Well that mirrors the capabilities of the F-22 and the F-35, which are both able to handle awacs and possibly control a number of UAVs. So I have no doubt your source is correct in predicting that the J-20 would also have many of these same capabilities. While I really am not interested in weapons systems, or avionics, (possibly because I never had much of either), I do find the airframe intriquing, and while they proclaim it will not be an interceptor, the F-22 also fulfills the interceptor role, as one of its main taskings, I can't for the life of me figure why they would protest that role so vehemently???
Sorry. I guess I was not clear in my wording. What the expert was trying to say was that the J-20 wouldn't be designed as a single-role aircraft, whether that role be fighter-bomber, interceptor, or even an A2A fighter. But that it would have to be multi-role and have the capability to fulfill many roles within one airframe. Also, yes, I agree that the speculated networked mini-AWACs role sounds an awful lot like the role the F-35 is designed to do. It sounds very interesting and very promising.
Moreover, the expert was convinced that the combination of a large weapons bay and movable canards is a strong indication that the plane was designed to have the flexibility to accommodate a wide range of weapons, anywhere from PGMs, to BVRAAMs, to AShMs; thus fulfilling a range of mission profiles. The J-20s movable canard provides high maneuverability (relatively) for A2A battles.
Anyway - this expert took a lot of observations and strung them together in ways that gave me an "Ah-ha!" moment ..
I think j-20 will primarily be an air superiority fighter first, because air superiority is a precondition for not losing.
Any fighter that large and that powerful will automatically possess the capability to lift large amount of ordnance and carry them a long distance. So it possess the potential for later role expansion into a multirole aircraft. But I think initial production j-22s will make few concessions to a2g mission in order to get them into service quicker.
The expert specifically talked about the evolving strategy of attaining air superiority. Top Gun style air-to-air fighter engagements is an obsolete strategy for attaining air superiority. The modern method is to take out supporting assets like AWACs, tankers, ground radars, and launch platforms from a distance, rendering the dependent fighters blind and paralyzed. A traditional air superiority fighter like the F-22 is not needed for such a strategy. I know, I just called the F-22 traditional, but I don't mean it technologically of course. I meant strategically.
