J-20 and T-50, which is better?

[Akasa]

I don't think 117S has any adavantage in supercruise, unless they can come up with the so-called AL-41.

The weight of the T-50 (a lot less than the J-20) coupled with the possibility of it receiving Al-41, will give it a supercruise advantage.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

AL-41 is even further away than WS-15, considering the funds that Russia has for now.

 

[ptldM3]

In brief, it is probable:

J-20 advantages over T-50:
- stealthiness
- weapons and fuel load
- maneuverability

I assume you have access to classified information on both aircraft.

Your 'stealthiness' assertion is baseless, although the pak-fa's intake inlets are not shielded yet, there is no guarantee that the J-20 has an overall lower RCS. The J-20 canards and wing geometry doesn't exactly guarantee anything. Further, a panel that is not plush with the rest of the aircraft can increase the overall RCS by a factor of 3, and one picture indicates that the J-20 does not have a plush panel.

As for weapons and fuel load this is utter rubbish, there is little information on both. And I wound be careful when proclaiming the J-20 to hold more fuel even if it may be a larger aircraft. Fuel capacity is directly linked to area, by this I mean available storage. The pak-fa has a very large wing area, furthermore, it does not have an curved intakes that take up room in the fuselage.

And engines efficiency coupled with factors such as drag and wing area dictate range. Fuel capacity alone means little when an aircraft has poor efficiency, high drag, ect.

As for maneuverability, again, there is no information published on either aircraft and maneuverability is a vague word, are we taking about role rate, sustained turn rate, low speed maneuverability, high speed maneuverability? Looking at an aircraft it is almost impossible to determine its maneuverability, but we know several thing about the pak-fa that should give us an idea of just how maneuverable may be. The pak-fa's widely spaced engines coupled with TVC and widely spaced horizontal wings will insure that the pak-fa will have a very high role rate; likely higher than any other aircraft. Than we have LERX, a large wing areas, high T/W ratio and final fly-by-wire. The designer of the SU-35 were able to maintain at least the same performance of a canard set-up simply by improved fly-by-wire systems and better engines. Generally only Chinese and Pakistani members believe the J-20 is more maneuverable, most neutral parties with relevant aviation knowledge would disagree.

I don't think 117S has any adavantage in supercruise, unless they can come up with the so-called AL-41.

The 117 or the derivative based off of the 117 already has a 15% greater thrust with an additional goal of 10% greater trust. Supercruise is also mostly dependant upon an aircraft's drag and dry thrust.

 

[ptldM3]

AL-41 is even further away than WS-15, considering the funds that Russia has for now.

What funds? Are you talking about 650 billion the armed forces are receiving?

Also do some research on 'type 30' engine, and Aimarraul, yesterday claimed that the WS-15 was terminated.

 

[Geronimo2011]

What an stupid thread.. Dont know nothing about either but want to compare.. Some people either have too much time on their hands or too little perspective in their heads..

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

What funds? Are you talking about 650 billion the armed forces are receiving?

Also do some research on 'type 30' engine, and Aimarraul, yesterday claimed that the WS-15 was terminated.

Yeah, i saw it. It is good that WS-15 is scrapped.

 

[alizahid]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...o-pak-fa-t-50-fighter-jet-2nd-test-fligh.html

 

[Akasa]

I assume you have access to classified information on both aircraft.

Photos are not classified. And you can tell a lot about its relative observability from its airframe.

Your 'stealthiness' assertion is baseless, although the pak-fa's intake inlets are not shielded yet, there is no guarantee that the J-20 has an overall lower RCS. The J-20 canards and wing geometry doesn't exactly guarantee anything. Further, a panel that is not plush with the rest of the aircraft can increase the overall RCS by a factor of 3, and one picture indicates that the J-20 does not have a plush panel.

The wing geometry does in fact play a big role. Read Bill Sweetman's articles.

Here is Bill Sweetman explaining some design aspects that allow the J-20 to be stealthy (here are direct quotes):
- "It has a low height triangle appearance from the front. This ensures a small radar signature from the front."
- "Wing body junction is clean."
- "Sharp chine line around forward fuselage."
- "Flat body sides are aligned with canted tails."
- "Saw toothed edges tend to break up the radar signature by absorption or redirection."
- "The flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wide band stealth."
- "To keep radar waves from returning to the sending antenna, the leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles."
- "Many of the surface shapes of the J-20 are curves with constantly changing radii. These scatter radar beams in all directions instead of back to the radar source."

Here is what may impede the T-50's stealthiness when compared to the J-20:
- The T-50 does not have a smooth underside
- Lack of panel alignment
- Gaps around the inlet
- Spherical IRST
- (Continued below)

The J-20 also has (which the T-50 does not):
- DSI
- Frameless bubble canopy
- IR reducing tiles on the engines
- Possible plasma stealth technology

All of the above contribute to RCS reduction. T-50 does not use the measures.

As for weapons and fuel load this is utter rubbish, there is little information on both. And I wound be careful when proclaiming the J-20 to hold more fuel even if it may be a larger aircraft. Fuel capacity is directly linked to area, by this I mean available storage. The pak-fa has a very large wing area, furthermore, it does not have an curved intakes that take up room in the fuselage.

And engines efficiency coupled with factors such as drag and wing area dictate range. Fuel capacity alone means little when an aircraft has poor efficiency, high drag, ect.

The mere size of the J-20 can tell us a lot about its role and its configuration. The J-20 is most likely not an air superiority fighter, thus sacrificing speed for a larger fuel and weapons load. The fact that it will be using the most powerful engines in the Chinese arsenal further implies that it is a strike fighter.

The J-20 has a large wing area as well. Take a look at some photos if you want further proof.

Delta wing configuration provides less drag, one of the main reasons the Avro Arrow chose it to further its role as a high speed interceptor.

As for maneuverability, again, there is no information published on either aircraft and maneuverability is a vague word, are we taking about role rate, sustained turn rate, low speed maneuverability, high speed maneuverability? Looking at an aircraft it is almost impossible to determine its maneuverability, but we know several thing about the pak-fa that should give us an idea of just how maneuverable may be. The pak-fa's widely spaced engines coupled with TVC and widely spaced horizontal wings will insure that the pak-fa will have a very high role rate; likely higher than any other aircraft. Than we have LERX, a large wing areas, high T/W ratio and final fly-by-wire. The designer of the SU-35 were able to maintain at least the same performance of a canard set-up simply by improved fly-by-wire systems and better engines. Generally only Chinese and Pakistani members believe the J-20 is more maneuverable, most neutral parties with relevant aviation knowledge would disagree.

Looking at its airframe is possible to tell if it has at least a good chance at being a highly agile fighter.

The reason why Chinese chose the canard delta design in its J-10A (which defeated J-11A 6:0) is because of its enhanced maneuverability. The French, British, and Swedish also incorporated it into their fighters. The canards will definitely boost the J-20's maneuverability, while the deltas will decrease drag and increase performance in transonic and supersonic flight.

In fact, the main reason the F-22 didn't adopt canards for maneuverability is its contribution to RCS. With the J-20's plasma stealth technology, however, the problem is solved.

The 117 or the derivative based off of the 117 already has a 15% greater thrust with an additional goal of 10% greater trust. Supercruise is also mostly dependant upon an aircraft's drag and dry thrust.

Even if the 117S derivative was upgraded as you described, it would produce an afterburning thrust of about 155 kN. That is about the same as the WS-10G engines installed on the J-20 prototype, and far less than that of the WS-15 engine, which will become the production engine of the J-20.

 

[Akasa]

Are You Kidding Giving French and British Lower Ranking ???

French & British BOTH Have AirCraft Carriers.... China Doesent
French & British Have been Making Fighters Since Ages, China only 25 Yrs...
French Operate The ONLY Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Other Than US
French Avionics AND A2A Missiles are on par with US
British are the Masters of Jet Technology, who actually gave it to Russia which later inspired China...

These r just a FEW of HUNDREDS of Examples...

Aircraft carriers are not "technological" achievements, but rather shipbuilding achievements. Even then, a finished carrier's "technological level" is given by its launch system, defense systems, and radars.

Having a history in one particular area does not give you supremacy today. China has been building guns, massive warships, rockets, bombs, mines, etc, since the Song Dynasty. Does China possess the world's most advanced military today?

And BTW, the first Chinese-built aircraft flew in 1909. China's first indigenous designed fighter jet flew in 1965. That is not 25 years ago.

Nuclear propulsion has already been achieved by China.

French avionics are NOT on par with the US. The French nor British have an operation airborne AESA yet. China is believed to have deployed AESA on J-10B, J-15, and soon J-11B jets.

The European next generation A2A missiles are still in development and their specifications already falls below that of the Chinese PL-12D and PL-21.

British are not the masters of "jet" technology. The Americans are. Neither country can produce a military jet engine for fighters that can match the thrust generated by the WS-15.


Britain and France lack major military technologies and is not in the leading edge when it comes to most other ones as well:

- Neither possess ASAT capabilities
- Neither has shown or tested direct energy weapons
- Neither has anti-ballistic missiles
- Neither has even sent a man to space
- Neither has anti-ship ballistic missiles
- Neither has 5th generation stealth fighters
- Neither has missiles comparable to Chinese or Russian ones
- Neither has battlefield ready UCAVs
- Neither has AEGIS style long range destroyers or frigates
- Neither has conventional submarines comparable to Chinese or Russian ones
- Neither has any development in asymmetric warfare
- Neither has shown any cyber warfare capabilities]
- Neither has much next-generation weapons in development, unlike Russia and China, which has stealth bombers, carriers, next generation nuclear submarines, and such under development.

All the above are signature weapons of nations capable of inflicting massive damage to the enemy and at the same time protecting their own. Note that many of the above weapons are only possessed by the "3 big buddies": US, Russia, and China.

I could go on and on and the list would still not be complete.

 

[gambit]

In fact, the main reason the F-22 didn't adopt canards for maneuverability is its contribution to RCS. With the J-20's plasma stealth technology, however, the problem is solved.

There goes that 'plasma stealth' nonsense again. Until there is more on the actual application of the idea, stop making claims. Further, to me, you do not understand one whit of the idea to start.

 

[Akasa]

There goes that 'plasma stealth' nonsense again. Until there is more on the actual application of the idea, stop making claims. Further, to me, you do not understand one whit of the idea to start.

The J-20 was also a "claim" days before photos of it came out.

It has been discussed by Chinese military commentators.

Plasma stealth is not an "idea". It is a property of ionized gases that, when coated an object like the J-20, gives it the ability to absorb electromagnetic waves. Deflection is achieved as well.

 

[SomeGuy]

How do you keep plasma localised around the surface of the plane when it is flying?

 

[gambit]

The J-20 was also a "claim" days before photos of it came out.

It has been discussed by Chinese military commentators.

Plasma stealth is not an "idea". It is a property of ionized gases that, when coated an object like the J-20, gives it the ability to absorb electromagnetic waves. Deflection is achieved as well.

How do you keep plasma localised around the surface of the plane when it is flying?

Yes...How will the plasma gas be so localized? Chinese physics?

 

[Akasa]

Yes...How will the plasma gas be so localized? Chinese physics?

There are various methods, although most of them are either kept classified or haven't been published yet.

General Electric patented one method that involves building a small particle accelerator in the aircraft.

Russia claimed they already have a plasma stealth device and have tested it aboard a Su-27IB in 2002.

And yes, China produces more physicists at a rate higher than the US.

 

[DARKY]

thats right R&D needs large amount of cash, without money those 'good ideas' will always remain in bins``indians have a fine reputation of been living in a delusional world is that they believe technology come out of thin air and their 'magic' oil``

the world top 5 innovation countries their investment in R&D are also in top 5, (USA, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea. with 47,000+, 12,000+, 25,000+, 17,000+, and 8,000+ patents granted by PCT respectively)``` india and russia together came less than 2,000 due to their lack of fund in R&D, and most of Russia's patents came from defence sector, and 70% of india's patents came from foreign owned entities like Intel or Huawei`

seriously you people really need to teach your own kids the difference between the reality and delusion``

Whats the use of those patents if you are still RE foreign goods......how many nobel prizes have you won in science/economic feilds with those patents.