J-20 VERSUS F-35

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 02:39

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
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 03:10

:cheers: woohoo! I get to say it first!

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

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 03:24

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.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1680
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 04:06

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?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

lbk000

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 04:31

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?
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 04:45

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.
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 04:48

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.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 722
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 05:08

I do believe the op needs to check this

Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 06:46

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...) ;)
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 06:51

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.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 722
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 06:53

J20 is never claimed to have 360 deg DAS coverage. It lacks rear hemisphere coverage
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 203
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 09:55

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.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 10:09

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.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1264
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 12:09

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
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1376
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Jul 2017, 12:31

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...
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests