That's your problem... you're simple minded thinker. Fighters rarely break mach 1 in air combat take a guess why? FUEL! Your simple mind and simple thinking can't logically think that just because a fighter is a mach 2, mach 1.8 and mach 1.6 capable fighter it doesn't mean they fly at those speeds during air combat. Are you really this clueless?
It takes a lot of fuel and time for a fighter to reach its supposed top speed in clean configuration for 4th gen fighters. Fifth gen fighters are always clean in stealth mode but the same applies to them when trying to reach its top speed. A US block 52 F-16 stationed in Korea got its engine swapped out and pilot was ordered to test it out and it took the F-16 in clean configuration a lot of time to reach mach 1.9 and could only hold it for a few seconds because of bingo fuel.
For all the supercruise hype of the F-22 at those speeds it has a very short combat radius. The magic number/speed for air combat is mach .95 and that is where the F-35 excels and the F-22.
Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Read what actual pilots have to say, not what you make up yourself.
John Chesire
Former Fighter Pilot; Current Opsimath; Top Writer.
On a “routine” flight
Routine flight...
And he's not talking about the F-22.
With all due respect... you sound stupid and clueless. The fact that you said F-35 needs "dumb luck" shows how dumb you are or it says that you're nothing but a troll. I think you have gotten used to talking out of your a$$ in here and what is sad is there's a lot of dopes like you in here that believe your BS and actually think you're clever when it is obvious you are not... at least obvious to me, optimist, BMD and a couple of others.
Tell me genius in your post you said "when a J-20 challenges an F-35, all the F-35 can do is fire its missiles at it..." How does a J-20 challenge a fighter it can't see? How does a J-20 evade a missile that he doesn't know is flying at him? What BS scenario will you make up to answer these questions I wonder.
The chutzpah of your post is insulting... insulting that you think you're clever when you're not and know there's many dumb people in here, when it comes to this topic, and can post such ridiculous claim without being called out by them because of their lack of knowledge on this topic is dirty.
So you're basically saying everything that makes the F-22 an F-22 is irrelevant. The F-35 is basically enough. The exact opposite of what all air forces all around the world believe. Yeah, sell your nonsensical bridge to someone else.
The J-20 has much bigger sensors, so it will pick up the F-35 before the F-35 can pick up the J-20. That's how it works. And whenever the F-35 is used, the traffic generated is a lot more than the traffic on the J-20 side, so the J-20 gets to see the F-35 side massing far sooner. And, just like in field sports, the J-20 can reach advantageous positions faster, it could be higher altitude, a superior angle or both, which is why pro-athletes are not fat. For example, the F-35's fixed radar's FoV is just 120-140 deg, so the F-35 cannot see a J-20 that comes at it from 150 deg until it's too late. So the F-35 will always remain on the defensive. Meaning, the J-20 gets first look, first kill. And, since it lacks kinematics, the F-35 can't escape.
Your argument works only against aircraft like the F-15 and Su-35, not the F-22 or J-20. And only until such time the F-35's shaping based stealth is rendered irrelevant.
As for top speed, the higher the top speed, the higher is your efficient cruise speed. For example, the Mig-31 gets very little flight time at mach 2.8, but at mach 2.3, it has a 750Km combat radius, that's 20 minutes. Otoh, the F-22 flying at probably mach 2 will hit bingo in 2-3 mins. The higher the top speed, the higher is your cruise speed efficiency. So the NGAD at mach 2.8 would mean it could supercruise at mach 2.3, and with more efficienct engines than on the Mig-31, the NGAD's combat radius at mach 2.3 could be up to 1500Km, or 40 minutes of flying time.
Do you seriously wanna compare a mach 2.3 jet with 1500Km radius versus the F-35's 1500Km radius at mach 0.9? Su-57 and J-20 will only be marginally worse than the NGAD due to a generation gap, perhaps 1000Km at mach 2. Both will need external tanks to compete with the NGAD's clean numbers, until they can come out with equivalent or better aircraft, like a new J-XX or Russia's PAK DP.
J-20, Su-57, NGAD, F-22 etc are designed to be thoroughbred stallions. F-35, SH etc are just mules. Both are necessary, both have their purpose, there is absolutely no need to conflate the two. Only you, and Optimist and BMD and a bunch of others who think like you, basically F-35 fanboys, who live in this fantasy world where you think a $70M strike jet can defeat a $140M ASF jet of the same generation. The funny thing is all air forces in the world, without exception, would agree with me, because I get my information from them. I don't create a Peter Pan-like fantasy world to live in.
The J-20 and F-22 have been designed to create a permissive environment for the F-35 to operate in. You don't need to be smart, intelligent or clever to figure out basic information. It's literally just common sense. The F-35 has 1 engine whereas the J-20 and F-22 have 2 engines of the same class. It doesn't get more obvious than that. That alone is enough to figure out there is a significant difference between the two. But if you go around claiming a Ford Focus on compete in the F-1 track, you are gonna get called out on that.
And to make matters worse, you have decided everyone else on this forum have no clue, except F-35 fanboys... Yeah...
I would suggest getting a proper education on these matters before commenting on them.
