Ask anything Thread (Air Force)

[Blitzo]

Wikipedia states it. I thought therefore 28 was the number veteran members had in their minds whenever a discussion on the actual number of j-20 took place. Counting the serial numbers (as another member pointed out) would only decrease the total produced.
A much more precise figure would be appreciated.

I can only speak for myself.

In terms of J-20 in service numbers there are two "categories" that I think we can work with.
(I'm leaving out the J-20 prototypes; 2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017; they are prototype aircraft and not production aircraft so are not included)

One category is "confirmed serials" -- i.e.: aircraft whose serial numbers we have positively identified with pictures. Of the J-20s with confirmed serials, they include 78271, 78272, 78273, 78274, 78275, 78276, 78277, 78278 as well as 78230, 78231, 78232, 78233, and 62001. Those aircraft are confirmed serials from three units and they total 13 "confirmed" in service/production aircraft.

The "confirmed serials" form the minimum bedrock of J-20 numbers that we know are in service.


The other major category is "actual J-20s" -- i.e.: it is made up of the number of J-20s in the "confirmed serials" + "X".

X in this case = the number of J-20s that may exist in service but whose serial numbers we have been unable to identify or which have not been released.
The problem is we have no idea how big "X" may be at any one time. For example, we received the photo of J-20 s/n 62001 deployed at 9th brigade in the last few days, however does that mean there is only 1 J-20 in service at 9th brigade at present when the photo was released? Probably not -- here is a satellite photo taken early in April of 9th brigade at Wuhu, showing three J-20s peeking outside of their shelters. We had photos and rumours that 9th brigade had begun receiving J-20s much earlier in the year as well, so the question we are left with is how many J-20s does 9th brigade actually have at this time?

The same question is then extrapolated to other units that have received J-20s -- i.e.: how many J-20s does 172nd and 176th brigade actually each have, on top of the confirmed serial numbers?


It is also very difficult for us to estimate how many J-20s CAC may be producing annually, because:
1: we don't know if J-20 production at CAC is done in an annual manner or not
2, and more importantly: we don't have any semi regular or semi up to date pictures of CAC taken from the ground that shows J-20s with identifiable numbers that allow us to estimate how many J-20s have been produced or how many J-20s may be produced in each "batch" or "group" or what not.



Therefore, as of today, the number of "actual J-20s" in service (or that have been produced) is the 13 J-20s of the "confirmed serials" group, plus however many J-20s exist in the group "X".

 

[Xizor]

Thank you very much. This reply has helped settle much confusion for me and would help a lot of readers who may not be in-the-know. It would help if this reply was exported outside "Ask anything thread" to the "J-20" related thread. It would/ought to reach a wider number of readers.

BTW, would it be wrong to assume that militaries of other nations (adversarial) - like USA, Japan, India,Australia, Vietnam and even not so adversarial ones like Russia would know much more about the real numbers of J-20? Stealth fighters can shift military balances hugely and keeping track of the exact numbers produced, where they are stationed and technological progress is quite critical to avoid surprises.
That be the case , it must be said that the Defence reports made public by US doesn't mention exact numbers.

 

[Xizor]

I will say this, in our current political climate, #1763 airframes is a wet dream? it could happen, but the Air Force says "Aim HI!", its always safer in the long run.... but as Jeff Head says?? "we will see"??

The F-35 will replace A-10's, F-16's, and likely F-15's in the future, those airframes are approaching retirement, as you stated the A-10 is being re-winged to extend its life, F-16's and F-15's are also being "SLEPed" in limited numbers.

I don't think the F35 is a replacement for any of these aircrafts even though it might have been produced as such. The technological advantages advertised to be with the aircraft package is too huge and disruptive. US has used F-16 and F-15 as geopolitical tools to finely "optimize" the military abacus in regions of US national interests. F-35 cannot be used as freely like the F-16 and F-35. Turkey is a case in point. The nations that are deemed too risky yet important will not see the F-35 being offered. Saudi Arabia? Japan was one such nation too (Toshiba Kongsberg scandal?) Even Taiwan may not see the F-35. (Pro Beijing elements are there).
Also, nations that seek US alliance may not be so inclined to be part of a system that allows very little wriggle room and too many strings attached. ALIS technology deployed in the F-35 network will be a concern for many nations who'd want much freedom with the use of the aircraft. It can boil over into a question of operational independence and (it is quite a stretch, I know) but sovereignty.

F-35 might not end up being a replacement for F-15 or F-16 but end up being another tool altogether. A tool that I'd would Term as a double edged sword when it is deployed for geopolitics and military balances that favor US interests.

Had to edit in this - China having j-20s would actually help US in that sense. East Asian region will see the F-35 fulfill its file of being a replacement for F-16 in a wider sense.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I can only speak for myself.

In terms of J-20 in service numbers there are two "categories" that I think we can work with.
(I'm leaving out the J-20 prototypes; 2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017; they are prototype aircraft and not production aircraft so are not included)

One category is "confirmed serials" -- i.e.: aircraft whose serial numbers we have positively identified with pictures. Of the J-20s with confirmed serials, they include 78271, 78272, 78273, 78274, 78275, 78276, 78277, 78278 as well as 78230, 78231, 78232, 78233, and 62001. Those aircraft are confirmed serials from three units and they total 13 "confirmed" in service/production aircraft.

The "confirmed serials" form the minimum bedrock of J-20 numbers that we know are in service.


The other major category is "actual J-20s" -- i.e.: it is made up of the number of J-20s in the "confirmed serials" + "X".

X in this case = the number of J-20s that may exist in service but whose serial numbers we have been unable to identify or which have not been released.
The problem is we have no idea how big "X" may be at any one time. For example, we received the photo of J-20 s/n 62001 deployed at 9th brigade in the last few days, however does that mean there is only 1 J-20 in service at 9th brigade at present when the photo was released? Probably not -- here is a satellite photo taken early in April of 9th brigade at Wuhu, showing three J-20s peeking outside of their shelters. We had photos and rumours that 9th brigade had begun receiving J-20s much earlier in the year as well, so the question we are left with is how many J-20s does 9th brigade actually have at this time?

The same question is then extrapolated to other units that have received J-20s -- i.e.: how many J-20s does 172nd and 176th brigade actually each have, on top of the confirmed serial numbers?


It is also very difficult for us to estimate how many J-20s CAC may be producing annually, because:
1: we don't know if J-20 production at CAC is done in an annual manner or not
2, and more importantly: we don't have any semi regular or semi up to date pictures of CAC taken from the ground that shows J-20s with identifiable numbers that allow us to estimate how many J-20s have been produced or how many J-20s may be produced in each "batch" or "group" or what not.



Therefore, as of today, the number of "actual J-20s" in service (or that have been produced) is the 13 J-20s of the "confirmed serials" group, plus however many J-20s exist in the group "X".

So in my 20 ish number I do included the two early prototypes, and the six LRIP aircraft, with the 13 tail number we presently know? so Mr. Blitzo probably would be comfortable with your 28 figure if you did include the two prototypes and 6 LRIP aircraft....

and yes thank you Mr. Blitzo!

 

[Schwerter_]

Right... So I stumbled upon this pic that seems to be a page taken out of a document on the Chinese Gen 4 Jet Fighter program, with 4 schemes (upper 2 are designed by 611 and the lower 2 are designed by 601)
The 5 columns of numbers on the right are (from left to right): Maneuverability, Agility, High AoA performance, RCS, lift efficiency (at least I believe it translates to lift efficiency), with numbers showing the rank of the scheme (lower number means better performance)

This kinda looks legit because the two 611 schemes do resemble J20, and the 601-designed H4A-A1 looks like the wind tunnel model later revealed (pic 2), but as to the fourth design I cant make heads or tails of it (btw this page first showed up on the internet in 2009 as best I can tell, which means that it cant be some random guy making things up after J20 was publicized)

If anyone has ANY information as to the origin of this page, or on the fourth design, I would be delighted to know more about it.

 

[Xizor]

Right... So I stumbled upon this pic that seems to be a page taken out of a document on the Chinese Gen 4 Jet Fighter program, with 4 schemes (upper 2 are designed by 611 and the lower 2 are designed by 601)
The 5 columns of numbers on the right are (from left to right): Maneuverability, Agility, High AoA performance, RCS, lift efficiency (at least I believe it translates to lift efficiency), with numbers showing the rank of the scheme (lower number means better performance)

This kinda looks legit because the two 611 schemes do resemble J20, and the 601-designed H4A-A1 looks like the wind tunnel model later revealed (pic 2), but as to the fourth design I cant make heads or tails of it (btw this page first showed up on the internet in 2009 as best I can tell, which means that it cant be some random guy making things up after J20 was publicized)

If anyone has ANY information as to the origin of this page, or on the fourth design, I would be delighted to know more about it.
View attachment 53121 View attachment 53122

That fourth one looks like a high schooler's supa-fighta-jet that can destroy Gorgozoid invasion from Planet Zoiderdamngo.

But it has to be noted that it doesnt have a vertical tail. So... something like this without a horizontal tail...

 

[Xizor]

i mean't *vertical V tails. But hey, the Su-47 , anyone ? But why the canards? I thought canards and horizontal tail aren't best of friends...If anything the forward swept and aft- swept components should be able to do fine. Along with a V tail. The concept pic posted below looks ok.

 

[Schwerter_]

B

That fourth one looks like a high schooler's supa-fighta-jet that can destroy Gorgozoid invasion from Planet Zoiderdamngo.

But it has to be noted that it doesnt have a vertical tail. So... something like this without a horizontal tail...

U know based on the last design's sketch, I think there's a good chance that it actually has V-tails like yf-23 did (I just don't see how they can design a horizontal tail with that shape. Additionally if it was indeed a V-tail, it would (may?) not have the same problems horizontal tails and canards have that U mentioned (sorry for broken grammar btw)

Some speculations on Chinese internet (with very questionable credibility) speculated that the curved part of the wing on the 4th design may be there to guide the air current away from the tail, which doesn't really make sense to me if there's a horizontal tail at the rear. However with a V-tail indeed the current flowing through the front swept wing may hit the tail, making the addition of those wired parts necessary.

As to the concept pic, I remember that this design was eliminated because it 1: had inferior low observation characteristics compared to the J-20, as evident by the ranking. I believe from a few possible pics of the 601 made prototype model that the designed featured a garrett inlet same as the F-22. 2. was bigger in size than the J-20, but had basically the same nose diameter (dunno if this is the correct way to phrase this, but what this means is that 601's jet cant mount a bigger radar even though it's bigger) Personally I think the design looks kinda cool, and maybe even practical if given some more effort to lower its radar cross-section

 

[Brumby]

I will say this, in our current political climate, #1763 airframes is a wet dream? it could happen, but the Air Force says "Aim HI!", its always safer in the long run.... but as Jeff Head says?? "we will see"??

The F-35 will replace A-10's, F-16's, and likely F-15's in the future, those airframes are approaching retirement, as you stated the A-10 is being re-winged to extend its life, F-16's and F-15's are also being "SLEPed" in limited numbers.

I have never seen the basis on which the 1763 number is derived. Will those numbers be eventually acquired? I think the trend is good especially when they are able to get to $80 million a plane. The sustainment cost continues to be a problem and likely will remain high in my view but you are getting a lot of capability for that money. Not with the Typhoon or Rafael so it is in a class of its own.

I don't think the F35 is a replacement for any of these aircrafts even though it might have been produced as such. The technological advantages advertised to be with the aircraft package is too huge and disruptive. US has used F-16 and F-15 as geopolitical tools to finely "optimize" the military abacus in regions of US national interests. F-35 cannot be used as freely like the F-16 and F-35.

The F-35 program was designed precisely to roll a number of different platforms into a single common frame. The possibility that it may also act as a transitionary replacement for the F-15 is not by design but by default given the state of the F-15 aging fleet, the truncated F-22 program and the uncertainty surrounding the NGF.

The F-35 was not designed to be a stealthy F-16 and will bring a lot more capabilities to a high end fight than readily appreciated by the public. It has already demonstrated that it will be transformative as intended pertaining to battlespace SA, C2 management and as a force multiplier in networked effects. Such delivery of battlespace effects will be accomplished by deployment of significant numbers of F-35 as an important underlying force structure. In other words, we will see plenty of them not just with the US but with alliance partners because integration is important and the F-35 will be the enabler of that integration across all partner nations.

 

[Air Force Brat]

That fourth one looks like a high schooler's supa-fighta-jet that can destroy Gorgozoid invasion from Planet Zoiderdamngo.

But it has to be noted that it doesnt have a vertical tail. So... something like this without a horizontal tail...

so is this a flight sim screenshot?