Replies

Ever since the T-50 photos started flying and the numbers began being bruted about, I have been more than a bit skeptical.

It's like the old saying goes “Cheap, fast or good — choose any two”.

I just do not think there is any chance that they are going to be able to produce that bird in the numbers they are talking about, in the timeframe they are talking about, unless they are going to spend a lot more money — and possibly not even then.

Factories are going to have to be built, engineers are going to have to be trained, scarce resources are going to have to be found, purchased, processed, etc., etc., etc...

To be effective, these things are going to have to be fabricated to the highest tolerances, and while they can and probably will, produce a number of them that meet specs, but not enough to be that big of a deal.

Then there is the whole issue of the claims they are making regarding performance. All we have seen is a couple of prototypes (T-50 and J-20). We have no idea how stealthy these birds actually are, we have no idea whether the avionics are going to do what they claim they will, we don't even have any idea if they are going to fly as far or fast as they claim.

All this stuff reminds me of the hysterics everyone was having when the MiG-25 first came out.

Agree, for both the T-50 and the J-20. Most (all?) analysis on the two has been done based on solely what they look like, with some serious extrapolations done. More so in the case of the J-20 than the T-50, but it applies to both (at least one can look at the work being done on improved SU-30MKIs, where they will get AESAs, dispersed sensor suites, etc ...including one concept with internal bays that I posted a picture of yesterday - while the Chinese have been having significant issues reproducing reliable 90s engine designs and having structural/vibration issues with their J-10s, yet the J-20 is claimed, particularly by a local Chinese troll, 'better than the F-22'). All 'analysis' has been based on visual observation and sop from web forums. For any stealthy design to be near-as/as-good as the Raptor, it will require expensive technologies. Assuming that the level of required technology is available (i.e. assuming that China and Russia have full access to the same level of technology available to the US, which is ofcourse not the case) and thus reducing R/D costs (again, not the case), and assuming that the final product will be as good as the Raptor (again ...many 'agains' ...not the case), one can be sure that the product will be expensive. Very expensive. Which raises the question as to what numbers can be viably afforded (sure, even the US can afford 10,000 Raptors, but that would be money coming from somewhere else).

Looking at the T-50 design, for instance, it has normal nozzles that do not exactly do much for its rear IR and RCS observablity. There are three options that can arise: a) they remain the same (like in current 4.5 fighters, or the F-35 prototype), b) they get certain reduction measures (like the saw cut in later F-35s that are now going flight tests that have a zigzag design cut into the nozzle), or c) have F-22 style nozzles (and there is a SU-30 test-bed that was flying with a normal nozzle and a F-22 style 2-D TVC nozzle, thus it is something that has been looked at). What will the actual decision be? Well, we will know when the stealthy T-50 prototype flies, but I would put my money on option b since a will probably not be the case, and c has certain weight issues to it. Thus, that is one example of compromises being made.

As you said in that Project Diagram...you can have cheap, fast or good, but only two can be selected.

Thus statements of 2,000 PakFas/J-20s are simply not going to be the case, unless the resulting product is not going to be much better than a 4.5 generation. However, the biggest issue has been highly detailed analysis based on nothing but observation. Sure, a lot can be done based on that ....e.g. even one can calculate efficient speed/capability of supercruise based on wing-sweep (rough numbers, but they can give something), or projected agility based on the approximate wing-loading (and using thrust/weight ratios of current aircraft, e.g. later SU-30 for the PakFa), etc etc ....however that is only one aspect of the airframe. Things like avionics are impossible to tell for anyone in any forum (unless one has their own CIA unit), and it is ridiculous to claim (say) the J-20 is 'more advanced' than the Raptor when the Chinese cannot get their engines to have half the life of Als, and their planes do not even have avionics nearly as advanced as those of a SuperHornet. In terms of stealthiness, true supercruise speed (not rough calculations based on airframe maximums), altitude, fuel fractions (again, real values not calculated aggregates), avionics sophistication, etc ....it would be next to impossible to tell that from prototypes (and looking at the YF-22 and the F-22, there are design change possibilities present). Totally agree with you there.

As for the MiG-25 comparison ...also agree with that one, and more than just the hysterics. The hysterics were on this Soviet super-fighter once the pictures came out (and fortunately they made the US develop the F-15, which has a record that speaks for itself, and something I PRAY happens with all the chest-thumping on the J-20 ...that it will make the US re-open Raptor lines and upgrade them). Obviously once a pilot defected in one it was proven the Foxbat was no super-fighter. Thus I agree there. I would also add that there was a lot of projection of capabilities, with an ironic twist. The Foxbat was supposed to be an interceptor for the proposed XB-70 Valkeyrie, that never came to be, and thus for its given purpose it was quite good. Zoom out fast and high, even if that killed the engines, use its big PESA to target the Valkeyries, and shoot them down. So what if its engines were fried if it killed a plane that was carrying a nuke to some Soviet city? The Soviets ended up making a single-purpose plane (the Foxbat) for a threat (the XB-70) that never came to be, and the US ended up making a super-fighter that was everything the Foxbat had been feared to be but never was. Interesting how things play out, and I PRAY that is exactly what happens after all the talk of the Raptor being 'bait.'

It will take more than prototypes before those in the know (i.e. governments) can tell what the true capabilities are, which means it will take much longer for us forum types to really know the truth.