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

[Blitzo]

A striker or interceptor should have little need for dedicated SRAAM bays, I imagine. The evidence against the striker claim is so staggering just based on looking at the J-20 and common sense, only the most determined of fanboys still endorse it.

I think if the seeker's FOV was an issue, they would also have made the pylon swing out a little, like on the F-22 (for that is the reason the Raptor's SRAAM pylon does swing it -- it was designed to give the missile greater FOV).

I think the main reason for such a low placement of the missile because of the canards, and a combination of seeker necessity, and also to make sure the missile doesn't fly off its pylon into the forward control surfaces (the two factors are entwined in a way).

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Given the size of the J20. I am not sure we can totally dismiss the interceptor role. I mean this bird is huge! Almost mig 31 huge. Additionally the ability to fall back to a close range missile for self defence would be a plus especially if intercepting aircraft with fighter escort. That said. When I look at it I think more of a unique hybrid mission long range intercept air superiority IE a fighter intended to be based at air fields along the Chinese mainland coast and operate over the east and south China sea intercepting and engaging possible threats.
I cant picture a carrier based version and feel the J31 is the better naval option. But in operations say along the Taiwan coastline or Senkaku isles the size and range offered would seem ideal. In a China sea blockade situation Carriers could form the outermost boundary J20 and bombers the middle layer and land based J31 the inner last line.

 

[latenlazy]

Given the size of the J20. I am not sure we can totally dismiss the interceptor role. I mean this bird is huge! Almost mig 31 huge. Additionally the ability to fall back to a close range missile for self defence would be a plus especially if intercepting aircraft with fighter escort. That said. When I look at it I think more of a unique hybrid mission long range intercept air superiority IE a fighter intended to be based at air fields along the Chinese mainland coast and operate over the east and south China sea intercepting and engaging possible threats.
I cant picture a carrier based version and feel the J31 is the better naval option. But in operations say along the Taiwan coastline or Senkaku isles the size and range offered would seem ideal. In a China sea blockade situation Carriers could form the outermost boundary J20 and bombers the middle layer and land based J31 the inner last line.

...Really? Really?!

 

[leibowitz]

...Really? Really?!

Actually, the main benefit of a large-airframe interceptor is that it can mount powerful EW along with EO/IRST passive sensors, on top of a top-class AESA - and have enough engine power and lift left over for long-range and short-range AAMs.

Imagine a squadron of J-20s running mostly passive, with AESA pencil-beams forming a wide-area-network and two J-20s running 'hot', scanning with SARs or AESAs about 20nm ahead and to the side of the main formation. If each J-20 holds 6 PL-12s or PL-21s, that's over 70 missiles on a stealthy, non-emitting, supercruising squadron, which is enough to pose severe trouble for any strike grouping not escorted by less than two flights of F-22s. Such a squadron could sweep a 400,000 square nm area clean of air targets every hour (400nm x 1000nm/hr speed). That's an insanely useful tool for any operational commander. In a time of tension, such 'combat sweeps' could also remove most peaceful show-of-force options from the JASDF or USAF toolkit.

 

[Blitzo]

Actually, the main benefit of a large-airframe interceptor is that it can mount powerful EW along with EO/IRST passive sensors, on top of a top-class AESA - and have enough engine power and lift left over for long-range and short-range AAMs.

Imagine a squadron of J-20s running mostly passive, with AESA pencil-beams forming a wide-area-network and two J-20s running 'hot', scanning with SARs or AESAs about 20nm ahead and to the side of the main formation. If each J-20 holds 6 PL-12s or PL-21s, that's over 70 missiles on a stealthy, non-emitting, supercruising squadron, which is enough to pose severe trouble for any strike grouping not escorted by less than two flights of F-22s. Such a squadron could sweep a 400,000 square nm area clean of air targets every hour (400nm x 1000nm/hr speed). That's an insanely useful tool for any operational commander. In a time of tension, such 'combat sweeps' could also remove most peaceful show-of-force options from the JASDF or USAF toolkit.

Eurgh.

J-20 is a relatively large airframe, yes, at 20.5m, but far from Mig-31's 22.7m. So yes it can mount powerful EW, passive sensors, and a massive whopping radar along with a good A2A load.
But it ain't an interceptor. It's an air superiority fighter with long legs. If it were a pure bred interceptor (and let's be honest -- no one has built such a type in many years) it would not have LERX, and certainly not canards, all features indicative of an agile air to air fighter.

These days, most new fighters are very capable interceptors. But interceptors do not make good fighters.

F-22 is used by the USAF as a high speed interceptor, but is also their premier air to air fighter. J-20 will be the same, albeit with greater rang and endurance most like.

 

[latenlazy]

Actually, the main benefit of a large-airframe interceptor is that it can mount powerful EW along with EO/IRST passive sensors, on top of a top-class AESA - and have enough engine power and lift left over for long-range and short-range AAMs.

Imagine a squadron of J-20s running mostly passive, with AESA pencil-beams forming a wide-area-network and two J-20s running 'hot', scanning with SARs or AESAs about 20nm ahead and to the side of the main formation. If each J-20 holds 6 PL-12s or PL-21s, that's over 70 missiles on a stealthy, non-emitting, supercruising squadron, which is enough to pose severe trouble for any strike grouping not escorted by less than two flights of F-22s. Such a squadron could sweep a 400,000 square nm area clean of air targets every hour (400nm x 1000nm/hr speed). That's an insanely useful tool for any operational commander. In a time of tension, such 'combat sweeps' could also remove most peaceful show-of-force options from the JASDF or USAF toolkit.

I was referring to the size debate.

 

[plawolf]

Please! Have we not gone over this size debate enough times already?! There are even satellite photos that show beyond all possible doubt that the J20 is smaller than a J15/Su33, which in turn is shorter than your typical flanker on account of the shortened tailsting.

As has been already pointed out, all of the J20's design features that its critics argue are bad for stealth are added for the sake of enhanced agility, and would simply not be needed if the J20 is supposed to be a striker or stealth rocket with wings. The design decision to include those enhanced agility features comes at the cost of some RCS hits, and would not be a decision made lightly. That tells us that from a fundamental design prospective, the J20 always put a lot of emphasis on agility, yet agility is not something a striker or interceptor cares too much about.

Another feature of the J20 that almost certainly rules it out as an interceptor is the DSI. That limits the J20 to around M2, not something you'd do if you were designing a Mig31 follow on. Frankly, I am scratching my head at how anyone can associate the J20 with the Mig31.

Can the J20 performance interceptor duties? Sure, it will probably also be pretty damn good at it with its long rang and super cruise, then again, so could the F22 or PAK-FA, but was the J20 designed as an interceptor? Obviously not.

 

[Engineer]

Given the size of the J20. I am not sure we can totally dismiss the interceptor role. I mean this bird is huge!

A typical Flanker is bigger than J-20, yet your typical Flanker isn't an interceptor or a bomber. People like to imagine the J-20 to be bigger than it is, but that's because they can't deal with the fact that the J-20 looks stealthy and maneuverable.

 

[kroko]

A typical Flanker is bigger than J-20, yet your typical Flanker isn't an interceptor or a bomber. People like to imagine the J-20 to be bigger than it is, but that's because they can't deal with the fact that the J-20 looks stealthy and maneuverable.

is this PLAAF premier air base? that runway is in badly need of repairs...

 

[Engineer]

is this PLAAF premier air base? that runway is in badly need of repairs...

Please point out where the runway is in that picture.