Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
keesje wrote:As expected, there were also rumours it would have the long expected 18k thrust vectoring WS-15's.
The engines might look different, but it's blurry. W'll soon see better pictures.
aumaverick wrote:keesje wrote:As expected, there were also rumours it would have the long expected 18k thrust vectoring WS-15's.
The engines might look different, but it's blurry. W'll soon see better pictures.
How much weight would an additional cockpit add to the empty weight? The J-20 is already close to 2m longer and almost 3K kg heavier (full fuel) than the F-22 while also being some 250 mph slower. Will the new WS-10C or the WS-15 make up for any additional penalties that come with the additional pilot?
aumaverick wrote:keesje wrote:As expected, there were also rumours it would have the long expected 18k thrust vectoring WS-15's.
The engines might look different, but it's blurry. W'll soon see better pictures.
How much weight would an additional cockpit add to the empty weight? The J-20 is already close to 2m longer and almost 3K kg heavier (full fuel) than the F-22 while also being some 250 mph slower. Will the new WS-10C or the WS-15 make up for any additional penalties that come with the additional pilot?
keesje wrote:
keesje wrote:Another photo with single piece canopy. One of them must be editted, why? The second is bigger & sharper
tphuang wrote:Think distributed AEW&C as something that you can have with this that F-35 is just not capable of.
tphuang wrote:J-20 two seater is not using WS-15 at this point. That's been tested on a separate prototype. This aircraft is a bigger deal than big think. If we assume that 5th gen aircraft will have unprecedented situation awareness then the additional pilot will allow it to utilize that more efficiently. That's the idea behind this. Think distributed AEW&C as something that you can have with this that F-35 is just not capable of.
aumaverick wrote:tphuang wrote:J-20 two seater is not using WS-15 at this point. That's been tested on a separate prototype. This aircraft is a bigger deal than big think. If we assume that 5th gen aircraft will have unprecedented situation awareness then the additional pilot will allow it to utilize that more efficiently. That's the idea behind this. Think distributed AEW&C as something that you can have with this that F-35 is just not capable of.
Either you overestimate the technology capabilities of the PLAF and what they've integrated into the J-20, or you are underestimating what the F-35 can do. If the Russians cannot build their own radars, I highly doubt the Chinese can develop and build the capabilities for the J-20, even with stolen technology blue prints. If its not a trainer, I see the real reason for the second seat as a need for a second person to manage all the electronic data and radar tracking information specifically because the computing power is lacking to allow for single-seat operations.
tphuang wrote:you believe that 1 person in the cockpit is better than 0 at making use of data provided, then it would follow that 2 people are better than 1
tphuang wrote:And that the second person can be used to direct UCAVs, perform EW attack and command other aircraft based on data from sensor fusion.
bikerthai wrote:Unless you are working with autonomous or semi-autonomous wing men drones, then it is better to have your drone swarm being controlled by dedicated AEW&C work station operators with their huge dual screen monitors, Bose noise canceling headphones, and nearby lav and galley.
bt
tphuang wrote:that is if you can actually keep the larger, non stealthy and slow moving aircraft from getting struck by one of the many long range missiles that are becoming more and more common Stealthy aircraft
bikerthai wrote:tphuang wrote:that is if you can actually keep the larger, non stealthy and slow moving aircraft from getting struck by one of the many long range missiles that are becoming more and more common Stealthy aircraft
That is a dilemma. However, being farther away from the front line does not reduce the drone communication latency as much.
I see the two seat concept is viable for assistance in wing man management but only if software is not sufficient to take over that duty.
bt
keesje wrote:Would be the assumption for the F-15EX too, software not sufficient to take over wing man management?
Vintage wrote:Maybe for the first few days, until the RuAF and SAMs are degraded, then they'll send in the bomb trucks.If NATO has to intervene in Ukraine, the F-15s will remain on the tarmac. The job will be done with cruise missiles, F-22s and F-35s.
johns624 wrote:Vintage wrote:Maybe for the first few days, until the RuAF and SAMs are degraded, then they'll send in the bomb trucks.If NATO has to intervene in Ukraine, the F-15s will remain on the tarmac. The job will be done with cruise missiles, F-22s and F-35s.
Vintage wrote:Because a Strike Eagle can carry a lot more ordnance.Why not just use F-35s?
JayinKitsap wrote:Not really. It is proving why the B-2 and F-111 mission profiles changed to hi-lo-hi. Flying below the radar horizon is fairly safe. This is why the west has always pumped so much money into AWACs.The Ukraine theater is throwing a lot of assumptions in the dumpster.
JayinKitsap wrote:Russia clearly doesn't have an AWAC in the air to detect the TB-2 from above. This proves what the west always knew in that you need overlapping anti aircraft systems.What has happened to anti aircraft systems that the TB-2 hasn't been destroyed in a few days.
JayinKitsap wrote:There is a huge volume of video footage showing Ukraine jets flying at 100-200 feet. The S-300 systems might only have a 5-10 mile detection radar at that altitude which makes it easy to evade. Obviously at such low altitudes the combat radius of a fighter jet is fairly short but that doesn't seem to be much of an issue as it is fighting within country.I expected the S-300 and S-400's to have cleared the skies.
RJMAZ wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:
What has happened to anti aircraft systems that the TB-2 hasn't been destroyed in a few days.
Russia clearly doesn't have an AWAC in the air to detect the TB-2 from above.
RJMAZ wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Russia clearly doesn't have an AWAC in the air to detect the TB-2 from above. This proves what the west always knew in that you need overlapping anti aircraft systems.What has happened to anti aircraft systems that the TB-2 hasn't been destroyed in a few days.
1) Airborne radar systems to detect low flying aircraft.
2) A small number of long range SAM systems.
3) A large number of short range SAM systems.