J-20 compared to the F-22

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 22 Jul 2013, 05:29

disconnectedradical wrote:If they want bait, why wouldn't they just add systems to make those old aircraft unmanned, like our QF-4 and QF-16?

I heard a rumor of that somewhere. Something about China's 3rd-gen fighters disappearing lately....

xt0xickillax · by **xt0xickillax** » 22 Jul 2013, 05:36

It's doubtful the Chicoms give much value to their pilots, considering that nation's population. They have plenty of reserves, so why bother with the cost of making a bunch of old fighters unmanned?

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 22 Jul 2013, 07:17

lookieloo wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:If they want bait, why wouldn't they just add systems to make those old aircraft unmanned, like our QF-4 and QF-16?
I heard a rumor of that somewhere. Something about China's 3rd-gen fighters disappearing lately....

The Syrians modified several MiG-21 Fishbeds to fly unmanned, pretty cheaply. Does anyone really think the Chinese couldn't grab a Google Nexus clone cellphone and hook it up?

It comes with GPS, Gyros, Radio, Camera etc. Add a few control servos and you have a cheap drone.

The Chinese don't have that many 3rd-Gen fighters in flyable condition, so its possible they pulled them from regular service to refurbish them as drones. China has a variety of 4th gen indigenous fighters (J10, J11, JF-17, Su-27/Su-30 etc) for a sizable manned Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD Equivalent would be more likely than trying to use extensive decoy aircraft, cheap but can be adjusted to have the RCS of a barn door like a Su-27 (J-11) Flanker class fighter.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 22 Jul 2013, 10:00

What about the J-31???

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 22 Jul 2013, 11:21

Corsair1963 wrote:What about the J-31???

Ah! What the F-35 would have turned out to be if not constrained by the STOVL requirement, including two engines to ensure redundancy over water.. :roll:

a better fit in one of the F-35 subforums.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 22 Jul 2013, 11:21

Deleted

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 22 Jul 2013, 12:51

xt0xickillax wrote:It's doubtful the Chicoms give much value to their pilots, considering that nation's population. They have plenty of reserves, so why bother with the cost of making a bunch of old fighters unmanned?

What a Complete nonsens. Are you aware of the cost and time it takes to Train fighter pilots!?
China may have a large population, but it does not automatically make it any easier to train pilots. You still need the right infrastructure and knowhow.

Someone mention that PLAAF has hordes of 3 Gen fighter. Again this is nonsens. The first Su-27SK that was bought from Russia is out of commision by now. So how can they have operational 3 Gen fighters then? They stopped produce them decade ago..

There is an ongoing J-11B Production.. Hell the J-10B is still at prototype phase. same With the J-15. The huge fighter fleet is mostly a gost fleet. Have you seen Picture from Perm AB in Russia. There are hundreds of airframe lined up there. They are to be scrapped. Its the same With PLAAF. There might be many airframes on various AB, but are they all operational..

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 22 Jul 2013, 13:59

Get this back on topic. If you all want to talk about the PLAAF, then there is an "Air Power" forum you can go to.

uclass · by **uclass** » 23 Jul 2013, 20:01

Most Sukhois have a twin nose-wheel too, it doesn't necessarily imply a naval capability.

munny · by **munny** » 23 Jul 2013, 23:49

The side surfaces of the j-20 are angled more vertically than the f-22 , about 10 degrees more. J-20's side panels are similar to the f-35's. if the j-20 starts flying around within an iads at 50k+ ft like an f-22, it'll be spotted from longer range and tracked for longer periods, enabling engagement by networked interceptors.

xt0xickillax · by **xt0xickillax** » 24 Jul 2013, 20:34

J-20's panels look much more primitive than panels of F-22, F-35, and T-50. There is excessive serration everywhere, especially on the landing gear bay doors and weapon bays. Much like the 30 year old F-117 and much more primitive than current 5th gen designs. Wouldn't be surprised if they used F-117 tech from the 1999 shootdown as well.

Also notice how small the wings are, and how bulky the overall aircraft looks, kinda like a MiG-25. The F-22 will have no problem dealing with this thing, and the T-50 will have an even easier time dominating it.

I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them crash due to poor quality control.

ericchase88 · by **ericchase88** » 26 Jul 2013, 19:04

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

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

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

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

batu731 · by **batu731** » 03 Aug 2013, 02:23

lookieloo wrote:
batu731 wrote:That's why it's a 'concept', one of many that was written off at the early stage.

The Chinese had their reason, though. Israel sold the complete design of Lavi to them, aerodynamics, flight-by-wire, software code ... from which they developed J-10. And J-20 is the further evolution from J-10.
I'm not really getting your point. The delta-canard part of the JAST concept was dropped over a change in requirements, not because of some fundamental flaw that made it inferior to 4-posters in every way. Likewise, the Chinese have chosen the delta-canard form because it does meet their requirements; and said choice gives us a way to guess at what those requirements are.

I don't buy much into the stolen-plans conspiracy theories that fanboys use to make themselves feel better. While it is true that the Chinese are prone to such theft, there is little they could have taken that isn't available via open-source anyways. Besides, the Chinese's close relationship with Pakistan has probably provided them with more access to American tech than a canceled, barely-developed program from the 1980s ever could.

In any case, we should probably take it as a validation of our concepts that the Chinese are copying so many of our design elements. After all, imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery.

Common sense tells me I should trust American designs over the others when it comes to LO technologies. I haven't seen any American LO planes with canard wings, in fact, some of them doesn't even have vertical tails and elevators. The rule of thumb here seems to be: The fewer controlling surfaces, the less you have to worry about reflection.

And since you called me a fanboy, let me tell you some facts. The collaborations between China and Israel was not 'omg Chinese stealing from us' dramas that we are used to today, it was open and conducted right under Uncle Sam's nose, other than J-10 program, Israel was ready to sell other techs such as Phalcon AWACS and Hapry UAVs.

Of course they had to cut the tie when the US decided to intervene, but shortly after that the Chinese rolled out their AWACS system.

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 19 Aug 2013, 16:24

Deleted at sprstdlyscottsmn's urging... seeing as that's the closest thing we have to a mod right now.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 19 Aug 2013, 17:07

trolling for a troll lookieloo? classy... :roll: