over 60 years, however the heritage of the phased array radar and particularly, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) is relatively short. In fact, our first passive phased array radar was constructed in 1974 and the first active phased array was built just 17 years ago in 1985. This breakthrough in technology allowed for the demonstration of the concept of steering beams generated by distributed transmit and receive modules.

Our 2nd generation AESA was the first to fly just three years later. This 2nd generation AESA was the first AESA to proceed to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. Our 3rd generation AESA met the high performance requirements in clutter, which mechanical or passive electronically scanned arrays are unable to meet. With the high performance standard set, we focused on reducing cost and weight.

This led to our 4th generation AESA that is half the cost and weight of the 3rd generation AESA. The 4th generation AESA design requirements were the result of merging requirements for airborne, sea based, and land based platforms. Due to the nature of the changing defense environment dictating commonality across the services and our own limited research and development funds, drives one to the practical decision of seeking common solutions. This 4th generation AESA and its associated T/R modules achieve the design commonality while satisfying unique airborne, sea borne and ground based platform requirements with high performance to meet the mission needs


So first couple of generations were really prototypes and technology was also progressing very fast that those generations never saw operational use. It seems clear that USA could've had AESA radar in fighters back in early 1990s, but that would've been costly and there was also not much need back then. The cost/capability calculation was not good enough then. 3rd gen AESA in late 1990s was still big, bulky and costly but performance was already excellent.

I think AN/APG-63(V)2 in those Alaskan F-15Cs was also third gen radar using that NG definitions. AN/APG-79, RACR and AN/APG-63(V)3 are probably 4th gen radars. Of course that only refers to radar components. AN/APG-81 in F-35 likely has much better capabilities compared to SABR or AN/APG-79 for example. This is because it's not a standalone radar system, but one part of integrated sensor fusion system which allows things not possible in standalone system. Of course 4th gen systems have likely evolved a lot and latest 4th gen systems are likely much better than early ones. I'd say 5th gen is going to be using GaN technology instead of GaAs and have much better performance and reliability.

It's really impossible to say how Chinese or Russian (or even French) AESA technology compares to US tech. We would need to know the internal function and specs of the radars and their components to know that. They could easily use similar packaging as most modern US radars and still use couple of generations older internals. Or they could have pretty modern technology in the components. Then a lot would depend on computing and processing systems and software.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 07:38
by pmi
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise.


Post it.

1-2 second interval is what you typically see in live Tomahawk launches. The Russian cruise missile launches shown were definitely faster by comparison.




Skip ahead to 2:30

Staggered launches are due to other factors.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 07:58
by gta4
pmi wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise.


Post it.

1-2 second interval is what you typically see in live Tomahawk launches. The Russian cruise missile launches shown were definitely faster by comparison.




Skip ahead to 2:30

Staggered launches are due to other factors.


Nice. This capability was already confirmed in MK41 official data sheet. A video is good to shut somebody up.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 09:05
by pmi
gta4 wrote:Nice. This capability was already confirmed in MK41 official data sheet. A video is good to shut somebody up.


Oops I forgot to add that I'm pretty sure that the third launch is from the the second ship back. So the closest ship (and the one the camera is on) are each firing two missiles. One each from the bow & stern cells.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 13:51
by tphuang
I am really not sure how Chinese carrier group or ASBM has anything to do with this topic, but I will bite. You will not see Chinese carrier group encounter American carrier group in neutral waters anytime soon. There is a lot of effort right now going on in training crew members for all the new ships. It's hard to train this many people in a short time considering how vast the naval shipbuilding program is. Most navies around the world would be envious of the problem PLAN faces right now. They got the break of the decade when those anti-piracy patrols became sanctioned under UN. Now, they have perfectly legitimate excuse to cycle through all of the news ships they have built and construct a naval base in Djibouti. Invaluable blue water experience for a lot of fresh sailors.

The biggest issue with a Chinese carrier group is the weakness in its nuclear submarine force. It's simply too loud, which really makes them ineffective in ASW operation. Virginia subs are going to be a problem for PLAN planners for a long time. This is one area where China actually would love to get Russian help on.

ASBM is a deterring weapon system. If they can keep US carriers from getting close to the shores, thereby limiting the loiter time of F-35s. And prevent USAF from stationing F-22/35 at Andersen AFB or at Okinawa, they would have done their jobs. And there are other weapon systems that they've spent a lot of money on with this goal in mind.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:26
by sferrin
pmi wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise.


Post it.

1-2 second interval is what you typically see in live Tomahawk launches. The Russian cruise missile launches shown were definitely faster by comparison.




Skip ahead to 2:30

Staggered launches are due to other factors.


Yeah, those are from multiple ships. At best you have one from the front of a ship and one from the back. I should have clarified, "from each bank". Meaning you won't see more than one every second or two from each bank of 64/32 cells with the Mk41 system. A better view of what you're seeing is here at 2:15



I have seen a pretty clear video of a Tico firing one from the back and one from the front simultaneously followed up a few seconds later by a repeat of that but, again, never more than one every couple seconds from any particular set of modules.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:31
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?


You can't find research papers that contradict my claim..


Basic rules of credibility: you made the claim. It's your job to back it up.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:34
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:One of the reasons why we haven't deployed long range conventional ballistic missiles, is the concern that nuclear powers have no way to know which type of warhead is on the missile. A limited conventional attack, could have an unintended nuclear response.


There's no basis in reality to support that fear. There have been nuclear armed cruise missiles longer than nuclear armed ballistic missiles, yet nobody hesitates to let those fly. The US had TLAM-Ns in service during the Gulf War yet Russia never flipped out when we launched Tomahawk missiles by the dozens.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:36
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?


You can't find research papers that contradict my claim.

Basic principle:

If you can't find proof of neither "having a capability" nor "not having a capability", we should pick the latter.


Sure, thing. GTA4 either knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. I guess he doesn't. See how that works?

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:40
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:Nice. This capability was already confirmed in MK41 official data sheet. A video is good to shut somebody up.


You sound upset. Maybe you could produce a copy of this "official data sheet" as mine says nothing about launch rate.

mk41-strike.pdf
(27.86 KiB) Downloaded 38 times

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 15:03
by gta4
Simultaneous multiple missile launch:
MK41 vls simutaneous multiple missile launch.jpg


MK41 can get 2 missiles out of 8 cells ready for launch simultaneously:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/v ... m-vls-mk41

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 15:19
by botsing
sferrin wrote:Sure, thing. GTA4 either knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. I guess he doesn't. See how that works?

Do you have to keep on insulting other people? You have a hand of attacking members who do not resonate with your thoughts.

Its rather tiresome and distracting and it brings down the level of the discussion. I'm pretty sure you can communicate like an adult, so please do so.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 16:06
by sferrin
botsing wrote:
sferrin wrote:Sure, thing. GTA4 either knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. I guess he doesn't. See how that works?

Do you have to keep on insulting other people?


gta4 wrote:You are a joke, completely.
Can China intercept US ballistic missile? At least US have developed several ballistic defense systems.



I didn't sling the first insult. I sometimes respond in kind. But hey, maybe he's your buddy so you let it slide. :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 16:10
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:Simultaneous multiple missile launch:
MK41 vls simutaneous multiple missile launch.jpg


MK41 can get 2 missiles out of 8 cells ready for launch simultaneously:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/v ... m-vls-mk41


From the link you posted:

"The VLS Mk 41 is a highly survivable system with missiles and associated hardware located below the armored deck. Redundant fire control and launcher interface links also enhance system survivability in casualty situations. The VLS Mk 41 capability to simultaneously prepare two missiles in each 8-cell launcher module allows for fast reaction to multiple threats with concentrated, continuous firepower. Multimode operation allows simultaneous interface and missile preparation for discrete antiaircraft, antisubmarine warfare, strike, naval surface fire support and ballistic missile defense missions. The VLS Mk 41 is highly adaptable to accommodate the latest weapon types to meet new mission requirements.

BAE Systems has developed the Mk 25 Quad-Pack canister, which can vastly increase a ship's self-defense capability. The Mk 25 Quad-Pack allows the system to store and fire four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs) in a canister space that normally contains a single weapon.

Lethal - The VLS Mk 41 capability to simultaneously prepare two missiles in each 8-cell launcher module allows for fast reaction to multiple threats with concentrated, continuous firepower.

Multi-Mission - Multi-mode operation allows simultaneous interface and missile preparation for discrete anti-aircraft, anti-submarine warfare, strike, naval surface fire support, and ballistic missile defense missions.

Flexible - Any missile, any cell.

Survivable - The VLS Mk 41 is a highly survivable system with missiles and associated hardware located below the armored deck. Redundant fire control and launcher interface links also enhance system survivability in casualty situations."


They very carefully go out of their way to not say simultaneous launch. As for the image you posted, we don't know what their criteria is for "simultaneous". Marketers tend to be very flexible when it comes to definitions.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 17:18
by botsing
sferrin wrote:I didn't sling the first insult. I sometimes respond in kind. But hey, maybe he's your buddy so you let it slide. :roll:

There you go again with your immature response, insinuating that we are some buddies out there to catch you.

This is not some popularity contest so please keep the conversation on a polite level.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 17:42
by sferrin
botsing wrote:
sferrin wrote:I didn't sling the first insult. I sometimes respond in kind. But hey, maybe he's your buddy so you let it slide. :roll:

There you go again with your immature response, insinuating that we are some buddies out there to catch you.

This is not some popularity contest so please keep the conversation on a polite level.


Given you called me out but not him why would I not think there was bias at play? As for "immature", if it's "immature" to point out your apparent bias, then guilty as charged. :roll:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 20:22
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:
There are two versions of RBE2. Old one was PESA and newer is AESA. Thales talks about "AESA RBE2" or "RBE2-AESA" and usually just "RBE2" (PESA version).

AESA generations are not well defined and every manufacturer uses their own definitions. Northrop Grumman has pretty decent documents about their definition of AESA generations:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... s/AESA.pdf

• First Generation: Ultra Reliable Radar - URR (1985)
• Second Generation: Advanced Tactical Fighter - ATF (1989)
• Third Generation: APG-77 (1996)
• Fourth Generation: APG-80 (F-16), APG-77(V)1 (F-22), APG-81 (F-35), and Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR)


https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... epaper.pdf

Northrop Grumman ES has been designing and perfecting airborne radar systems for over 60 years, however the heritage of the phased array radar and particularly, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) is relatively short. In fact, our first passive phased array radar was constructed in 1974 and the first active phased array was built just 17 years ago in 1985. This breakthrough in technology allowed for the demonstration of the concept of steering beams generated by distributed transmit and receive modules.

Our 2nd generation AESA was the first to fly just three years later. This 2nd generation AESA was the first AESA to proceed to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. Our 3rd generation AESA met the high performance requirements in clutter, which mechanical or passive electronically scanned arrays are unable to meet. With the high performance standard set, we focused on reducing cost and weight.

This led to our 4th generation AESA that is half the cost and weight of the 3rd generation AESA. The 4th generation AESA design requirements were the result of merging requirements for airborne, sea based, and land based platforms. Due to the nature of the changing defense environment dictating commonality across the services and our own limited research and development funds, drives one to the practical decision of seeking common solutions. This 4th generation AESA and its associated T/R modules achieve the design commonality while satisfying unique airborne, sea borne and ground based platform requirements with high performance to meet the mission needs


So first couple of generations were really prototypes and technology was also progressing very fast that those generations never saw operational use. It seems clear that USA could've had AESA radar in fighters back in early 1990s, but that would've been costly and there was also not much need back then. The cost/capability calculation was not good enough then. 3rd gen AESA in late 1990s was still big, bulky and costly but performance was already excellent.

I think AN/APG-63(V)2 in those Alaskan F-15Cs was also third gen radar using that NG definitions. AN/APG-79, RACR and AN/APG-63(V)3 are probably 4th gen radars. Of course that only refers to radar components. AN/APG-81 in F-35 likely has much better capabilities compared to SABR or AN/APG-79 for example. This is because it's not a standalone radar system, but one part of integrated sensor fusion system which allows things not possible in standalone system. Of course 4th gen systems have likely evolved a lot and latest 4th gen systems are likely much better than early ones. I'd say 5th gen is going to be using GaN technology instead of GaAs and have much better performance and reliability.

It's really impossible to say how Chinese or Russian (or even French) AESA technology compares to US tech. We would need to know the internal function and specs of the radars and their components to know that. They could easily use similar packaging as most modern US radars and still use couple of generations older internals. Or they could have pretty modern technology in the components. Then a lot would depend on computing and processing systems and software.


Thanks for your explanation Hornetfinn. Always a pleasure to read. :thumb:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 21:06
by botsing
sferrin wrote:Given you called me out but not him why would I not think there was bias at play? As for "immature", if it's "immature" to point out your apparent bias, then guilty as charged. :roll:

Let's resolve this in PM. :thumb_up:

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 00:49
by sferrin
I believe I owe a mea culpa here regarding missile rate launch of the Aegis system. In trying to track down the video of four rapid fire launch (which I never found) I remembered this one. . .that I've had on my channel for 5 years now. :roll: :oops: :doh:


Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 02:46
by gta4
Since simultaneous multiple missile launch is confirmed officially, there is no need to find a video to prove its fire rate. If you cannot find a video showing simultaneous multiple missile launch, it's your problem, or maybe no video is released to public, but you can't deny this capability.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 03:04
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:Since simultaneous multiple missile launch is confirmed officially, there is no need to find a video to prove its fire rate. If you cannot find a video showing simultaneous multiple missile launch, it's your problem, or maybe no video is released to public, but you can't deny this capability.


To be fair, your link did not say simultaneous launch and the picture you show doesn't even address what system it's talking about.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 14:01
by gta4
VLS_multiple.jpg


Source from Lockheed Martin. Happy now?

vls baseline cover.png

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 14:17
by sferrin
gta4 wrote:
VLS_multiple.jpg


Source from Lockheed Martin. Happy now?


How did you divine that given the word "Lockheed" appears nowhere in the document? Look, you're free to believe whatever you want. I'd prefer something a bit more definitive. Sorry. I believe this horse is long dead.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 14:44
by madrat
Trademark image top right.

Re: J-20 VERSUS F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 15:18
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Trademark image top right.


Good point. I'm probably nit-picking anyway. The most likely limit would be adequate separation between rounds leaving the cells so they don't impinge on one another.