J20 Stealth Fighter

[MiG-29SMT]

The US had advance canard equipped experiments from the early as 1980's such as X-29:


X-31


Not to mention ACTIV:

View attachment 97919

They stick canards even to an F-4:

View attachment 97920

And yet none found its way to production fighters. The Russians likewise slapped canards on Su-27 and called it Su-30 then removed it later and called it Su-35. So canard is overrated in practical applications to fighters.

well everything is mission dependant, plus a fashion.

on the 6th generation very likely all aircraft are going to be tailess.

5th generation almost all are with aft tail and all have chines

Almost all the 4++ generation have canards

4th generation most of them have LEX and 2 aft tails.

Canards are used due to the very high pitch up tendency and vortex formation.

On J-20 that high pitch up tendecy was needed because they did not have TVC nozzles.

The canard brings a very strong lift vector ahead of the center of Gravity.

On a longitudinally instable aircraft like F-16 or F-35 the aft tail balances the nose up tendency by its lift, in order to pitch you kill some lift and the nose goes up.

On a canard is different to balance you kill canard lift, if you want pitch up the nose you let canard lift pitch up.

So they tend to have good instantaneous turn rate for the same size wing.

However LEX and LEVCONs can do the same, the LEX is not a control surface so in that yields to the canard that is the reason you have Su-30MKI; the LEVCON can be used as a canard so it is par on par with canards.

J-20 did not innovate anything in aerodynamics, it is basically a F-35 with X-36 and MiG-1.44 structure.

LCA and PAKFA/Su-57 are in that more innovative

 

[asianobserve]

well everything is mission dependant, plus a fashion.

on the 6th generation very likely all aircraft are going to be tailess.
View attachment 97942
5th generation almost all are with aft tail and all have chines
View attachment 97943
Almost all the 4++ generation have canards
View attachment 97945
4th generation most of them have LEX and 2 aft tails.
View attachment 97946
Canards are used due to the very high pitch up tendency and vortex formation.

On J-20 that high pitch up tendecy was needed because they did not have TVC nozzles.

The canard brings a very strong lift vector ahead of the center of Gravity.

On a longitudinally instable aircraft like F-16 or F-35 the aft tail balances the nose up tendency by its lift, in order to pitch you kill some lift and the nose goes up.

On a canard is different to balance you kill canard lift, if you want pitch up the nose you let canard lift pitch up.

So they tend to have good instantaneous turn rate for the same size wing.

However LEX and LEVCONs can do the same, the LEX is not a control surface so in that yields to the canard that is the reason you have Su-30MKI; the LEVCON can be used as a canard so it is par on par with canards.

J-20 did not innovate anything in aerodynamics, it is basically a F-35 with X-36 and MiG-1.44 structure.

LCA and PAKFA/Su-57 are in that more innovative

But the narrative being pushed hard is that Rafale is a better fighter than F-35 due to Delta wing plus canard control. This claim obviously falls flat on the face of US extensive research on canard and their non adoption of this feature on all their production fighters.

The Russians too went back to non-canard Su-27 in Su-35. And in the Su-57 the Russians toned its canard opting for levcon.

As to 4++ gen fighters all using canards, SH does not have canards, Su-35 as I mentioned does not have canards. The Euro deltas have canards since that is a design requirement for their fighters from the beginning as deltas have inherent deficiency in high AOA.

And no, neither Tejas nor Su-57 are innovative due to levcons. The real innovation in flight control dynamics is on software.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

But the narrative being pushed hard is that Rafale is a better fighter than F-35 due to Delta wing plus canard control. This claim obviously falls flat on the face of US extensive research on canard and their non adoption of this feature on all their production fighters.

The Russians too went back to non-canard Su-27 in Su-35. And in the Su-57 the Russians toned its canard opting for levcon.

As to 4++ gen fighters all using canards, SH does not have canards, Su-35 as I mentioned does not have canards. The Euro deltas have canards since that is a design requirement for their fighters from the beginning as deltas have inherent deficiency in high AOA.

And no, neither Tejas nor Su-57 are innovative due to levcons. The real innovation in flight control dynamics is on software.

I did not say all the 4++ fighters have canards, i said almost almost all.

About Rafale you have to consider the mission and fashion.

F-35 at best is as good as F-16, Rafale is much better in agility.
F-35 as long as radar and sensors do not pick it up well has some advantages, however as a flying object Rafale is the best, Su-57 is also good but also relies on thrust vectoring nozzles.

LEVCON are physical objects that deal with air, software alone does not control the aircraft, it is not a video game, LEVCONs do control the vortex burst, so they control the center of lift location, Su-57 uses them to roll.

You like it or not LEVCON is a very advance control device.

on the latest king cobra fighter you see F-16XL return.

But see the latest Russian concept

The best for stealth is no canard no aft tail, but with Thrust vectoring and a LEVCON you get tail and canard without it.

J-20 did not consider it because is basically a frankeinstein of aircraft.

 

[asianobserve]

I did not say all the 4++ fighters have canards, i said almost almost all.

About Rafale you have to consider the mission and fashion.

F-35 at best is as good as F-16, Rafale is much better in agility.
F-35 as long as radar and sensors do not pick it up well has some advantages, however as a flying object Rafale is the best, Su-57 is also good but also relies on thrust vectoring nozzles.

LEVCON are physical objects that deal with air, software alone does not control the aircraft, it is not a video game, LEVCONs do control the vortex burst, so they control the center of lift location, Su-57 uses them to roll.

You like it or not LEVCON is a very advance control device.
View attachment 97952


on the latest king cobra fighter you see F-16XL return.

But see the latest Russian concept
View attachment 97953

View attachment 97956

The best for stealth is no canard no aft tail, but with Thrust vectoring and a LEVCON you get tail and canard without it.

J-20 did not consider it because is basically a frankeinstein of aircraft.

View attachment 97955

F-35 has overall better performance than Rafale by significant margin. That's what the Swiss found out after extensive evaluation.

As to levcon, ever asked yourself why it has not been adopted by the Americans? It's not as ground breaking as you think it is. Again, software and computer have advanced so much that computer-controlled adjustments in control surfaces are able to match canards and TVC that the Americans can do away with these complicated, expensive, heavy and radar signature penalizing components.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

F-35 has overall better performance than Rafale by significant margin. That's what the Swiss found out after extensive evaluation.

As to levcon, ever asked yourself why it has not been adopted by the Americans? It's not as ground breaking as you think it is. Again, software and computer have advanced so much that computer-controlled adjustments in control surfaces are able to match canards and TVC that the Americans can do away with these complicated, expensive, heavy and radar signature penalizing components.

View attachment 97962
View attachment 97963

The americans can not use computers to replace control devices, what they can do is optimize aerodynamics, avionics and weapons for a mission profile.

Same is the J-20 concept, J-20 was designed in that way, not because the Chinese are fools, no they are very brilliant, they are using a mission profile, the Indians also are not fools, to hunt J-20 with Rafale, Rafale has a mission profile where potentially can beat J-20 for example using supercruise that very likely J-20 can not do.

When F-22 was used outside of its mission profile, Rafale or Eurofighter proved they can down it.

Su-35 was sent to Syria to do the same, even the Americans had F-22s.


The J-20 very likely is used in conjuction of J-10s, and J-16 to use tactics that does not exposes it to situations where they can down it.

F-35 is the same, it will be used in conjuction of a new 6th generation fighter and F-15s.

What the americans are doing is use that mission profile to avoid expose the F-35 to WVR where obviously Rafale has advantage.

China will do the same, if tactics favour the Chinese well Rafale will not make a dent on them, but tactics well used can make Rafale beat it as F-15 did it to MiG-25 in 1981.

In the 1990s iraqi MiG-25s used tactics that rendered F-15s useless and same was F-14.

 

[asianobserve]

The americans can not use computers to replace control devices, what they can do is optimize aerodynamics, avionics and weapons for a mission profile.

Same is the J-20 concept, J-20 was designed in that way, not because the Chinese are fools, no they are very brilliant, they are using a mission profile, the Indians also are not fools, to hunt J-20 with Rafale, Rafale has a mission profile where potentially can beat J-20 for example using supercruise that very likely J-20 can not do.

When F-22 was used outside of its mission profile, Rafale or Eurofighter proved they can down it.

Su-35 was sent to Syria to do the same, even the Americans had F-22s.


The J-20 very likely is used in conjuction of J-10s, and J-16 to use tactics that does not exposes it to situations where they can down it.

F-35 is the same, it will be used in conjuction of a new 6th generation fighter and F-15s.

What the americans are doing is use that mission profile to avoid expose the F-35 to WVR where obviously Rafale has advantage.

China will do the same, if tactics favour the Chinese well Rafale will not make a dent on them, but tactics well used can make Rafale beat it as F-15 did it to MiG-25 in 1981.

In the 1990s iraqi MiG-25s used tactics that rendered F-15s useless and same was F-14.

In A2A combat 5th gen fighters hold considerable advantage over 4th and 4++ gen fightets in most scenarios.

As to the Mig-25 versus F-15, there was no instance when a Mig-25 defeated an F-15 in 1990 (Gulf War 1?). What an Iraqi Mig-25 shot down by ambush was an F-18C. On the contrary 2 Mig-25s were downed by F-15s.

 

[johnq]

From what I know about the F-35's avionics, sensors and weapons, it is way beyond anything on the J-20. The CCP military like to show off extra T/R modules on a radar to CCP fanboys to say that the J-20 sensors are so advanced, but this is all part of CCP propaganda and psy ops. A radar's technology is not just measured by the number of T/R modules you can show off on it, but what it actually does. The simple fact is that the F-35 sensors are at least 2 generations ahead of the J-20 sensors, which are copied from 2 decade old Russian sensor technology on the SU-35. Anyone can put a lot of T/R modules together and say, hey I got a better radar than yours. But the modes on the J-20 radar are basically ripped off from heavily downgraded (for export to CCP military) Russian PESA radar technology from 2 decades ago, so it is EXTREMELY INFERIOR to the F-35's radar and sensors.
If the CCP military radar technology was as advanced as they claim, why did they order Russian S-400 which has 2 decades old Russian radar technology, which is heavily downgraded in terms of capabilities for export to CCP military?
The CCP military can put together the hardware of a radar using off the shelf T/R module technology, but their knowledge of how the radars work in terms of modes and what they
do in modern aircraft is extremely limited due to export restrictions on China. This is why they had to copy radar modes from old Russian PESA which was extremely downgraded in terms of modes and capabilities for export to CCP military.
Similarly, the CCP military will show off fancy missiles with fancy seekers to the Chinese people for propaganda purposes, but these missiles are either not operational, or operational with a very limited set of capabilities, and so outdated that they will be easily jammed by any modern western aircraft.
Also, while CCP military is still doing a propaganda campaign with numbers of T/R modules, the US has already moved on to the next generation in terms of sensors.
The simple fact is that if there were ever a matchup between modern western radar/jamming technology and J-20 radar/jamming technology, I seriously doubt the J-20 would even know the F-35 was there until it was too late.
This is also because the F-35 stealth actually works from all angles and is reliable. Meanwhile the CCP military has still not figured out how to hide the radar/radome from modern wideband AESA radars, so the J-20 will already be visible to modern western radar from a long distance away: It has already been tracked by IAF and Taiwan air force aircraft radars on multiple occasions, so the US air force will have no problems against it. The J-20 also has major design flaws in terms of RCS reduction, and its RAM also doesn't work very well.
The IR/electro-optical sensors on the J-20 also don't work very well in terms of range and reliability as they are also copied from 2 generations old Russian technology. Meanwhile the F-35 has the best IR/optical sensors in the world.
The CCP military should keep the J-20 just for propaganda parades, because if it ever faced a modern western aircraft like the F-35 or Rafale, its radar/weapons would be jammed, and most likely it would be shot down by a missile before it even knew that the F-35 or the Rafale was there, both due to J-20's outdated, unreliable and weak sensor technology as well as its failures in terms of RCS and infrared reduction due to design flaws, technological limitations in terms of hiding the radar/radome from modern radars and old inferior engines which are too weak and unreliable.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

In A2A combat 5th gen fighters hold considerable advantage over 4th and 4++ gen fightets in most scenarios.

As to the Mig-25 versus F-15, there was no instance when a Mig-25 defeated an F-15 in 1990 (Gulf War 1?). What an Iraqi Mig-25 shot down by ambush was an F-18C. On the contrary 2 Mig-25s were downed by F-15s.

Air combat many times is propaganda, tell me when has the USA acknowledged air to air loses?
in 1991 more than 30 wester fighters were aknowledged by the USA as downed by SAMs, that is the american side no iraqi claims that said more aircraft were downed many by MiG-25s and MiG-23s.

But my point is tactics did indeed show the MiG-25 well flown evaded and dodged many missiles included AIM-54s and were instances the F-15 was unable to hit it even with AWACs.

4th generation fighters do not show inferiority in WVR combat, in fact F-22 with Thrust vectoring nozzles and no AIM-9X barely was on par of Rafale or Eurofighter.

5th generation fighters only show superiority in BVR combat, and that is relative too, because AAMs are conventional, not stealthy, they have the same shape of the missiles used by 4th generation fighters.

What does it mean? they carry little number of Missiles and missiles fail, so even if F-22 carries 6 AIM-120, some will fail to hit, after that they are out of combat because in WVR Eurofighter that supercruises and it has Meteors and IRIS-T can basically down F-22.

Tell me how come USAF will buy 150 or more F-15EXs and retire all F-22s?

I will give you an example an air force uses Drones to simulate fighters, J-20 fires at them, it carries only 6 missiles and no fuel tanks.

Basically drones like taranis or neuron can simulate a fighter and are pretty much more stealthy than J-20.

Su-35 carries 12 missiles, working with Okhotnik can basically get closer to J-20 and beat it with okhotnik.

Rafale can do the same with Neuron.

On WVR i can assure you Rafale can beat J-20 and in the range of 100 or less Kilometers can detect the IR image of J-20

The basic radar equation states more transmitting power by the emmiter easier to detect a target, AWACS now have better range.

Russian engineers say for A-50 there is no stealth target including F-22 and F-35

look at the graph it is easy to see no thrust vectoring F-22 is not that better than F-15, J-20 believe me is not that great, in WVR i can assure you Rafale can beat it

 

[MiG-29SMT]

 

[MiG-29SMT]

 

[rockdog]

View attachment 98121

View attachment 98122

View attachment 98123

Even the vidoe shows there are 15 J20s, it's still only 5 J20s to some of our forum members ...

 

[johnq]

The World Doesn’t Want Beijing’s Fighter Jets

Snazzy weapons mean a lot less if you don’t have friends.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[johnq]

The J-20 is a failure in terms of RCS reduction due to design flaws (canards/gaps between canards and body) and outdated materials technology (RAM paint is ineffective, less reliable and peels off easily), as well as its radar/radome being exposed from the front to modern enemy radars: Which is why it has been tracked by IAF and Taiwanese air force fighter radars at long range.
J-20 is a failure in terms of engines: Both the Russian engines and their Chinese copies used on them are weak (provide far less thrust than what is required for such a heavy aircraft) and less reliable; the Chinese copies are even less reliable than their Russian counterparts and fail often at high altitude airfields.
The J-20s avionics and sensors are copied from 2 decades old, severely downgraded for export, Russian PESA and other sensors on the SU-35: This is the real reason why CCP military bought the SU-35. Which means that the radar on the J-20 has severely downgraded (for export to CCP military) PESA technology from 2 decades ago in terms of programming/what it can actually do, regardless of the T/R modules shown in CCP military propaganda brochures for psy ops (intimidating outsiders and brainwashing Chinese fanboys). The IRST/optical sensors are also outdated by 2 decades (weak range of 30 km) and less reliable/break down a lot.
The J-20 is useful for CCP propaganda fly overs by prototypes using temporarily ported engines, but in terms of capabilities it is still far, far behind modern western platforms. Flying in airshows is not the same thing as having reliable operational aircraft.
In terms of weapons' sensors, these are also quite outdated in terms of technology compared to modern western systems, and will be jammed by modern western ECM.
In any real conflict, the J-20s radar and weapons will be easily jammed by more modern systems, and it will be shot out of the sky by more modern western weapons.

 

[asianobserve]

Air combat many times is propaganda, tell me when has the USA acknowledged air to air loses?
in 1991 more than 30 wester fighters were aknowledged by the USA as downed by SAMs, that is the american side no iraqi claims that said more aircraft were downed many by MiG-25s and MiG-23s.

But my point is tactics did indeed show the MiG-25 well flown evaded and dodged many missiles included AIM-54s and were instances the F-15 was unable to hit it even with AWACs.

4th generation fighters do not show inferiority in WVR combat, in fact F-22 with Thrust vectoring nozzles and no AIM-9X barely was on par of Rafale or Eurofighter.

5th generation fighters only show superiority in BVR combat, and that is relative too, because AAMs are conventional, not stealthy, they have the same shape of the missiles used by 4th generation fighters.

What does it mean? they carry little number of Missiles and missiles fail, so even if F-22 carries 6 AIM-120, some will fail to hit, after that they are out of combat because in WVR Eurofighter that supercruises and it has Meteors and IRIS-T can basically down F-22.

Tell me how come USAF will buy 150 or more F-15EXs and retire all F-22s?

I will give you an example an air force uses Drones to simulate fighters, J-20 fires at them, it carries only 6 missiles and no fuel tanks.

Basically drones like taranis or neuron can simulate a fighter and are pretty much more stealthy than J-20.

Su-35 carries 12 missiles, working with Okhotnik can basically get closer to J-20 and beat it with okhotnik.

Rafale can do the same with Neuron.

On WVR i can assure you Rafale can beat J-20 and in the range of 100 or less Kilometers can detect the IR image of J-20

View attachment 98011

The basic radar equation states more transmitting power by the emmiter easier to detect a target, AWACS now have better range.

Russian engineers say for A-50 there is no stealth target including F-22 and F-35

View attachment 98012
look at the graph it is easy to see no thrust vectoring F-22 is not that better than F-15, J-20 believe me is not that great, in WVR i can assure you Rafale can beat it
View attachment 98013

See USAF A2A losses in Desert Storm against Mig-25:

As to A2A combat between 5th gen and 4th gen, it's a lopsided affair. 5th gen in the hands of well trained pilots will not fight fair. Forget it.

 

[asianobserve]

Sorry, US loss to Mig-25 was only F-18 x 1, which is what I exactly recall qnd I mentioned in previous post.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

See USAF A2A losses in Desert Storm against Mig-25:

View attachment 98200

As to A2A combat between 5th gen and 4th gen, it's a lopsided affair. 5th gen in the hands of well trained pilots will not fight fair. Forget it.

You are not quoting Iraqi nor Russian/Soviet sources, in fact if you were alive as an adult or young man as I was Iraq claimed many more victories, these are not accepted or published by western sources

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Sorry, US loss to Mig-25 was only F-18 x 1, which is what I exactly recall qnd I mentioned in previous post.

your recollection is poor at best, there are claims of MiG-23 victories in 1991 as well claims of victories by MiG-29s or MiG-25s these are not accepted in the west.

About Stealth I do not need western or Russian propaganda, just the radar range formula

If you understand the formula Pt is the most important aspect, since F-22 indeed is seen by radars.

But it will depend upon what radar.

A MiG-21 from the 1960s will detect it within very few kilometers maybe 5-6 km.

A MiG-25 will detect it a bit much farther perhaps 20km.

A Su-35 perhaps at 100-80km of range.

A modern AWACs around 350-300km of range.

The problem for an air force is as radar detection is reduced the route will look for gaps in the radar coverage so in order to detect it you will need several AWACS, fighter and naval or ground radars, that means money, yes stealth most problematic aspect is fill the battlefield with radars, it is very expensive.

Could India and Taiwan have detected J-20 yes it is probable they indeed did

Why J-20 armed with long range missiles is very dangerous? simple it might be detected by AWACS but theoretically it has missiles with longer range out of the reach of most fighters and able to down AWACs

 

[asianobserve]

You are not quoting Iraqi nor Russian/Soviet sources, in fact if you were alive as an adult or young man as I was Iraq claimed many more victories, these are not accepted or published by western sources

I was alive in Desert Storm. Cable was new in our place and it was 24 hour news coverage (plus MTV).

And between American Government and Saddam government I will believe US government in Desert Storm accounts.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

I was alive in Desert Storm. Cable was new in our place and it was 24 hour news coverage (plus MTV).

And between American Government and Saddam government I will believe US government in Desert Storm accounts.

is not who you do believe, but as a historian you have to see all sources.

In example J-20 to stay within the topic range.

An example is China Claims they are using WS-10 but in the latest parade you only see J-20s with Al-31 what does it say?


China claims J-10 is a domestic program but Israeli sources claim some Israeli technology was passed and there are pictures of Chengdu engineers in front of Lavi and Russian sources say Israeli and Russian technitians worked with Chinese engineers on J-10?

Tell me who are you going to believe?

What about claims F-35 data was stolen by China?

the reality is in History you need to test all sources and you like it or not the Iraqi sources have some credibility , why? simple evidence always is needed

 

[asianobserve]

is not who you do believe, but as a historian you have to see all sources.

In example J-20 to stay within the topic range.

An example is China Claims they are using WS-10 but in the latest parade you only see J-20s with Al-31 what does it say?


China claims J-10 is a domestic program but Israeli sources claim some Israeli technology was passed and there are pictures of Chengdu engineers in front of Lavi and Russian sources say Israeli and Russian technitians worked with Chinese engineers on J-10?

Tell me who are you going to believe?

What about claims F-35 data was stolen by China?

the reality is in History you need to test all sources and you like it or not the Iraqi sources have some credibility , why? simple evidence always is needed

I will still believe the US government versus Saddam government and China or Russia or North Korea.