F-22 vs J-20 - aka USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters

[samsara]

Better yet, which one did the magazine claime was in fact top dog!?

Of course it's the F-22 Raptor for it's the most expensive, limited edition, as well as the most delicate and care demanding creation. Think of the sexiest girl in town with the most exquisite maintenance care allowance. And haven't the bunch of media keep on telling us so?

 

[gambit]

1+ for China vs America on this one!

You wish...

This is where inexperience produces fanciful speculations that is confirmation bias.

A missile cannot do anything unless there is a command from the cockpit, whether that command is a target validation, which is the FIRST thing to occur, or a launch. So just because my missile is enclosed in a weapons bay does not mean I am at a disadvantage when it comes to targeting. By the time I 'pickle' the missile, it already has all the information it needs. The weapons bay door opening time is irrelevant.

 

[Gomig-21]

You wish...

lol, you know what's even funnier? I contemplated for a few minutes about writing the following after that sentence: "Until @gambit gets a hold of this discussion" but I decided not to haha. Didn't want to flame things and figured if you had something to say, I'm sure there wasn't anything that was going to hold you back lol.

This is where inexperience produces fanciful speculations that is confirmation bias.

A missile cannot do anything unless there is a command from the cockpit, whether that command is a target validation, which is the FIRST thing to occur, or a launch. So just because my missile is enclosed in a weapons bay does not mean I am at a disadvantage when it comes to targeting. By the time I 'pickle' the missile, it already has all the information it needs. The weapons bay door opening time is irrelevant.

So basically what you're saying is that once a lock-on is made, the time it takes for the door to open and the missile to be fired doesn't matter? Ok, that makes sense.

So why do you suppose the Chinese went through all this effort to make notches in those side bay doors and have the missile come out on a bracket and the door closes? They must've figured there is some advantage to adding that additional feature.

 

[Avicenna]

lol, you know what's even funnier? I contemplated for a few minutes about writing the following after that sentence: "Until @gambit gets a hold of this discussion" but I decided not to haha. Didn't want to flame things and figured if you had something to say, I'm sure there wasn't anything that was going to hold you back lol.



So basically what you're saying is that once a lock-on is made, the time it takes for the door to open and the missile to be fired doesn't matter? Ok, that makes sense.

So why do you suppose the Chinese went through all this effort to make notches in those side bay doors and have the missile come out on a bracket and the door closes? They must've figured there is some advantage to adding that additional feature.

It would suck if the door malfunctioned and didn't open after achieving firing position.

Perhaps its better to know that this isn't the case prior with a missile already out of the bay? It if it jammed, at least you know what your dealing with ahead of time.

Pure conjecture on my part.

 

[gambit]

So basically what you're saying is that once a lock-on is made, the time it takes for the door to open and the missile to be fired doesn't matter? Ok, that makes sense.

Here you go...

http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com...iciently-operate-weapon-bay-doors-f-22-raptor

The entire launch sequence (door opening, AVEL ejecting the missile, missile ignition and flyout, door closing) takes just seconds.

Seconds are high end. In combat, more like one second.

So why do you suppose the Chinese went through all this effort to make notches in those side bay doors and have the missile come out on a bracket and the door closes? They must've figured there is some advantage to adding that additional feature.

Assuming this feature is true for the J-20, consider this possibility...

Older missile technology requires the missile's seeker to AT LEAST be exposed to outside environment, meaning its sensor(s) cannot be covered by an internal weapons bay. It does not matter if the missile's sensor, passive and/or active, is 'turned on' or not. The missile's guidance system is readied to receive the sensors' inputs. The analogy is that of a race car driver. You cannot blinder him until the moment of the starting flag. His eyes are opened inside the blinders, but his brain is not prepared to process the immediate sensory exposure once you remove the blinders.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Here you go...

http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com...iciently-operate-weapon-bay-doors-f-22-raptor

Seconds are high end. In combat, more like one second.


Assuming this feature is true for the J-20, consider this possibility...

Older missile technology requires the missile's seeker to AT LEAST be exposed to outside environment, meaning its sensor(s) cannot be covered by an internal weapons bay. It does not matter if the missile's sensor, passive and/or active, is 'turned on' or not. The missile's guidance system is readied to receive the sensors' inputs. The analogy is that of a race car driver. You cannot blinder him until the moment of the starting flag. His eyes are opened inside the blinders, but his brain is not prepared to process the immediate sensory exposure once you remove the blinders.

But surely you know that F-22 would only opens up its bay only when it's sure to fire. The J-20 has the advantage of having the missile ready the moment it enter war zone. That split second means a lot, I'm sure you know. The J-20's more advanced avionics such as its radar (being developed later), EODAS, and EOTS also give it many advantages.

 

[gambit]

But surely you know that F-22 would only opens up its bay only when it's sure to fire. The J-20 has the advantage of having the missile ready the moment it enter war zone. That split second means a lot, I'm sure you know. The J-20's more advanced avionics such as its radar (being developed later), EODAS, and EOTS also give it many advantages.

Consider this possibility...

That on the F-22, the information interface between the radar and the missile is such that the missile do not need to be 'prepped' prior to launch. Essentially, what the radar 'sees', so does the missile.

 

[Gomig-21]

It would suck if the door malfunctioned and didn't open after achieving firing position.

Perhaps its better to know that this isn't the case prior with a missile already out of the bay? It if it jammed, at least you know what your dealing with ahead of time.

Pure conjecture on my part.

That's actually a great point. There could be a list of "propositions" by the Chinese designers as to why the missile should be extracted and ready to fire and among that list is the speed of firing (despite @gambit disagreeing with that concept) and another to ensure that the bay door has functioned already. Which then gives the J-20 pilot a heads-up, so to speak, to go to the 2nd bay. I think that's certainly a pertinent consideration and point by you.

Seconds are high end. In combat, more like one second.

Are you sure about that? Take a look at the 1st 10 seconds. The door opening is about 1 second but look at the time it takes for the missile on bracket to be extended? If door time is irrelevant because of lock on, this kinda shows the opposite because even if both aircraft are dogfighting and fire simultaneously, depending on range and these several seconds for the missile to be extracted and fired, the J-20's PL9 could possibly already be into the side of the Raptor. That right there might be the advantage of the notches on the J-20.

Assuming this feature is true for the J-20,

Woah! Are you suggesting there's a possibility that the feature doesn't exist on the J-20? We've seen the pics of the side bay door with what inevitably appears to be the case, with clear, separate notches.

Disregard the arrows, you can clearly see the 3 squares for the side weapons bay that represent the notch cutouts on the side bay door. Those are attached to the front of the missile bracket and just come out with the bracket so that the door can close back up again. It's a brilliant concept and design, even you have to admit it. lol.

consider this possibility...

Older missile technology requires the missile's seeker to AT LEAST be exposed to outside environment, meaning its sensor(s) cannot be covered by an internal weapons bay. It does not matter if the missile's sensor, passive and/or active, is 'turned on' or not. The missile's guidance system is readied to receive the sensors' inputs. The analogy is that of a race car driver. You cannot blinder him until the moment of the starting flag. His eyes are opened inside the blinders, but his brain is not prepared to process the immediate sensory exposure once you remove the blinders.

If I understand your point, you're actually proving the advantage to the J-20, especially with the last sentence and the analogy to the race car driver's eyes. That means the J-20 having its missile already out is already ahead of the game and not blinded by the delay or the door being shut and then having to process additional information once the doors open.

 

[Deino]

...
Woah! Are you suggesting there's a possibility that the feature doesn't exist on the J-20? We've seen the pics of the side bay door with what inevitably appears to be the case, with clear, separate notches.
...

To be fair, I think no-one denies these features ... but I think since we don't know the performance parameters he question's their superiority since the point alone "being developed later" is not really a necessary argument for being better.

 

[Gomig-21]

To be fair, I think no-one denies these features ... but I think since we don't know the performance parameters he question's their superiority since the point alone "being developed later" is not really a necessary argument for being better.

I completely agree. But this was his comment:

Assuming this feature is true for the J-20

That's doubting that it exists in the first place, or at least not certain that the feature does exist and not whether the feature actually is advantageous or not. I think there is a distinction.

BTW, since we have you now, what is your opinion of the notched bay doors and that bracket system? Assuming you do think it is an actual feature. Would love to hear what you think.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

To be fair, I think no-one denies these features ... but I think since we don't know the performance parameters he question's their superiority since the point alone "being developed later" is not really a necessary argument for being better.

Electronic equipments being developed decades later can be logically assumed to be more advanced based on many things, including Moore’s Law. F-22 was developed in the days when computers were the size of a large room and PC wasn’t even invented 2 decades later. My assumptions are logical. On the other hand, I would not assume that J-20’s radar are more advanced than F-35’s.

 

[gambit]

Are you sure about that? Take a look at the 1st 10 seconds. The door opening is about 1 second but look at the time it takes for the missile on bracket to be extended?

That was a test jet in the vid. You can tell by the extended nose pitot/static probe. Of course the weapons launch sequence are going to be slower than expected.

Am I sure? Yes, I am. I have friends in Nellis. I have seen the F-22 in actions the public do not get to see. I do not expect anyone to take my word for it. As far as we are concerned, the only time it matters is in combat, but by then, it would be too late for the other guys.

Woah! Are you suggesting there's a possibility that the feature doesn't exist on the J-20? We've seen the pics of the side bay door with what inevitably appears to be the case, with clear, separate notches.

Notches or not, maybe I missed the REAL images of the J-20 with the missile in that position. So far, all we have are either outright fakes or 'fanboy' versions.

It's a brilliant concept and design, even you have to admit it. lol.

It maybe an engineering accomplishment, but is it TACTICALLY USEFUL ? I say its tactical utility is debatable at best.

If I understand your point, you're actually proving the advantage to the J-20, especially with the last sentence and the analogy to the race car driver's eyes. That means the J-20 having its missile already out is already ahead of the game and not blinded by the delay or the door being shut and then having to process additional information once the doors open.

Not really -- regarding the highlighted.

It is one thing to 'slave' the missile to the jet's radar, it is a far more difficult thing to transfer in real time the jet's radar information to the missile to the extent that as if the missile is 'seeing' with its own radar, except the jet's radar is larger and with more resolution. Essentially, the AIM-120 is 'seeing' without the need for being outside its weapons bay. That is the real advantage.

Electronic equipments being developed decades later can be logically assumed to be more advanced based on many things, including Moore’s Law. F-22 was developed in the days when computers were the size of a large room and PC wasn’t even invented 2 decades later. My assumptions are logical. On the other hand, I would not assume that J-20’s radar are more advanced than F-35’s.

No, your assumptions are not logical. You can make a newer resistor that with better material the resistor is smaller, but it is still a resistor with a restricted usage. And the computer example is outright absurd. The pocket calculator is a computer and it predate the personal home computer. The first microprocessor was in 1970 and it was developed to manage the F-14's swing wings. So just because the F-22's avionics design is older than you, that does not mean the system cannot perform its missions or that later avionics are more advanced. If the system works to the pilot's advantages, it is 'advanced' enough regardless of the younger age of his opponent.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

No, your assumptions are not logical. You can make a newer resistor that with better material the resistor is smaller, but it is still a resistor with a restricted usage. And the computer example is outright absurd. The pocket calculator is a computer and it predate the personal home computer. The first microprocessor was in 1970 and it was developed to manage the F-14's swing wings. So just because the F-22's avionics design is older than you, that does not mean the system cannot perform its missions or that later avionics are more advanced. If the system works to the pilot's advantages, it is 'advanced' enough regardless of the younger age of his opponent.

How was my assumptions not logical?

“Moore's prediction proved accurate for several decades, and has been used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development.[10] Advancements in digital electronics are strongly linked to Moore's law: quality-adjusted microprocessor prices,[11]memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.” (Wikipedia)

I’m not saying F-22’s avionics design cannot perform its functions. I’m simply stating that J-20’s avionics are naturally more advanced, meaning better performance. Also F-22’s radar was developed with adversaries being mostly 4th gen fighters. The J-20 was developed with the F-22 and F-35 in mind, of course its radar would be more suited to detect stealth aircrafts than F-22’s radar.

My dates regarding the PC was incorrect.

 

[gambit]

How was my assumptions not logical?

I’m not saying F-22’s avionics design cannot perform its functions. I’m simply stating that J-20’s avionics are naturally more advanced, meaning better performance. Also F-22’s radar was developed with adversaries being mostly 4th gen fighters. The J-20 was developed with the F-22 and F-35 in mind, of course its radar would be more suited to detect stealth aircrafts than F-22’s radar.

My dates regarding the PC was incorrect.

Your assumptions are not logical because you have a false understanding of what is 'advanced'.

Steel is not a more 'advanced' metal than pig iron. But a steel knife is.

Radar detection produces these target resolutions...

- Speed
- Altitude
- Heading
- Aspect angle

Let us take just altitude for now.

Within the target resolution of altitude, there is the target resolution of granularity:

the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon.

Basically, when a target is at X altitude, how fine is the radar capability in displaying target altitude changes. Is it 10 meters? Or is it 1 meter? In other words, is the radar displaying only in 10 meters increment or in greater detail of 1 meter increment?

If the J-20 radar can track 10 targets at 10 meters altitude resolution and the F-22 radar can track only 8 targets but at 1 meter resolution, which is more 'advanced'?

A steel knife is a more advanced tool than of pig iron simply by virtue of material, but obsidian can be several HUNDRED times sharper than steel...And obsidian is older than steel...

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/health/surgery-scalpels-obsidian/index.html

Green said. "Under the microscope, you could see the obsidian scalpel had divided individual cells in half, and next to it, the steel scalpel incision looked like it had been made by a chainsaw."

So which is more 'advanced', the steel scalpel or the obsidian scalpel? Dr. Green is effectively saying that the obsidian scalpel cuts at the MOLECULAR level, a granularity that no steel scalpel can match.

The issue is not merely functionality but ALSO about the EFFICACY of those functions.

In combat, if the J-20 is designed as an interceptor as many believes, the quantity (10 targets) should take a higher priority over quality (10 meters resolution). For the F-22, it is reputed to be an aerial 'sniper', so emphasis was placed on quality (1 meter resolution) over quantity (8 targets). So which is more 'advanced'?

Yours is a grossly simplistic assumption that just because something is new, it must be 'better'.

 

[samsara]

Your assumptions are not logical because you have a false understanding of what is 'advanced'.

Steel is not a more 'advanced' metal than pig iron. But a steel knife is.

Radar detection produces these target resolutions...

- Speed
- Altitude
- Heading
- Aspect angle

Let us take just altitude for now.

Within the target resolution of altitude, there is the target resolution of granularity:

the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon.

Basically, when a target is at X altitude, how fine is the radar capability in displaying target altitude changes. Is it 10 meters? Or is it 1 meter? In other words, is the radar displaying only in 10 meters increment or in greater detail of 1 meter increment?

If the J-20 radar can track 10 targets at 10 meters altitude resolution and the F-22 radar can track only 8 targets but at 1 meter resolution, which is more 'advanced'?

A steel knife is a more advanced tool than of pig iron simply by virtue of material, but obsidian can be several HUNDRED times sharper than steel...And obsidian is older than steel...

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/health/surgery-scalpels-obsidian/index.html

So which is more 'advanced', the steel scalpel or the obsidian scalpel? Dr. Green is effectively saying that the obsidian scalpel cuts at the MOLECULAR level, a granularity that no steel scalpel can match.

The issue is not merely functionality but ALSO about the EFFICACY of those functions.

In combat, if the J-20 is designed as an interceptor as many believes, the quantity (10 targets) should take a higher priority over quality (10 meters resolution). For the F-22, it is reputed to be an aerial 'sniper', so emphasis was placed on quality (1 meter resolution) over quantity (8 targets). So which is more 'advanced'?

Yours is a grossly simplistic assumption that just because something is new, it must be 'better'.

@gambit, I clearly said earlier your F-22 is the best, "the sexiest girl in town", so may you now please calm down and do not flame this Chinese J-20 thread at PDF (I don't mind if you want to do the same in the F-22 dedicated thread at PDF, if any).

And IF I have interests to find out more about the F-22 or any other USA systems, I will pay visit there by myself to find out!! But please do not bring them here! I have no interests to read about the American stuffs here!!! THAT'S WHY COLUMNS & THREADS are Created in any discussion, public boards, to cater various interests in their dedicated spots!!! Just do not mix them!!!

And btw, if you are so fond of convincing others of the F-22 superiority, why don't you just go to the SDF, there you may find lots of friends that love to engage in elaborate and lengthy exchanges with you. That's why it calls itself a Pro and regard here is a fans club. Please do your lengthy Pro talks there/SDF, exchanging with other Pros there.

Your persistent flaming of the Chinese threads at PDF has been very annoying and you have been a very bad guy here, an unwelcomed, a persona non grata character here.

And I don't care you've been here longer, your behaviour has been very provocative, TO FORCE FEED the many UNRELATED matters in this thread and others of This Column. DAMN IT!!!


For ALL OTHER MEMBERS here @Okarus @Gomig-21 and any one else, PLEASE don't invite/engage/reply... @gambit HERE, in the Chinese threads, just stay away from engaging this old man. It's sickening to watch him flaming the threads at this COLUMN!! If anyone loves to engage @gambit, PLEASE do so at the USA threads / COLUMN.