Nothing against my French colleagues, but I think the French built some of the ugliest aircraft!

Give me a moment and I will find some………………….

Regards
Pioneer

The Amiot 143

I still believe the so called “chinese trolls” are not actually chinese but pretend to be chinese and do they very best to have themselves thoroughly unliked and cast the worst possible light on the real chinese. 😡

If they are not Chinese, what nationality do you think they are?

I believe the mods can ascertain what countries posters are based in by checking their IP addresses?:confused:

It depends. The general layout is not that much different, with the most obvious change being the intakes. It would be interesting to know what exactly was the role of Russian assistance in this project.

Not this BS again – it would be interesting to know exactly what was the role of Lockheed assistance in the An-124 project, or Boeing assistance in the Tu-204…?:rolleyes:

Amusing, considering they even needed to copy the variable intake system from the MiG-23 for their J-8II

Hey, don’t the MiG-23 intakes look suspiciously like those on the F-4?

Really! Wouldn’t the missiles of the J-20 not have the same problem dealing with the F-35?

Do u know weight of F-18 with TVC?. TVC was not matured in 1990s.

Perhaps because nobody wanted it?

and new combat aircraft in world will be TVC.

No they won’t be.

see 400 MKI/MKA/MKM/SM. and atleast 200 Su-35. and 1000 T-50.

Yes a tad optimistic, and all from the same country – what about all the other countries, what’s their opinion?

It might be intended to supercruise but not with the basic AL-31F. Can a Su-27 supercruise with the same engines? The Flanker is not renowned for its supercruising qualities and I can’t see how a heavier and more draggier J-20 can do it.
I don’t see a CFM-56 being a solution to the problem either?:confused:

Oh, I don’t doubt that that the Chinese probably can’t produce a TVC aircraft, their jet engine problems are well documented – but who says that the J-20 with its design, combat role and specification really needs TVC?

Because fourth generation to fifth generation is a massive leap in terms of technology and VLO design.

TVC was never a requirement because it wasn’t as known/developed in the very early 1990’s and it wasn’t put through on the super hornet because it was considered to complex and possibly immature technology.

The F-22 has thrust vectoring, the F-35 has it in the form of VTOL capability-which unfortunately makes it not practical because of the weight and cost. The Su-30MKI and Su-30SM both have TV and so does the Su-35. The F-22 has it, the T-50 has it. Obviously there is benefit to thrust vectoring when it comes to VLO aircraft because of the shorter engagement ranges and the higher possibility of getting into a dogfight. I’d take Sukhoi, LM’s scientific assessments over your opinion to be honest.

The only reason China’s ‘stealth’ jet does not have it is because their engines are either sub-par to the original AL-31 engine or a outdated AL-31 engine.

Why would they put such s**t engines on a massive airplane? Because they can’t make anything better and have nothing better to copy off of.

Obviously, Chinese technology is suffering if there is any intend whatsoever to purchase Su-35’s.

TVC technology was more than mature enough in the 1990s to be fitted to the SH if the USN had wanted it – they didn’t.

LM and Sukhoi don’t ‘operate’ combat aircraft and decide whether they should have TVC, air forces do. Of the thousands of combat aircraft the US military has ordered and delivered in the last and for the next ten years only 187 have had TVC. You can respect an air arm in their decision to fit TVC – and respect their decision not to…