J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[Equation]

I did a calculation based on other missiles stuffed into the J-20, and bay depth should be at least 470mm. The J-20 actually has a longer weapons bay than the F-35, to begin with, at around 4.5-4.7m, while having the same bay layout as the F-22.

The point is that what sunk the F-22 program was that the F-22 was only minimally multi-role; the high cost of operation and low-payload efficiency of the F-22 meant that it saw no action over Iraq or Afghanistan, if I recall correctly, and if not, it saw no action after enemy air-to-air threats were eliminated. The F-22 is thus relegated to a single-role air combatant; when the aircraft's air combat capabilities become obsolete, like if the F/A-XX program hits IOC, the F-22, unlike, say, the F-15E, can't be relegated to air-to-ground duties.

I am not arguing that the J-20 is purposely designed as a striker or interceptor, or is not focused on air superiority missiles, but there is no reason for it to be given some level of strike capability, instead of going the F-22 and F-15C-style "not-a-pound-for-air-to-ground".

I say the J-20 is both an air superiority with ground strike capability. The question is how much of a ground strike is it?

 

[plawolf]

I did a calculation based on other missiles stuffed into the J-20, and bay depth should be at least 470mm. The J-20 actually has a longer weapons bay than the F-35, to begin with, at around 4.5-4.7m, while having the same bay layout as the F-22.

The point is that what sunk the F-22 program was that the F-22 was only minimally multi-role; the high cost of operation and low-payload efficiency of the F-22 meant that it saw no action over Iraq or Afghanistan, if I recall correctly, and if not, it saw no action after enemy air-to-air threats were eliminated. The F-22 is thus relegated to a single-role air combatant; when the aircraft's air combat capabilities become obsolete, like if the F/A-XX program hits IOC, the F-22, unlike, say, the F-15E, can't be relegated to air-to-ground duties.

I am not arguing that the J-20 is purposely designed as a striker or interceptor, or is not focused on air superiority missiles, but there is no reason for it to be given some level of strike capability, instead of going the F-22 and F-15C-style "not-a-pound-for-air-to-ground".

It was the collapse of the USSR that killed the F22. The programme was already too far advanced when the Soviets collapsed to cancel, but without rear big threat, there was just no justification for such an expensive air dominance fighter.

It is also no accident that the Americans are lamenting the premature termination of the F22 production run and smallish numbers procured more and more as the J20 and PAKFA develops.

Dedicated fighters are fine so long as there is a critical role they are filling. The F22 got cut short because the role it was meant to be willing effectively dissapeared overnight with the USSR.

The J20 won't face anything like that since there is no way Amercia will implode like the USSR, and faced with the threat of American air power, the Chinese government is willing to pay almost any price to get J20s operational, and lots of them.

With the way the rumours have been going, I would say there is a strong chance that the PLAN wants a naval J20 as its medium to long term carrier fighter. If that happens, it will greater increase the production run, and lower costs.

There is also a fundamental difference between how Chinese view defence compared to the Europeans or even Americans. The Chinese attitude towards defense is most close to how the Israelies view defence, and that is a lesson burned into the racial memory of the Chinese after over a century of suffering, humiliation and death.

Because of this, I do not expect anyone who matters in China to even consider cutting defense spending anywhere in the foreseeable future. As such, there will be little or no budgetary pressure on the J20 short of some calamitous failure of the programme.

In summary, the J20 has a very clear and well defined requirement and mission, that and the secure budgetary position the PLA can expect to enjoy in the foreseeable future means there is no need to tac on multirole capabilities to sell the J20 to the Chinese leadership.

As far as the Chinese civilian and PLAAF leadership are concerned, the only mission that matters for the J20 is air dominance. If it fails at that, then there truly would be no need for it. But so long as it does that one mission well, that would be more than enough reason for the PLAAF to pay top premiums for it.

I would expect the J20 to be a pure-bred air dominance fighter with absolutely no compromises made to make it multi-role. It will be measured against the F22, and against such a benchmark, no one could afford to make design compromises and hope to have any chance of beating it.

If the PLA really feel like they need a stealthy AShM delivery platform, they will develop one, in the form of a stealthy tactical bomber rather than trying to shoehorn the J20 into that role.

 

[Jeff Head]

It was the collapse of the USSR that killed the F22.

It is also no accident that the Americans are lamenting the premature termination of the F22 production run and smallish numbers procured more and more as the J20 and PAKFA develops.

Dedicated fighters are fine so long as there is a critical role they are filling. The F22 got cut short because the role it was meant to be willing effectively dissapeared overnight with the USSR.

As far as the Chinese civilian and PLAAF leadership are concerned, the only mission that matters for the J20 is air dominance.

I would expect the J20 to be a pure-bred air dominance fighter with absolutely no compromises made to make it multi-role. It will be measured against the F22, and against such a benchmark, no one could afford to make design compromises and hope to have any chance of beating it.

I agree 100% with all of this wolf.

 

[Blitzo]

True, the photo seems to be more from an aircraft model tradeshow than an AVIC exhibition. Despite being labeled 2011, the canards are not clipped, I don't believe the canards have blisters immediately on them, the blisters should be on the LERXes, the LERXes are the old-style round-types, not the new straight lerxes on the 2011, the intakes should have an upward cant, etc...

I know you guys get pissed off whenever someone implies that the J-20 has striker or interceptor capabilities, but the PLAAF would benefit from being able to launch supersonic stand-off missiles from stealth aircraft against ships. The JH-7 just doesn't have the survivability to do that in an environment with AWACS and 5th gen aircraft with BVR missiles. And I'm not sure whether or not the J-31 has bays deep enough to carry missiles like this.

You're being disingenuous here, I don't think anyone doubts J-20 will have roles as an interceptor or a striker. Hell, any plane these days can act as an interceptor, and with the right avionics they can be a striker. The big contention was about whether J-20 would primarily be a striker or interceptor, and the answer to that is a resounding now around these parts.

I think J-20 will definitely be an interceptor and have some strike capabilities, probably in the form of PLA JDAM or SDB equivalents.
But I see no evidence to suggest J-20's weapon bay is anywhere near deep enough to carry a large diameter stand off weapon, and this half baked model with J-20 carrying a pair of LGBs is far from evidence.

And then there's the other thing, the J-20 needs to be able to carry AWACS-killers in order to stop getting pinged by AWACS at long range, which would ruin its stealth advantage.

VLO capability is not a categorical measure. It doesn't "need" to be able to carry AWACS killers, anymore than F-22 or T-50 do. More importantly, no air force or earth currently fields a reliable A2A missile with effective range commonly associated with AWACS killers.

 

[Inst]

With regards to the F-22 project, I found two interesting claims on the death of the F-22. First, the F-22's electronics were minimally upgradeable, which is a weird statement, but true given the stealth design of the aircraft. Second, the F-22 couldn't carry HARMs. That's a 4.2 meter long anti-radiation missile. It would have been perfect for the stealth capability of the F-22, as the F-22 is the gold standard for stealth aircraft, and on the SEAD role would have performed the role better than any other aircraft in the American inventory at the time. Hell, excepting the F-35's jammer package, it would have performed it better than the F-35, as it would have had a single order of magnitude better radar reduction than the F-35.

In the J-20's case, just to manage to achieve its air superiority role, it needs to be able to counter AWACS with anti-AWACS missiles. Since the F-22 itself has been deployed, the world of stealth and counter-stealth has moved forward dramatically with AWACS being the primary counter to stealth, with the ability to detect .01m^2 RCS (I'm selecting this because this is the predicted RCS for the J-20 at the UHF bands used to counter stealth aircraft) stealth craft at over 250 km. In order to preserve their stealth operation, aircraft like the J-20 and PAK-FA need to be able to launch very long range AWACS killers before enemy aircraft even know they're there. That means being able to carry very long-range missiles like the Novator K-100 and the R-37. Both of these are significantly longer and wider than conventional anti-fighter MRAAMs, with the K-100 being between 6 and 7.4 meters long, while the R-37 is 4.2 meters long, with the likelihood of being even longer once rocket boosters are considered.

This really reduces the gap between a fighter-interceptor and a strike fighter, since the weight and dimensions of AWACS-killers are almost exactly the same as stand-off anti-ship missiles.

That said, I don't expect ship-killing to be the J-20's primary role. It will probably be able to carry 2-3 supersonic anti-ship missiles, while being an extremely high speed platform with great stealth, but the payload is suboptimal and for missions that do not require the same combination of extreme survivability and speed other strike aircraft should do the job.

 

[Blitzo]

In the J-20's case, just to manage to achieve its air superiority role, it needs to be able to counter AWACS with anti-AWACS missiles. Since the F-22 itself has been deployed, the world of stealth and counter-stealth has moved forward dramatically with AWACS being the primary counter to stealth, with the ability to detect .01m^2 RCS (I'm selecting this because this is the predicted RCS for the J-20 at the UHF bands used to counter stealth aircraft) stealth craft at over 250 km. In order to preserve their stealth operation, aircraft like the J-20 and PAK-FA need to be able to launch very long range AWACS killers before enemy aircraft even know they're there. That means being able to carry very long-range missiles like the Novator K-100 and the R-37. Both of these are significantly longer and wider than conventional anti-fighter MRAAMs, with the K-100 being between 6 and 7.4 meters long, while the R-37 is 4.2 meters long, with the likelihood of being even longer once rocket boosters are considered.

This really reduces the gap between a fighter-interceptor and a strike fighter, since the weight and dimensions of AWACS-killers are almost exactly the same as stand-off anti-ship missiles.

Why do J-20 or PAK FA "need" to carry anti AWACS missiles? Sure, newer radars will make stealth less of an absolute advantage, but that leads to the question of whether it is technically feasible, economically cost effective and wise to even pursue a means to restore that advantage.

And advancements in radar will also make F-22 and F-35 more vulnerable as well, so all sides will be levelled. But I haven't heard anything about western air forces having meaningful interest in AWACS killer missiles.
I'm not even sure if the Russians are even still working on theirs.

 

[Inst]

VLO capability is not a categorical measure. It doesn't "need" to be able to carry AWACS killers, anymore than F-22 or T-50 do. More importantly, no air force or earth currently fields a reliable A2A missile with effective range commonly associated with AWACS killers.

Yes it does, because the Soviets weren't flying counter-stealth networked AWACS to kill F-22s. The Americans are, with the E-2D Hawkeye boasting at least 555km range against fighter-sized targets, and with their networked capability, can use the E-2D's radar to cue F-35s or SM-6 missiles to target enemy aircraft. In UHF bands, the J-20's stealth degrades to -20 to -15 dbsm or environs, resulting in a 234km detection / targeting range if we assume the advertised "555 km" range means anything.

More realistically, the 555 km range is an undercount. What the Americans are claiming at the moment is that the E-2D AEW&C is limited by the distance to the horizon. That means that its real radar range can be much higher; I would go to an estimate of 800km. That results in a 337km detection / track vs the J-20.

The J-20 will of course pick up the AEW&C's radar signals far before the AEW&C manages to detect the J-20, but that won't mean much if the J-20 doesn't have missiles with the capability to shut it down.

 

[Inst]

Why do J-20 or PAK FA "need" to carry anti AWACS missiles? Sure, newer radars will make stealth less of an absolute advantage, but that leads to the question of whether it is technically feasible, economically cost effective and wise to even pursue a means to restore that advantage.

And advancements in radar will also make F-22 and F-35 more vulnerable as well, so all sides will be levelled. But I haven't heard anything about western air forces having meaningful interest in AWACS killer missiles.
I'm not even sure if the Russians are even still working on theirs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russians are still working on their R-37M.

The point is not newer radars, but the combination of anti-stealth radars mounted on AWACS + a networked missile-launching capability. Assume I'm flying a fighter fleet, with the AWACS in the back and two stealthy fighters in the front. The distance is set so that the moment enemy stealth fighters enter the AWACS' detection range, the stealthy fighters will be near the maximum range of their own BVR missiles. The stealth fighters launch their BVR missiles, guided by the AWACS' signal, but while the stealth fighters will momentarily ping on enemy radar, they'll remain out of enemy radar detection range once their weapons bay closes, and they'll remain out of IR-missile range.

So, you're the guy attacking the AWACS. You see missiles headed at your craft, while you can't target the enemy stealth aircraft as you can't see them due to your weak radar, while the enemy AWACS is too far away for you to hit. Without AWACS-killing capability, you have two choices: you can run, or you can die. If the enemy radar + missiles are good enough, you only have the option to die.

===

Now, let's assume you have AWACS-killer missiles. You'll obviously spot the AWACS long before your own aircraft are detected, due to your stealth capability. You now have the option of hitting the AWACS with your AWACS killers without fear of retaliation, as the enemy AWACS can't see you, the enemy fighters can't see you, and once you've launched, you can either wait for the AWACS to go down and clean up the enemy fighters with your own AWACS + fighter combo, or you can just get the hell out of dodge with supercruise or afterburners.

For the guy with the AWACS, but no AWACS-killer missiles, he can try to move his fighters further away to screen for the AWACS to avoid getting his AWACS sniped, but now he has a conundrum. If he extends the distance of his fighter screen, he needs more fighters. And by moving his fighters further and further away from his AWACS, he can reach the point where his fighters are no longer covered by his AWACS. That means that his fighters can be cleaned up one-by-one through concentration of force or enemy AWACS + fighter tactics.

As for the West, the AIM-120D is already pretty range extended, with range over 180km. The Meteor boasts a range of over 320km, which should be sufficient for AWACS-killing. The Meteor is pretty wide, though, and while it can fit in the air-to-ground bay of an F-35, it can't fit in its air-to-air slot without modification.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes it does, because the Soviets weren't flying counter-stealth networked AWACS to kill F-22s. The Americans are, with the E-2D Hawkeye boasting at least 555km range against fighter-sized targets, and with their networked capability, can use the E-2D's radar to cue F-35s or SM-6 missiles to target enemy aircraft. In UHF bands, the J-20's stealth degrades to -20 to -15 dbsm or environs, resulting in a 234km detection / targeting range if we assume the advertised "555 km" range means anything.

More realistically, the 555 km range is an undercount. What the Americans are claiming at the moment is that the E-2D AEW&C is limited by the distance to the horizon. That means that its real radar range can be much higher; I would go to an estimate of 800km. That results in a 337km detection / track vs the J-20.

The J-20 will of course pick up the AEW&C's radar signals far before the AEW&C manages to detect the J-20, but that won't mean much if the J-20 doesn't have missiles with the capability to shut it down.

So what you're saying is that basically all nations with a modern AEWC system can negate any gains in VLO? Then F-22 and F-35 need AWACS killers as well, if they're to survive.

And can you link to those range claims? I've read that E-2D's maximum radar range is about 400km.

---

Personally I think it's telling that these magic solutions for stealth aircraft have suddenly popped up in the years following the revelation of PAK FA and J-20. If counter stealth is a big issue for the Russians and chinese then you can bet it would be also be a problem for F-22 and F-35 given the Russians and Chinese have been pursuing counter stealth longer than the West.

If E-2D was such a quantum leap against stealth aircraft then I'm confused why every nation isn't ditching their old PESA AWACS and mounting AN/APY-9s instead.

 

[Blitzo]

The point is not newer radars, but the combination of anti-stealth radars mounted on AWACS + a networked missile-launching capability. Assume I'm flying a fighter fleet, with the AWACS in the back and two stealthy fighters in the front. The distance is set so that the moment enemy stealth fighters enter the AWACS' detection range, the stealthy fighters will be near the maximum range of their own BVR missiles. The stealth fighters launch their BVR missiles, guided by the AWACS' signal, but while the stealth fighters will momentarily ping on enemy radar, they'll remain out of enemy radar detection range once their weapons bay closes, and they'll remain out of IR-missile range.

So, you're the guy attacking the AWACS. You see missiles headed at your craft, while you can't target the enemy stealth aircraft as you can't see them due to your weak radar, while the enemy AWACS is too far away for you to hit. Without AWACS-killing capability, you have two choices: you can run, or you can die. If the enemy radar + missiles are good enough, you only have the option to die.

What if your own fighter fleet also has an AWACS of equal effectiveness, and a similar networked missile launching capability?

It isn't like datalinking and radars with good counter stealth capability is anything new.

Now, let's assume you have AWACS-killer missiles. You'll obviously spot the AWACS long before your own aircraft are detected, due to your stealth capability. You now have the option of hitting the AWACS with your AWACS killers without fear of retaliation, as the enemy AWACS can't see you, the enemy fighters can't see you, and once you've launched, you can either wait for the AWACS to go down and clean up the enemy fighters with your own AWACS + fighter combo, or you can just get the hell out of dodge with supercruise or afterburners.

Assuming your missile has enough range. And I know of no missile which has a reliable range in the hundreds of kilometers.

More importantly, despite the efforts of the Russians (which have yet to yield fruit), there are no serious discussions about super long range anti AWACS missiles anywhere in the public domain. Until there are, I'm not sure why we are even seriously considering it a plausible weapon.
The most reliable super long range A2A missile was the AIM-154, and its record at super long range isn't completely stellar

--

As for the West, the AIM-120D is already pretty range extended, with range over 180km. The Meteor boasts a range of over 320km, which should be sufficient for AWACS-killing. The Meteor is pretty wide, though, and while it can fit in the air-to-ground bay of an F-35, it can't fit in its air-to-air slot without modification.

Okay, I need to know what sources you're reading.'
Edit: okay, so wikipedia says Meteor has a 320km range...

unfortunately, the citations for those claims don't say anything about that kind of range, and the only official website about meteor which features range (from Saab) says 100km+, which is what the wikipedia page used to say. I suspect the work of euro fanboys.

As for AMRAAM, the 180km mark seems a tad optimistic, and is either inflated by simuating it against an easy target, or through theoretical range estimates, or a combination of both. Of course, that may mean it could be effective against a lumbering AEWC plane, but that AEWC plane can still cross a fair bit of distance in the time it takes the A2A missile to catch up.