moon_lightIt eventually will but none of that will have solved its major drawback…
what the drawback then ?
T/W , cruise speed => new engine can solve that
kinematic => new missiles solve that
..etc the point is T-50 and J-20 will get improvement in future but so do F-35
and already explained before kinematic and maneuver are more complicated than just T/W and wing loading
BTW in the worst case situation , if kinematic and maneuver are very very important F-35 in future can have TVC or extra canard in future just like F-15 ACTIVE or F-16 VISTA ,AFTI ..etc ofcourse it harder compared to getting new radar , or engine but structure can be modify as well , they are not permanent like what you think
moon_lightCan it? :confused::confused:
yes
Yes.. and what?
so it not easy , engineer are not dumb , neither are government
And what radar will it have, then?
we dont know that why it really stupid to try to compared thing that we know nothing about
moon_lightIt would require some incredible ****ups on behalf of Chengdu for J-20 to not have significant baseline advantages over F-35, with possible exception of RCS.
That J-20 will match the state of the American art in all respects (particularly avionics, engine, sensor fusion) upon induction is unlikely. But then the Chinese will have decades to work on that problem. As the success and evolution of the Flanker platform demonstrates, get the airframe right and the sky is the limit. In contrast F-35 limitations are forever.
F-35 can have new engine , new radar , new missiles in the future too
about wing loading and T/W you are thinking too simple. MiG-21-93 has 304kg/m2 wing loading, and close to 1,4 T/W ratio in overboost mode. In theory it should far superior to anything out there, but its not even close to the performance of F-16.
moreover the F-35 sustain turn ability of only 5.5 g sound really ****ty but without condition it number actually dont mean much For example do you guy know that At near the speed of sound and at an altitude of 25,000 feet even the F-16 can only sustain 4.5 g 😉 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-025-DFRC.html
moon_lightbtw we always assume that t-50 and j-20 can supercruise (not know at what speed ) but f-35 can also fly at mach 1.2 without afterburner too + ramjet missiles like meteor so that may also balance out
moon_lightYes, every decent planner will have to assume that. You have to be prepared on the worst case scenario and consider that copying shape is a relatively easy part.. the front section of the J-20 lets me think that Chinese have paid great attention to its frontal aspect RCS – don’t see a reason why they could not match even F-22’s levels, not even F-35’s.
Shaping is not simple , material is a problem too , and having shaping + material + big weapon bay + good aerodynamic is really really hard , then you need to have good radar and good engine too ..etc
What exactly do the J-20 or T-50 claim? That they will have weaker radar and larger RCS? :confused: :confused:
they may have better radar ) but they may also much have bigger RCS => that balance out => no advantage Or even worse for J-20 because it dont have AESA radar ( and that i havenot talk about jamming ability of f-35)
moon_lightThere was too much written for everything to address,, so I will only focus on few answers.
Exactly. And this is the reason why I believe the J-20 will have the edge in the future. Because I assume the J-20, too, was designed for hi-speed cruise. And there are more things which play into its favor – huge nose to accomodate a large radar, massive fuselage with lots of space for fuel, weapons and systems for future growth and later access to 117S technology from Russia. Enough to match the F-22? Maybe not. Enough to deal with F-35s? IMHO, quite easily.
you assume that J-20 have equal RCS to F-35 , if it doesn’t then the bigger radar is balance by it’s bigger RCS , also China dont have AESA radar at the moment so you also assume they will get it
Here we get to the point. While you put EOTS, EODS and other systems as the reason why the otherwise sluggish F-35 will wipe the floor with J-20 (or T-50, for that matter), in the next sentence you admit that F-22 can easily live even without those and that these systems are not even within the next ten priorities for the upcoming Raptor’s upgrade. You gotta admit, that just doesn’t add up…
f-22 may be better than F-35 in BVR as it have stronger radar along with smaller RCS ( both J-20 and T-50 dont claim having that )+ supercruise , but in WVR F-35 will have the edge by DAS + HOBS missiles + DIRCM
You’re right, we know quite little about future J-20’s performance yet but the chances that this bird will be equally sluggish are quite slim. Is that what the F-35 is? A design which only can prevail when the others fail even worse?
Yes, the F-35 does not supercruise, that is dead serious. It doesn’t even have the ability to fly at supersonic speeds without severe drag penalty.. And whether it does not because there was no workforce or no requirement is utterly meaningless. It does not. And it will be in disadvantageous position against every present and future design which does.
doesnot mean anything no the chance is not slim , it a big chance J-20 dont even have a decent engine or Radar at the moment , and the point about F-35 fail is only your biased argument
moon_lightWhere F-35 is vulnerable is over hostile territory absent support from off board sensors. A hostile fighter operating outside its ability to engage it (Mach 2.8 MiG-31 at 80k feet) could stumble across it and take potshots with near impunity.
mig-31 Service ceiling: 20,600 m (67,600 ft ) vs F-35 Service ceiling: 60,000 ft(18,288 m) => not that much different
also f-35 can detect and attack mig-31 long before the mig-31 know about the f-35
moon_lightSingle missile racks have less drag, otherwise they could hang them. The whole point of the current F-16 arrangement is to minimize drag.
sound logical , but i still think it be much better if f-16 pilot can have the option of carry twin rack like f-18 , f-15 f-22 , f-35 pilot
moon_lighthttp://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/31/65019117/
RVV-BD is extension of R-37 program. Here is some data on that missile:
And all that was in 1994. RVV-BD and radar/avionics of Su-35S are on totally another level compared to old tech from 1994.
mig-21 is limited to 7 G it no where as agile as f-16 ,let alone rafale , mig-21 clean RCS is 5 m2 , and that is really big compared to 0.1 m2 of rafale or even much lower of stealth aircraft
the missiles have 400 km range but the kill was made at 40 km ( that almost the NEZ for Aim-120 ) i dont see that anything really magnificent
and also in your example these missile was fired from mig-31 which have much better cruise speed and top speed than su-35 and also these mig-21 target fly at very low altitude ( the highest is 7 km )
moon_lightRussia certainly has produced more ramjet products. and presumbly exported 5000 BVR AAMs in last 20 years. highly illogical that missile with identical weight claiming so much range. and how does Gripen operate such weopon effectively?. Sukhoi certainly needs that 400km range radar.
Als that spending example that $10b spent in less than two years on one project. It is not like spreading money over 20 year project. where it become obsolete during implementation. Most of EU projects have this problem. see Galileo.
yes russian may be have a little bit more experience in missiles than EU but that it ,they dont have monopoly in missiles like American have with stealth a while ago and it doesnot mean their product always better no matter what
gripen can have Awacs guide it’s weapon too , and many aircraft have weapon that excess it’s radar range ( ex : mig-21 bison + r-77 )
it nothing illogical about meteor have 160 km range compared to 100 km range of r-77sd , they have different electronic equipment , different aerodynamic , different way to generate thrust ..etc the only problem is you can’t accept that some country surpass your beloved russia in some aspect
moon_lightUS does not have much money left to accelerate things from current pace. It has already distribute alot on F-35, F-18E (these aircrafts have less in common). now Chinese do have money left but it will interesting to see whether they can do things quicker and with higher technology. they havent done TVC or long range AAM yet.
Su-35 is the key weopon system.
russia have to spend money on t-50 and su-35 too so this is really a nonsense point
moon_lightRussia has plenty of experiance with ramjet. just Brahmos order book will reach several thousands. missile with S curve.
somehow your underestimating there judgement about missile propulsion. and Sukhoi requirements for extreme long range engagement. and there is issue of money. Russia can throw alot of money into single projects if its necessary to acclerate things. If they found that Meteor is more effective. they are going to spend boat load of money in a there own missiles which no one in EU can match on project by project basis.
so conclusion is RVV-SD & RVV-BD are the right solution.
;);) yeah and by your logic aim-120 will be the best , much better than r-77sd , rvv-bd , meteor or anything else because USA can throw alot of money into single projects if its necessary to accelerate things. If they found that Meteor or RVV-BD is more effective. they are going to spend boat load of money in a their own missiles which no one in EU , russia can match on project by project basis.
so conclusion is AIM-120 , CUDA are the right solution 😉 right :D:diablo: LOL LOL
moon_lightRussia has more funding for single projects and have exported more BVR AAMs than EU. so there is likelyhood that its solution is more correct.
EU fundings are spread out between Iris-T, Asraam, Mica and now Meteor.so Rafale can maintain higher top speed with ET than Su-35 with AAMs. Rafale top speed is lower than M2K. Russians atleast does not go backwards with top speed. Su-27SK is adjusted to Mach 2.15 and Su-35 to Mach 2.25
your love for russia just to much to accept fact 😉 ok believe what you want , iam done
moon_lightso competitors will wait untill you sort out your funding problem. they will go in other directions to defeat the thing that your advertizing for decades without delivering operationally.
but going in other way is risky as well , competitor may also fail ..etc it not simple
moon_lightequal size and weight but different time lines. There is difference in 1970s and 1990s. and surely more improvements in 21st century. ramjet is quite old technology.
different time line = different solution for same problem = longer range, same idea for meteor vs r-77sd ( may be same time but different solution ..etc )
so you think the manufacture assumes only one Kh-31 for Mach 1.5 speed.
yes
one hand claiming that Rafale has supersonic tanks untill Mach 1.6 but not beliving on much more powerfull Su-35 carrying lighter RVV-BD to that speed.
nonsense they have different aerodynamic
Sign In
