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

[tphuang]

i did not antagonism any one, i just said japan has more advanced jet programs, however those who speak ill of the japanese are not called antagonaisers, be fair, i can stop talking about Japanese fighter and but judge with fairness, any way in Japan they have also Computer images of J-20s blown by Japanese fighters however it seems you are okay with J-20 downing F-2s as long as the boot is in the foot you think is the good guy.

Well, you deliberatedly changed the conversation to how many F-22s are stationed in Japan that will crush PLAAF when the conversation was never about that, I think that classifies as antagonism. I realize that you might be offended from other threads, but please let it go and not take threads off tangent as much.

 

[MiG-29]

Well, you deliberatedly changed the conversation to how many F-22s are stationed in Japan that will crush PLAAF when the conversation was never about that, I think that classifies as antagonism. I realize that you might be offended from other threads, but please let it go and not take threads off tangent as much.

Cool i agree i will comply. thanks you surprise me, i find you are a pretty fair moderator. Thanks

 

[kwaigonegin]

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 neutralize an enemy threat - foreign or domestic - in a current air division of J-11s and J-10s.

I agree with you in principle but just like everything else, the real world sometimes dictates otherwise. The use of hi-low combination usually has a lot to do with quantities of available aircraft especially with the 'Hi' aircrafts. Strategies and threat levels aside, the availability of Gen 5 aircraft may not be as available as lower gen aircraft especially in a full scale war. In cases like these I can totally see BOTH Gen 5 and Gen 4/3 aircraft working together in a hi-low mix.

the mixing of aircraft can in itself present a tactical advantage also because it keeps the enemy guessing. If I see an F-15 does that mean there are F-35s inbound also or is it just the F-15s? If I see J-10s coming at me should I assume J-20s are providing air cover or are they fending for themselves? to totally discount the mixing of Gen5 and lower Gen aircraft would IMHO a big mistake.

In a limited conflict they may not even be used at all. Take the F-22 for example... even though it has been certified for A2G missions AFAIK it has never been used in actual combat situations despite numerous opportunities in the past decade.

 

[Engineer]

I don't believe Japan has even done a study to flesh out the requirements for a 6th generation platform. It sounds like what they're really trying to do is to get started on some technology research so that they can pull the US in for joint development.

Paper airplane accusations aside (since that's what they used to say about the J-20 too), this thing won't even begin prototype testing for a while. I doubt it would be put into production in time, and by then China could very well be developing their own next generation fighter.

The ATD-X won't even get to do prototype testing since it is just a tech demonstrator. This aircraft is even smaller than an F-35 and is far too small to carry a meaningful combat load. Here is a chart for comparison.

Here is a size comparison between 1:1 models of ATD-X and the intended goal. The latter is just a vapor aircraft at this point.

From 1985 to 1991, the Rafale took 6 years between the appearance of the tech demonstrator and the first prototype. From 1986 to 1994, the Eurofighter took 8 years from EAP to the first prototype. Assuming the ATD-X is going to take 5 years for the tech demonstration phase, the first prototype won't be seen until 2019. By that time, the J-20 would already been in service.

 

[Engineer]

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.

I also agree that a stealthy supersonic striker will be the next priority whereas a subsonic long range bomber is still just a distant dream. China's main threat on the surface remains to be America's carrier battle groups. A supersonic stealth striker with a large AESA surface search radar, powerful EW package, while carrying up to 4~6 anti-ship cruise missiles will be able to put a lot of pressure on those battle groups. Additionally, the striker will provide a more survivable mean to strike targets within Japan as well as US bases around China. It will force America and its allies to spend a lot more on the defensive rather than focus purely on the offensive that they now enjoy.

 

[Munir]

Stealth fighter does not have to big. My p.o. is that it matters what use it has. The Japanese probably do not want to go deep inside China but stay above Japan to intercept incoming aircraft. China surely wants range. Nt only because it is huge but because it needs the range even beyond Japan to stop USA or others.

 

[Blitzo]

Stealth fighter does not have to big. My p.o. is that it matters what use it has. The Japanese probably do not want to go deep inside China but stay above Japan to intercept incoming aircraft. China surely wants range. Nt only because it is huge but because it needs the range even beyond Japan to stop USA or others.

But still imho ATD-X as it is sized now is simply too small to be an effective fighter, unless a short range, short endurance interceptor. It doesn't need to be J-20 or T-50 sized, but if they want such a plane to replace their F-15Js in future, they will need something much bigger than the shinshin demonstrator's current dimensions.

 

[Equation]

The ATD-X might as well be a stealth trainer type of fighter.

 

[plawolf]

Stealth fighter does not have to big. My p.o. is that it matters what use it has. The Japanese probably do not want to go deep inside China but stay above Japan to intercept incoming aircraft. China surely wants range. Nt only because it is huge but because it needs the range even beyond Japan to stop USA or others.

Fighters don't stop obaying the laws of physics just because they are stealth, and you need a certain amount of size to be efficient in terms of range, payload and upgrade potential.

For an island nation like Japan, range is even more important because there are far less available and suitable bits of land for them to build air bases on. In addition, there is little to no strategic depth for island nations, so if they wait until the enemy gets over their beaches before they can intercept, then the enemy would already be within weapons range of any and every target they might want to hit. A large land based nation like China or the US can afford to allow enemy aircraft to penetrate a little over their coastal regions because even then there will still be vast swaves of areas the enemy cannot hit. That is simply not an option for the Japanese, which is why they need to intercept and engage hosile air units way out at sea in order to make sure vital areas/targets are not hit. That is why the Japanese F2 was made considerably bigger than the F16 it was based on.

The main reason the Japanese design is so tiny is the same reason the British Replica was so tiny - they were envisaged and designed as pure tech demonstrators with little or no intention of ever being made into flying prototypes never mind production aircraft.

For tech demonstrators, the only considerations are speedy and cheap production, which is why the demonstrators tend to be small, just look at all the American X-planes. With the exception of the likes of the X23/22 and X32/35 which were designed and built to fulfill tenders for real combat aircraft, all the pure experimental X-planes were pretty small.

 

[leibowitz]

Fighters don't stop obaying the laws of physics just because they are stealth, and you need a certain amount of size to be efficient in terms of range, payload and upgrade potential.

For an island nation like Japan, range is even more important because there are far less available and suitable bits of land for them to build air bases on. In addition, there is little to no strategic depth for island nations, so if they wait until the enemy gets over their beaches before they can intercept, then the enemy would already be within weapons range of any and every target they might want to hit. A large land based nation like China or the US can afford to allow enemy aircraft to penetrate a little over their coastal regions because even then there will still be vast swaves of areas the enemy cannot hit. That is simply not an option for the Japanese, which is why they need to intercept and engage hosile air units way out at sea in order to make sure vital areas/targets are not hit. That is why the Japanese F2 was made considerably bigger than the F16 it was based on.

The main reason the Japanese design is so tiny is the same reason the British Replica was so tiny - they were envisaged and designed as pure tech demonstrators with little or no intention of ever being made into flying prototypes never mind production aircraft.

For tech demonstrators, the only considerations are speedy and cheap production, which is why the demonstrators tend to be small, just look at all the American X-planes. With the exception of the likes of the X23/22 and X32/35 which were designed and built to fulfill tenders for real combat aircraft, all the pure experimental X-planes were pretty small.

Quite true. I'd add that the Japanese government appears to be spending nearly 3x as much money on a potential F-35 acquisition than it is on the R&D of the ATD-X.

The simplest way to predict the future of a nation's defense strategy is to follow the money. This, incidentally, is why the US grumbles so much about the opacity of the Chinese defense budget.