over GOverall, the stealth shaping of the J-20 prototype design is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the United States’ F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Surprise surprise, more refined shaping is not worth the trouble, and is not even more efficient.
So you have a big design issue here
To choice a determined shape, sacrificing structural hardeness (increasing structural weight), aerodynamic efficiency, internal space, and other factors
Or to get a more conventional shape, reaching RCS demands through RAM, but compensating the extra-weight with the benefits above.
Loockeed original JSF concepts had far better shapping for RCS requirements, the F-35 did end with a far more aerodynamic design
Guess what…the F-35 is actually more advanced than the F-22.
This is why I have mixed feelings over the J-20, the overall configuration is OK, but it seems they are doing exactly the same mistakes the LM team did over the F-22, as some guy in a magazine pointed out ‘the thing looks like it was designed in the 80’s’, well he was right…the things philosophy design is pretty close to the F-22’s one.
Shaping works nice, but in real life does have a limit, because shapping have a nice performance in static testing, the problem is that an aircraft is not static by nature.
So for the real life, the sacrifice of shaping, adding more RAM probably will give you a worse performance in a lab, but a much better performance in battle, and I’m talking about the RCS performance.
And this is why, a moder strike plane that was meant to overcome SAM defences has less ‘stealth’ shape than a old fighter that was never meant to challenge a S-300 battery.
**********
Can somebody tell me why this plane does need such deflection on its canards, for landing AND take off?, is impressive , not even the J-10 demands such deflection.
No even the Mig-1.44 did, as far i recall.
over GNo it shouldn’t. See below.
Yes you’re right, I basically don’t have enough information about the modern political situation there, and to be honest, i never cared much about it.
My comment was basically aimed at the libyan situation and how useless was any airforce when was outumbered, isolated and attacked with enough time of preparation, air forces are very suceptible to infrastructure’s destruction so basically your air force is destroyed with the firs volley of cruiser missiles.
Still I think the Su-25 should be an alternative, because the possible local conclicts, and because the speed their air forces must react.
And i till think a modern mobile SAM plataform is more urgent than a new fighter fleet
But then, these are just opinions, and I admit, not very well informed
over GSerbia’s future equipment should be a new generation of Sams and a fleet of specialized ground attack planes like the Su-25.
Is futile to develop air superiority tactics against an overhelming first strike, the main problem for serbians and other so called ‘rogue’ nations -arrogant label from the west- are not the swarms of F-15s Tornados or F-16s or even the stealth garbage, the main problem was and still is the Tomahawk first strike.
Even in the Iraqui war, air defences were still a problem late in the conflict, and that without any serious russian support.
Mobile SAMs are pretty well survivable, and planes like Su-25s can operate without the huge infrastructure needed , so they can be dispersed , the frogfoot shown quite well performance for small local conflics, and quite good readibility for a fast response, even in an area full of SAMs (the georgean warfare was done over a small corridor, surrounded by SAMs and Manpads)
Air superiority is futile if they can’t destroy their SAMs
Russian new international support should be oriented on these areas, I must agree, if russians don’t support their friends, they will lose a lot of money on international bussiness, but the new interantional military policy should not be based on a conventional international presence , like their planned naval expansion, is a big error IMO, but on support for their friend’s air defences.
NATO’s strikes take weeks to be planned and executed, so a fast airborne response mobile squadron of SA-10s could change the war, or even avoid it.
over GAs far I know, the pulse engine is researched because the very poor combustion efficiency at very high speeds, but then the big issue of this engine is the exhaust velocity.
So I’m not sure if this engine is actually suitable for very fast vehicles
over GDream on that the F-22 layout wll be used in something else…the thing must be successful, you know..
5. Buy some Su-34 and the licence to produce them as Made in USA?
Different doctrines, russian planes were designed to counter an attack from a sizeable opponent, (ie, when the ‘sh!t hits the fan’, very stupid phrase, must say, but since most people here are famirializated with it..) so a sturdy airframe, and some special requirements like rough terrain operations are needed, western planes are designed to gather all them studing a very well prepared attack preferable over a very weak enemy and of course from well secured bases.
over GReally… 6th Gen?
Why not…Boeing already got it 6th gen program…while the USAF still don’t know what is a 6th gen plane..
over GThe mig-35 is the only plane i have not read any real complain over it (heck even from it AESA radar!) there are no technical complains, no mediocre EO systems, no problematic radar, all the others got their little gems, either by engines, radar (meh, even from the magical US AESAs..) mediocre ergonomics, and other hardware complains.
The only complain over the Mig is the same old fan regurtitation supported by clueless guys on internet blogs, that is russian, that is not from the US, that is not a freedom fighter, etc, etc, ect.
over GNah, that one is a F-5 , from the Vietnam era, as the local western propaganda minister Mr. TEEJ said..
over GDon’t you see the theme in all this ? It would happen to each one of them at some point and finally the Middle East will be a great democracy.
It would be unwise for the west to support all of the popular movements at the same time, once Gaddafi goes the next guys turn would come.
Oh God…the freedom fighting cowboy..as if the west actually care for any true democracy in the area..oh yes ..you believe on that garbage actually…
The west went into the fighting because the public pressure, the need of weapon traders to sell more tomahawks, and the macho attitude some idiots in Europe want to project.
*************
Stop shedding tears for people you don’t even know or people that actually would hate you.
Anyways, all these uprising movements in north Africa are suspecting, and seems to be linked together, it looks like a rising of a new Arab nationalism movement? even Saudi Arabia is worried about them, some people say Alqueda is behind these uprisings.
It seems that these revolts are way more efficient than the CIA’s color revolts 😉
Wonder if this is not just another case in which money and appearances are more powerful than common sense.
over GAgree on all except lasers.
Laser technology is picking up the developmental paste, and its going to be scary!! The real limitation is power source. Once they make smaller better source of power, bullets and missiles are going to be only used as “beyond line of sight” weapons.
Lasers are troublesome
The problem is that the laser technology has a lot of paradoxes
The efficient systems have low power output, and need a long time of exposition and will be useless to counter a manouverable target
Unefficient systems do need energy sources that can’t be carried with easy, and while can deliver a much better energy density, and don’t need a long time of exposition, their beam is easely absorved in the atmosphere and are short ranged, and need a longer time for their ‘recharge’.
These are not technologic issues, these are intrinsic and natural issues, these are not issues that can be upgraded stuffing more money in the program or spending more time in the laboratory…
Also, lasers can be easely countered with smoke or in other ways.
So missiles will stay long time as well 😀
over GI don’t see any real evidence of any significative advance on the laser research, if lasers are still in the IR band I don’t think something useful will come out, despite all the research involved.
Remote systems have their issues aswell, and I don’t buy the UAV promises about their effectiveness in air combat, air combat is way too dynamic, and nowadays UAVs are just reusable cruiser missiles…there is not good enough technology in the informatic-communications field, problems of syncronization and data delay are still present and have not solved yet, and this is wont be fixed with more satellites, is an intrinsic issue of the technology.
Reliying in BVR combat is not good idea as well, magazines would say so..but the USAF is not full of idiots, they are not happy with the F-35 for air superiority tasks, and this is why they want a F-22’s replacement for the 2020-30, neither the Boeing FX program for the Navy is an unmanned concept.
And this is why old fashion small manned fighters will stay, for long time.
over GI once thought this would be a good idea, but learning more about how interceptions are done in real life, I just realized that having a big aircraft carrying many missiles is not the way how things are done.
For air superiority numbers can be more important than firepower, a successfull interception is not done by a lone plane , but by many, closing routes, and decreasing the probable paths the target could get, every interceptor has it task to do, engaging or not the target.
Actually numbers was a more important factor than firepower of a design, in every USAF modern air conflict
This can’t be done by a fleet of few mastodontic planes, but a fleet composed by many aircrafts, checking a wealthy balance of numbers/performance, because if you want more performance, numbers are decreased either by readiness ratio, maintenance, cost, or any other factor.
The sky is too big for moveable point defense systems, like a B1-interceptor, of course for very , very long range interceptions (for strategic bombers interceptions) there could not be another way…although the size of the B1 is still too big for such task.
over Gdiscarded. and I am very sure it is a correct decision based on what we have seen so far from T-50 vs j-20.
Ok, and what have you seen?
Because all i see is a potentially overweighty plane, with the worst bomb bay placement for such configuration.
Is sad that russians did not went with the right configuration for the next gen plane, that is the canard-delta, but then their pakfa looks way more practical, and better done and finished than stuffing fins or bending wings for directional stability…no matter how cute looks that canopy…
The j-20 idea/configuration is great, but this great idea is finished under old concepts and a lot of compromises that came from these old concepts…is like they studied seriously the ATF concepts…without noticing that we are already in the 2000’s.
****
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
over GThese kind of problems are solved on ground, not overseas
If people really want to solve this problem, the UN should support the Islamic movement on Somalia….yes i guess they were the bad guys in that heart-breaking ‘Black Hawk down’ movie…with US soldiers fighting for freedom and all that yadada….oh well..
over Gmaybe it is time to look at this again?…
The X-32 program was a mess, the engine’s placement was hard to access, the bomb bays sure had demanded restrictions for ordenance’s launching, the VTOL system was a failure and would had never survived any kind of weight increase, serioulsy the idea to strangle the flow to force it for VTOL purposes, and to only use partial power for direct vertical thrust was a very bad idea, all this not counting the US navy requirements for soft control.
rule of bureaucracies — perpetuate the need for the bureaucracy
That bureaucracie is actually pretty well linked with the private companies, the whole ‘demostrator’ system was a way to absorb money from the state, for unconclussive not finished and incomplete programs, so LM and Boeing presented unfinished programs to make the state to pay the bill for them.
Does not matter ho much money you will stuff on the F-35, it will be always an unfinished program , because good ideas are more important than money, and both, the JSF and the ATF started as bad ideas, because LM, Northrop and Boeing were not pressed enough to show a good product, don’t blame the state, because everybody is involved.
rookie mistakes
There are not ‘rookie mistakes’ on these kind of programs, there is only a lot of corruption.
Sign In
