Doubt it. A lot of the stress on the F-35B airframe comes from the VTOL requirement.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Doubt it. A lot of the stress on the F-35B airframe comes from the VTOL requirement.
They must be very confident in their estimate, at four decimals. I would estimate "about $400 billion".
I can imagine some poor analyst calling his girlfriend.
M: "Babe, I can't make it to dinner tonight."
W: "Why?"
M: "My boss needs these new cost estimates for our fighter project on his desk by tomorrow morning."
W: "Oh... that's unfortunate. But didn't you have the cost figures done at noon?"
M: "I did... but he wasn't happy with them."
W: "How so?"
M: "Well, he wanted the number to be below 400."
W: "Four hundred... million?"
M: "Billion."
W: "Billion? With a B?"
M: "Yes."
W: "For your fighter project?"
M: "Yes."
W: "Well, since you're working so hard and raking in the big bucks..."
M: "Yes, yes, yes, I'll buy you that Tiffany bracelet you've been drooling over since last month. Love you hon, gotta run."
W: -Muah- "You're the best! Love you."
Nah, they replaced the titanium bulkhead with an aluminum bulkehead to save weight, since like the bumblebee, she was pushin the limits, LOL!! The F-35B will be limited to 7gs, as opposed to the Cs 7.5 and the As 9.0, ask Mr Jeff, stress fractures are SOP in flight testing, although the decision to replace the bulkhead is bone headed in light of the end result, and the real concern that many of us have with such a "busy" platform. I think many are surprised with how early the fractures showed up, but?
On the other hand you could be partially right as the STOVL ops require lots of high thrust, high fuel consupmption, low airspeed, little cooling, and the pressure to lighten her up and drill holes in stuff, well you really are partially right, hence the nick I long ago suggested "ThunderHogge", Lightening II sounds like more absurdity to the point of cruelty, but then I'm just missing the Princess of Airpower!
That seemed a pretty new news that was dated at 13-Jan-2013.
But one thing I know about US was that whenever there is a problem, they are quick to rectify the problem... it is when a project was too smooth sailing that I began to worry... yeah and this speak true for the J-20 or any future Chinese program too.
I always believe that finding and detecting problems during the developement stage is not a bad thing, if no problems are detected at that stage... then something worrying is happening... and most probably, the test program are not stringent enough or robust enough to find out and detect potential errors and issues that might happen during real life operation.
Last edited:
SAC stealth striker
From huitong's "attackers" page, with said picture:
"The latest rumor (December 2012) claimed that 601 Institute/SAC are working on a stealth fighter bomber design which is in the same class of Su-34 but this has not been confirmed."
That showed up a few months ago, and everyone was quite confused as to what it was... personally I thought the cross section would make it look a lot like F-35's bulgy weapon bays.
Obviously we have no idea if it is in any advanced stage of development, nor am I sure if SAC can handle 31001, J-15, J-16, J-11B/BS, and all the UAV/UCAV projects they have lined up along with a heavy stealth striker.
J-16 and JH-7B should provide heavy, long range strike capabilities for the near future, but of course they are not stealthy, even though they should be speedy and able to fight enemy fighters if it comes down to it.
The role of a stealthy, long range, Su-34 class striker would be an anomaly in the world. The US is pursuing their LRS-B, currently they are looking at a subsonic, heavy flying wing strategic bomber with any notions of a theater bomber like what SAC seems to be developing completely disregarded. Russia's PAK DA is still a paper plane, but talk is that it is a supersonic, heavy strategic bomber.
Now, we all know how China is supposedly pursuing one of those routes as well, subsonic flying wing vs supersonic, for their strategic bomber project, but we've heard nothing regarding that for years and it is likely a long term project. Further, we have to consider that China's potential adversaries may be able to counter VLO subsonic bombers, or LO supersonic bombers through their own air defenses and fighters, AEWC.
A heavy strategic bomber would also be putting "too many eggs in one basket" so to speak, and only a limited number could be procured, to say nothing of their technical difficulties in designing and producing.
A stealthy, supersonic theater bomber in the size of Su-34 or F-111 however may prove the necessary airborne strike capability the PLAAF needs in future, while being stealthy and fast enough to get through enemy defences. They will not have the intercontinental reach of the B-2 or B-1 without in flight refuelling, but should be able to reach most of westpac relatively comfortably (nor do I believe the PLAAF seek an organic intercontinental strike capability in the medium term). Further (and I make some assumptions here), such an aircraft shoudl be able to carry a significant payload (internally of course), let's say 8 tons to keep the Su-34 comparison consistent, and likely it would be optimized for high altitude supersonic performance as, along with stealth, that would keep it survivable against enemy threats. The mix of VLO and kinematic survivability is something neither of the heavy strategic bomber proposals can offer at the moment imho.
Looking at that very strange picture of what may be SAC's striker, it has a very bulgy fuselage as already mentioned. Now, when the western press all claimed J-20 was a striker one of the main facts debunking it was that the fuselage was simply too small to effectively hold usual strike weapons. This fuselage, however, looks even more volumous than F-35, and could potentially be able to carry multiple powered stand off weapons (ARM, AShM, cruise missiles, possibly tipped with nukes -- which is another role for this aircraft; nuclear deterrence), or of course, an even greater number of small diameter PGMs. Such aircraft would be used for deep strike missions requiring long range, a heavy payload (i.e.: greater than J-20 or "J-31" can manage), and of course survivability.
--
Anyway, this is just a musing on what role a SAC heavy stealthy striker could play in the PLAAF, and the rationale for why PLAAF may choose this over a heavy strategic bomber.
From huitong's "attackers" page, with said picture:
"The latest rumor (December 2012) claimed that 601 Institute/SAC are working on a stealth fighter bomber design which is in the same class of Su-34 but this has not been confirmed."
That showed up a few months ago, and everyone was quite confused as to what it was... personally I thought the cross section would make it look a lot like F-35's bulgy weapon bays.
Obviously we have no idea if it is in any advanced stage of development, nor am I sure if SAC can handle 31001, J-15, J-16, J-11B/BS, and all the UAV/UCAV projects they have lined up along with a heavy stealth striker.
J-16 and JH-7B should provide heavy, long range strike capabilities for the near future, but of course they are not stealthy, even though they should be speedy and able to fight enemy fighters if it comes down to it.
The role of a stealthy, long range, Su-34 class striker would be an anomaly in the world. The US is pursuing their LRS-B, currently they are looking at a subsonic, heavy flying wing strategic bomber with any notions of a theater bomber like what SAC seems to be developing completely disregarded. Russia's PAK DA is still a paper plane, but talk is that it is a supersonic, heavy strategic bomber.
Now, we all know how China is supposedly pursuing one of those routes as well, subsonic flying wing vs supersonic, for their strategic bomber project, but we've heard nothing regarding that for years and it is likely a long term project. Further, we have to consider that China's potential adversaries may be able to counter VLO subsonic bombers, or LO supersonic bombers through their own air defenses and fighters, AEWC.
A heavy strategic bomber would also be putting "too many eggs in one basket" so to speak, and only a limited number could be procured, to say nothing of their technical difficulties in designing and producing.
A stealthy, supersonic theater bomber in the size of Su-34 or F-111 however may prove the necessary airborne strike capability the PLAAF needs in future, while being stealthy and fast enough to get through enemy defences. They will not have the intercontinental reach of the B-2 or B-1 without in flight refuelling, but should be able to reach most of westpac relatively comfortably (nor do I believe the PLAAF seek an organic intercontinental strike capability in the medium term). Further (and I make some assumptions here), such an aircraft shoudl be able to carry a significant payload (internally of course), let's say 8 tons to keep the Su-34 comparison consistent, and likely it would be optimized for high altitude supersonic performance as, along with stealth, that would keep it survivable against enemy threats. The mix of VLO and kinematic survivability is something neither of the heavy strategic bomber proposals can offer at the moment imho.
Looking at that very strange picture of what may be SAC's striker, it has a very bulgy fuselage as already mentioned. Now, when the western press all claimed J-20 was a striker one of the main facts debunking it was that the fuselage was simply too small to effectively hold usual strike weapons. This fuselage, however, looks even more volumous than F-35, and could potentially be able to carry multiple powered stand off weapons (ARM, AShM, cruise missiles, possibly tipped with nukes -- which is another role for this aircraft; nuclear deterrence), or of course, an even greater number of small diameter PGMs. Such aircraft would be used for deep strike missions requiring long range, a heavy payload (i.e.: greater than J-20 or "J-31" can manage), and of course survivability.
--
Anyway, this is just a musing on what role a SAC heavy stealthy striker could play in the PLAAF, and the rationale for why PLAAF may choose this over a heavy strategic bomber.
Re: SAC stealth striker
I think on the short term there's a greater incentive to acquire tactical bombing and strike platforms as opposed to heavy strategic bombing platforms for several reasons. One reason is simply that China doesn't have the kind of long range interests, logistical capacity, and deployments abroad to make full use of a long range heavy strategic platform. Another is that any major conflict China faces would potentially involve the US and its carrier groups, either in a support or active capacity, and neutralizing US installations, bases, and assets, (tactical targets) would be a priority in any conflict with US involvement. A third reason would be that China has an interest in keeping conflicts localized and brief. Most potential conflicts involve narrow economic and security interests, and it wouldn't benefit China for these conflicts to spill over beyond that domain in the event of a firefight. Targeting strategic assets such as production facilities would be more useful in a prolonged conflict where such spillover is inevitable. Finally, China, insofar as I know, has no intention of developing occupation capabilities, except in the case of Taiwan. Strategic bombing is far more useful for preparation of occupation.
None of these reasons rule out development of a heavy strategic bomber outright, but I do think it puts into question the wisdom of such an investment when a heavy tactical bomber/striker would do.
Now, whether there is greater incentive to go with a subsonic or supersonic platform wholly depends on who and what is being targeted, and what countermeasures the platform might face. I imagine high speed long range supercruising would be an important requirement if, for example, you expect the opponent to scramble interceptors/interdictors during your getaway. This will of course depend on the opponent's detection capabilities. If the intended targets don't have the ability to detect your bomber/striker platform, then there's little need for something that can go supersonic. Now, my guess is that if the intended targets are US or Japanese installations, supersonic capability may be desirable. If the intended targets are not the US or Japan, then we're more likely to see a subsonic platform.
From huitong's "attackers" page, with said picture:
"The latest rumor (December 2012) claimed that 601 Institute/SAC are working on a stealth fighter bomber design which is in the same class of Su-34 but this has not been confirmed."
That showed up a few months ago, and everyone was quite confused as to what it was... personally I thought the cross section would make it look a lot like F-35's bulgy weapon bays.
Obviously we have no idea if it is in any advanced stage of development, nor am I sure if SAC can handle 31001, J-15, J-16, J-11B/BS, and all the UAV/UCAV projects they have lined up along with a heavy stealth striker.
J-16 and JH-7B should provide heavy, long range strike capabilities for the near future, but of course they are not stealthy, even though they should be speedy and able to fight enemy fighters if it comes down to it.
The role of a stealthy, long range, Su-34 class striker would be an anomaly in the world. The US is pursuing their LRS-B, currently they are looking at a subsonic, heavy flying wing strategic bomber with any notions of a theater bomber like what SAC seems to be developing completely disregarded. Russia's PAK DA is still a paper plane, but talk is that it is a supersonic, heavy strategic bomber.
Now, we all know how China is supposedly pursuing one of those routes as well, subsonic flying wing vs supersonic, for their strategic bomber project, but we've heard nothing regarding that for years and it is likely a long term project. Further, we have to consider that China's potential adversaries may be able to counter VLO subsonic bombers, or LO supersonic bombers through their own air defenses and fighters, AEWC.
A heavy strategic bomber would also be putting "too many eggs in one basket" so to speak, and only a limited number could be procured, to say nothing of their technical difficulties in designing and producing.
A stealthy, supersonic theater bomber in the size of Su-34 or F-111 however may prove the necessary airborne strike capability the PLAAF needs in future, while being stealthy and fast enough to get through enemy defences. They will not have the intercontinental reach of the B-2 or B-1 without in flight refuelling, but should be able to reach most of westpac relatively comfortably (nor do I believe the PLAAF seek an organic intercontinental strike capability in the medium term). Further (and I make some assumptions here), such an aircraft shoudl be able to carry a significant payload (internally of course), let's say 8 tons to keep the Su-34 comparison consistent, and likely it would be optimized for high altitude supersonic performance as, along with stealth, that would keep it survivable against enemy threats. The mix of VLO and kinematic survivability is something neither of the heavy strategic bomber proposals can offer at the moment imho.
Looking at that very strange picture of what may be SAC's striker, it has a very bulgy fuselage as already mentioned. Now, when the western press all claimed J-20 was a striker one of the main facts debunking it was that the fuselage was simply too small to effectively hold usual strike weapons. This fuselage, however, looks even more volumous than F-35, and could potentially be able to carry multiple powered stand off weapons (ARM, AShM, cruise missiles, possibly tipped with nukes -- which is another role for this aircraft; nuclear deterrence), or of course, an even greater number of small diameter PGMs. Such aircraft would be used for deep strike missions requiring long range, a heavy payload (i.e.: greater than J-20 or "J-31" can manage), and of course survivability.
--
Anyway, this is just a musing on what role a SAC heavy stealthy striker could play in the PLAAF, and the rationale for why PLAAF may choose this over a heavy strategic bomber.
I think on the short term there's a greater incentive to acquire tactical bombing and strike platforms as opposed to heavy strategic bombing platforms for several reasons. One reason is simply that China doesn't have the kind of long range interests, logistical capacity, and deployments abroad to make full use of a long range heavy strategic platform. Another is that any major conflict China faces would potentially involve the US and its carrier groups, either in a support or active capacity, and neutralizing US installations, bases, and assets, (tactical targets) would be a priority in any conflict with US involvement. A third reason would be that China has an interest in keeping conflicts localized and brief. Most potential conflicts involve narrow economic and security interests, and it wouldn't benefit China for these conflicts to spill over beyond that domain in the event of a firefight. Targeting strategic assets such as production facilities would be more useful in a prolonged conflict where such spillover is inevitable. Finally, China, insofar as I know, has no intention of developing occupation capabilities, except in the case of Taiwan. Strategic bombing is far more useful for preparation of occupation.
None of these reasons rule out development of a heavy strategic bomber outright, but I do think it puts into question the wisdom of such an investment when a heavy tactical bomber/striker would do.
Now, whether there is greater incentive to go with a subsonic or supersonic platform wholly depends on who and what is being targeted, and what countermeasures the platform might face. I imagine high speed long range supercruising would be an important requirement if, for example, you expect the opponent to scramble interceptors/interdictors during your getaway. This will of course depend on the opponent's detection capabilities. If the intended targets don't have the ability to detect your bomber/striker platform, then there's little need for something that can go supersonic. Now, my guess is that if the intended targets are US or Japanese installations, supersonic capability may be desirable. If the intended targets are not the US or Japan, then we're more likely to see a subsonic platform.
Re: Converting a J-20 design into China's next generation of strategic bomber
This SAC bird will definitely be interesting to follow, it sure will have much better capabilities than the J16 to warrant a new air frame, if successful it will effective replace all H6s in service.
This SAC bird will definitely be interesting to follow, it sure will have much better capabilities than the J16 to warrant a new air frame, if successful it will effective replace all H6s in service.
Re: SAC stealth striker
+1
I think the PLAAF and 2nd Arty both have sufficient capability to reliably strike at Taiwan targets if such a contingency arises (especially once J-16 and JH-7B start entering service). J-16 and JH-7B along with H-6K will also be capable of hitting more distant targets whether they are american or japanese, but none will be quite guaranteed to hit what needs to be hit.
A long range, supercruising and stealthy striker can bring large loads of munitions into play quickly, at targets that are either heavily defended or in urgent need of destruction.
Like you said, a subsonic strategic bomber isn't in China's requirements or in line with doctrine of fighting local wars under informationized conditions, nor do I think China can reliably build such an aircraft that will be invulnerable to potential opfor defenses (namely US, Japan and maybe India). It will be interesting to see how viable LRS-B and existing B-2s become against China as IADS further modernizes and more AEW&C come into service.
Only speed and stealth will be a reliable defense for bombers and strikers in future, but I don't think the technology is quite there for a heavy strategic bomber to have both stealth and speed (or if it is it will cost cray cray), whereas theater strikers may be able to have both aspects without blowing the bank.
---
BTW: does anyone have other shots of this mystery bumpy airframe? I remember there being a few other pictures and screencaps of it, but I can't for the life of me remember which thread I saw it in.
+1
I think the PLAAF and 2nd Arty both have sufficient capability to reliably strike at Taiwan targets if such a contingency arises (especially once J-16 and JH-7B start entering service). J-16 and JH-7B along with H-6K will also be capable of hitting more distant targets whether they are american or japanese, but none will be quite guaranteed to hit what needs to be hit.
A long range, supercruising and stealthy striker can bring large loads of munitions into play quickly, at targets that are either heavily defended or in urgent need of destruction.
Like you said, a subsonic strategic bomber isn't in China's requirements or in line with doctrine of fighting local wars under informationized conditions, nor do I think China can reliably build such an aircraft that will be invulnerable to potential opfor defenses (namely US, Japan and maybe India). It will be interesting to see how viable LRS-B and existing B-2s become against China as IADS further modernizes and more AEW&C come into service.
Only speed and stealth will be a reliable defense for bombers and strikers in future, but I don't think the technology is quite there for a heavy strategic bomber to have both stealth and speed (or if it is it will cost cray cray), whereas theater strikers may be able to have both aspects without blowing the bank.
---
BTW: does anyone have other shots of this mystery bumpy airframe? I remember there being a few other pictures and screencaps of it, but I can't for the life of me remember which thread I saw it in.
FarkTypeSoldier
Junior Member
How many additional capabilities would a squadron of J-20s add to an air division of J-11s or J-10Bs?
Sharing my 2 cents...
J-20 would not be used together with J-11 or J-10B, as a matter of fact they would not compliment each other. If the PLAAF were to adopt a low-high combat with J-10B and J-20 for combat mission and the J-10B were to be detected by enemy radar, it is as good as telling others the J-20 is just right around the corner. J-20 should be paired up with J-31 or the rumoured J-18 or any further J-20 upgrades.
The same goes for Japanese F-35s which were early rumoured to compliment the F-15Js, but if the radar spots a F-15J, the F-35 would be around.
J-20 would however, add more combat options and alternatives for PLAAF staff officers to choose a solo/dual stealth mission to neutralise an enemy threat - foreign or domestic - in a current air division of J-11s and J-10s.
escobar
Brigadier
- Status