The scenario I am envisioning is a forward DCA CAP mission where J-20 can encounter any number of unknown threats, from hostile stealth fighters to cruise missiles/drones. The former requires stealth. The latter requires magazine depth. Of course, there can also be an inner dedicated suicide drone/CM CAP where beast mode J-20/4.5th gens defend high value targets.
Such as? I think low cost air to air missiles will be an optimal solution against suicide drones/CM for quite some time. The other potential optimum is laser but there are a number of inherent issues with that (cost, power generation, countermeasures etc.)
It has been suggested that one of the key benefits of J-20s' side weapon bay design is that it allows for multiple types of payloads, including pods.
The scenario you are envisioning would be better managed having your J-20s/stealthily configured 5th aircraft to focus on high end A2A/CAP at operational distances relevant for high end A2A, while the counter-suicide-drone mission is done by rocket pod laden 4/4.5th gen aircraft or 5th gen aircraft with external carriage, operating at shorter distances than the high end A2A fight, to loiter and defend against suicide drones at shorter distances.
The nature of suicide drones is that you shouldn't be risking your high end A2A configured aircraft to "thin them out" or counter them at the "external line of defense/CAP".
Suicide drones are cheap, low performance weapons and thus correspondingly should be countered by cheap, low end configured weapons -- ideally these should be mostly ground based integrated air defense including autocannons with modern fuzed rounds, maybe low end SAMs, and yes maybe fixed wing fighters with guided rockets in pods. Maybe ground based DEWs in future as well.
But if your high end A2A configured CAP aircraft come across a large inbound wave of suicide drones or even cruise missiles, it would require a highly unique situation for them to be tasked to abandon their primary A2A mission to conduct the low end interception mission. Their job would be to perhaps give handover to the closer in defense CAP/IADS, but it would be a waste of their resources to actually maneuver to engage and thin out those incoming targets, because now not only have they adversely affected their ability to complete their primary task (high end CAP) but they have also possibly placed themselves into suboptimal positions/energy states against any enemy high end A2A configured fighters lurking in the area.
How is it ridiculous? It makes perfect sense for the attacker to increase the penetration rate of suicide drone by threatening defensive CAP aircrafts, much like SEAD is done to aid in the penetration of bombers.
If your enemy is capable of threatening your defensive CAP aircraft, then your problem isn't the suicide drones, your problem is the enemy's ability to contest conventional high end air superiority.
The tactical/operational problem being posed is "how does one most effectively defend against suicide-drones" -- the problem is not "how does one give every fixed wing platform in a theater the option to defend against suicide drones".
=====
There can be perfectly reasonable reasons for developing such a pod. The primary one would be to give the J20 a lot more mission flexibility.
Basically from user experience, the PL10s and side bays are largely dead weight as they are so rarely needed when operating J20 as designed and intended.
As such, the opportunity costs are pretty low to carry such pods almost aa standard instead, without basically any significant penalties from signature management, range or primary mission focus etc.
Massed low-medium enemy long range munitions saturation attacks are a reality, and in such engagements numbers and reaction times matter.
Sure it would be better to scramble fighters with dedicated anti-drone/cruise missile weapons load outs. But how long will it take you to load planes with that weapons configuration and get on station? Alternatively you will need to add a certain percentage of CAP standby aircraft loaded with such load outs as standard, and how many aircraft will that tie up?
Wouldn’t it be better to have all J20 CAP be able to effectively deal with such low end saturation attacks as standard? That can significantly take the pressure of your standby CAP and land/Naval based missile defences.
We aren't talking about whether something is a good idea in theory but whether something makes sense to actually develop.
The idea of such a pod would run into immediate walls such as:
- how the heck would a rocket pod fit into the geometry/dimensions of the J-20 side bay (think about the proportions of the J-20 side bay versus a normal rocket pod -- how many rockets could they even put into such a pod)
- they'd have to design a bespoke pod to fit into the bay to begin with, with physical clearance, thermal management, structural and firing testing to all be done as part of such efforts
- J-20 would need to have a laser designator capability to make use of laser guided rockets like what we're talking about -- does that mean giving J-20's chin EOIRST a laser designator capability as well? Sure, that's doable but it also means more work, more money.
- Is the cost/effort/resources for all of the above actually worth giving J-20 a rocket pod capability for its side bays to begin with, when there are plentiful other 4th/4.5th gen aircraft that can be equipped with much more impressive numbers of rocket pods to actually do the counter-suicide-drone mission much more competently and effectively? And if the 4th/4.5th gen aircraft are retired, then there will be plentiful J-20s and J-35s that can carry rocket pods externally as well.
- How often would you even sortie a J-20 in a high end A2A/CAP mission (with BVRAAMs in its main weapons bay) while also having it carry this sort of "side bay rocket pod" to begin with, considering the "side bay rocket pod" is only going to be useful against low end suicide drones?? We can correctly say that PL-10 (a HOBS SRRAM) in context of modern aerial warfare trends is dead weight -- so in that case what would having rocket pods in the side bays be for a high end A2A fight?
This is why I was really against the mere idea of this concept, because sure we can talk about the theory of how it might make sense, but when we look at the analysis of alternatives (either existing platforms or future platforms or future conops) it just doesn't make sense unless a half dozen other unlikely/illogical criteria are fulfilled first.
The specific need of "giving a stealthy tactical fighter jet the ability to internally carry rocket pods that are only useful against low performance suicide-drones" just doesn't pass the common sense test.
