3 ms·

What exactly does "more powerful" mean? The F-22 can supercruise (without afterburners) above Mach 2, and has nearly all the same avionics package as the F-35.

by Alupis 6y ago

What exactly does "more powerful" mean? The F-22 can supercruise (without afterburners) above Mach 2, and has nearly all the same avionics package as the F-35. Both the F-22 and F-35 have thrust vectoring, and the most advanced stealth coatings, materials, and shaped airframes. If we compare just the F-22 and the J-20, the F-22 has a better TWR, can out-climb, out-run and out-maneuver the J-20, and has a larger payload capacity. The J-20 seems to indeed have better ferry and combat range, however US strategy does not require the same range due to air bases being present around the world and possesses advanced aerial refueling capability - making static range a moot point. I also highly doubt the J-20 matches the F-22 or F-35 in avionics. The F-22 production line was discontinued nearly entirely because - at the time - the DOD, and more importantly Congress, believed the F-35 would be cheaper and replace most of it's disparate fighter/attacker aircraft (which turned out to be far from the truth, unfortunately). However, the US operates nearly 200 of these fighters and plans to maintain them for decades. > All of the F35 variants are hampered by the necessity for vertical takeoff. Commonality between the three planes is incredibly high and tradeoffs crossfeed. This is sort of true, but not entirely. If you look at the three F-35 variants, they are pretty much three different airframes at this point, only really sharing avionics and the shape of the aircraft. It was indeed foolish to think you could build a one-size-fits-all multi-role fighter/attacker to replace purpose-built aircraft like the A-10, F-15, F/A-18 and F-22... but that doesn't make the F-35 a complete turkey.

sudosysgen 6y ago
What it means is simple. The J20 produces more thrust than the F-22, and has essentially the same dry weight. If you compare a fully loaded J20 to a fully loaded F-22, then yes the F22 has a higher TWR. That's because the J20 carries more fuel, payload capacity of the J20 is however not known but assumed to be larger due to the larger and heavier Chinese missiles it carries in similar numbers. However at the same loading the J20 has higher thrust than the F22, both with and without afterburners. The J20 probably cannot supercruise yet, correct. I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision. As far as maneuverability of the J20 nothing is known. As J20s with thrust vectoring engines were installed and with the presence of canards, it may well be a highly maneuverable engine, or it might not be. None of us have hard data on this. In a conflict with a peer power, the US will need range just as much if not moreso than China - outside of aircraft carriers - as all relevant US airbases are vulnerable to being struck and disabled, and the F22 requires advanced bases to operate correctly.
- Alupis 6y ago
  I still feel you're missing some key aspects here. Pure thrust isn't really what is required to win an air-to-air battle. The US found that out with the F-4 in Vietnam (still one of the fastest fighters ever built). Straight line speed is mostly irrelevant today - being hard to see and target is far more important, followed by launch detection, maneuverability and countermeasures (the latter two of which only matter if you can detect a missile launch in time). Air battles today will be fought well outside line-of-sight - and it's unquestionable the US has more advanced air-to-air missiles at this point in time. That said, the J-20 might have more thrust, but it's heavier, larger, and has less capable armaments. The Chinese are not known to possess advanced aerial refueling capabilities either, which is why they have to incorporate more fuel capacity and range into their designs. None of this takes into consideration that F-22's and F-35's do not operate alone in theater. The US also possesses advanced AWACS capabilities, which can spot and designate targets for fighters from hundreds of miles away from the AO. > I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision. I think the US is learning an expensive lesson, and will have to expedite it's Gen5+ or Gen6 aircraft programs to compensate for the very expensive and hobbled F-35's that are being produced today. The F-35 program tried to achieve the impossible, and failed. It's not a horrible aircraft, it just isn't a good enough replacement for all the roles it's trying to fill... Today, the US has unparalleled experience in operating modern warplanes - lessons that have mostly been applied to Gen5 fighters like the F-22 and F-35 - lessons other nations have to borrow or steal to compete. I feel it's very unlikely either the latest Gen5 Russian or Chinese aircraft can really compete toe-to-toe with a wing of F-22's complemented by F-35's and E-3 Sentry's. As an aside, Wikipedia and other online sources only list US aircraft's unclassified capabilities. True capabilities will far exceed what is publicly released in nearly all cases - meaning the data provided should be considered a low-bound for capabilities.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I'm not making any statements on overall fighting ability. I'm making a statement on the performance of the power plants, which is what was the scope of the comment I replied to. Debating the overall abilities of each airplane in the scope of their doctrine and battlespace is probably out of scope for an HN comment and involves much more than the aircraft themselves. All I'm gonna say is that in the context of the engagements the J20 is meant to fight it in it has a few aces up its sleeves that the US cannot match in large part due to differences in doctrine.

by Alupis 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

What it means is simple. The J20 produces more thrust than the F-22, and has essentially the same dry weight. If you compare a fully loaded J20 to a fully loaded F-22, then yes the F22 has a higher TWR. That's because the J20 carries more fuel, payload capacity of the J20 is however not known but assumed to be larger due to the larger and heavier Chinese missiles it carries in similar numbers. However at the same loading the J20 has higher thrust than the F22, both with and without afterburners. The J20 probably cannot supercruise yet, correct. I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision. As far as maneuverability of the J20 nothing is known. As J20s with thrust vectoring engines were installed and with the presence of canards, it may well be a highly maneuverable engine, or it might not be. None of us have hard data on this. In a conflict with a peer power, the US will need range just as much if not moreso than China - outside of aircraft carriers - as all relevant US airbases are vulnerable to being struck and disabled, and the F22 requires advanced bases to operate correctly.

Alupis 6y ago
I still feel you're missing some key aspects here. Pure thrust isn't really what is required to win an air-to-air battle. The US found that out with the F-4 in Vietnam (still one of the fastest fighters ever built). Straight line speed is mostly irrelevant today - being hard to see and target is far more important, followed by launch detection, maneuverability and countermeasures (the latter two of which only matter if you can detect a missile launch in time). Air battles today will be fought well outside line-of-sight - and it's unquestionable the US has more advanced air-to-air missiles at this point in time. That said, the J-20 might have more thrust, but it's heavier, larger, and has less capable armaments. The Chinese are not known to possess advanced aerial refueling capabilities either, which is why they have to incorporate more fuel capacity and range into their designs. None of this takes into consideration that F-22's and F-35's do not operate alone in theater. The US also possesses advanced AWACS capabilities, which can spot and designate targets for fighters from hundreds of miles away from the AO. > I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision. I think the US is learning an expensive lesson, and will have to expedite it's Gen5+ or Gen6 aircraft programs to compensate for the very expensive and hobbled F-35's that are being produced today. The F-35 program tried to achieve the impossible, and failed. It's not a horrible aircraft, it just isn't a good enough replacement for all the roles it's trying to fill... Today, the US has unparalleled experience in operating modern warplanes - lessons that have mostly been applied to Gen5 fighters like the F-22 and F-35 - lessons other nations have to borrow or steal to compete. I feel it's very unlikely either the latest Gen5 Russian or Chinese aircraft can really compete toe-to-toe with a wing of F-22's complemented by F-35's and E-3 Sentry's. As an aside, Wikipedia and other online sources only list US aircraft's unclassified capabilities. True capabilities will far exceed what is publicly released in nearly all cases - meaning the data provided should be considered a low-bound for capabilities.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I'm not making any statements on overall fighting ability. I'm making a statement on the performance of the power plants, which is what was the scope of the comment I replied to. Debating the overall abilities of each airplane in the scope of their doctrine and battlespace is probably out of scope for an HN comment and involves much more than the aircraft themselves. All I'm gonna say is that in the context of the engagements the J20 is meant to fight it in it has a few aces up its sleeves that the US cannot match in large part due to differences in doctrine.