J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[Blitzo]

Do you have any evidence that the EOTS is functional and what is your definition of functional?

Come on man, we've literally had this conversation before, where I described the definition in 1574 earlier this year:

... I use the word "functional" to describe the EO IRST system on J-20 in the sense that the hardware is assumed to be mostly present even if it may not be fully integrated into the aircraft's overall mission avionics architecture, but that it is not a slab of metal acting as a mock up.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-v.t7303/page-158#post-385838


===

Also, my post did not claim that the EOIRST on the J-20 in the picture we see was "functional" (using my definition above).
If you read my post again, I am saying that we need clearer pictures to see whether it is the "functional" piece of hardware or if it is merely a mock up. Preferably we should have a picture from the frontal aspect, maybe 45 degrees or 60 degrees off centre.

 

[Deino]

New high-resolution photos of the J-20 with low visibility roundels... All images are 2048x1546.

....

Thanks a lot !

This was a very pleasant surprise ...

 

[Brumby]

Come on man, we've literally had this conversation before, where I described the definition in 1574 earlier this year:



https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-v.t7303/page-158#post-385838


===

Also, my post did not claim that the EOIRST on the J-20 in the picture we see was "functional" (using my definition above).
If you read my post again, I am saying that we need clearer pictures to see whether it is the "functional" piece of hardware or if it is merely a mock up. Preferably we should have a picture from the frontal aspect, maybe 45 degrees or 60 degrees off centre.

I do remember that conversation which was 6 months ago. Given the elapse time, I was just wondering whether new information had become available that would support your meaning of "functional".
At that time I did not pursue the conversation that the EOTS was "functional" even by your definition. Since the prevailing speculation is that J-20 is ready or in fact in LRIP, the meaning or its development status would take on more meaning. It seems to me that it is "functional" is based simply on an assumption rather than evidence. Would it be correct?

 

[Blitzo]

I do remember that conversation which was 6 months ago. Given the elapse time, I was just wondering whether new information had become available that would support your meaning of "functional".
At that time I did not pursue the conversation that the EOTS was "functional" even by your definition. Since the prevailing speculation is that J-20 is ready or in fact in LRIP, the meaning or its development status would take on more meaning. It seems to me that it is "functional" is based simply on an assumption rather than evidence. Would it be correct?

Nope, my definition of the word "functional" remains the same as before, which is that some of the representative hardware is present (but we don't know the degree of capability it has in the aircraft), and/or that the hardware which is there is not a merely space filling mock up.

I am making no claim as to the degree of functioning capability of the EOIRST on the LRIP J-20s, nor am I making a claim as to the degree of functioning capability on any other sensor or subsystem on the LRIP J-20s.

I assumed that by not pursuing my definition of the word "functional" back then, that you accepted it was a perfectly reasonable word to use to describe the state of the hardware we could see on J-20s at the time, or at least the EOIRST (vs the EOIRST mock up).

===

edit:
To be honest, this entire discussion about the EOIRST being "functional" is a bit of a red herring, because the use of the word in relation with the J-20's EOIRST over the years has always been in contrast to the mock up EOIRST, which is reasonably accepted to be non-functional in every sense of the word.
I don't think anyone has used the word "functional" with any sort of insinuation about the EOIRST's actual operating capability (which would obviously transition along with the aircraft's overall development and testing over time), so it's kind of an odd thing to split hairs over.

Even ShariQ Ansari on the last page obviously didn't use the word "functional" in any operating capability sense, but rather was in regards to whether the EOIRST was the mock up or if it was a piece of representative hardware.

 

[vincent]

How can anyone outside of PLA know if any of the systems on the J20 are functional, other than the engines and flight control? Maybe the radar is not inside the radome at all. Pointless question

 

[Brumby]

Nope, my definition of the word "functional" remains the same as before, which is that some of the representative hardware is present (but we don't know the degree of capability it has in the aircraft), and/or that the hardware which is there is not a merely space filling mock up.

I am making no claim as to the degree of functioning capability of the EOIRST on the LRIP J-20s, nor am I making a claim as to the degree of functioning capability on any other sensor or subsystem on the LRIP J-20s.

I assumed that by not pursuing my definition of the word "functional" back then, that you accepted it was a perfectly reasonable word to use to describe the state of the hardware we could see on J-20s at the time, or at least the EOIRST (vs the EOIRST mock up).

===

edit:
To be honest, this entire discussion about the EOIRST being "functional" is a bit of a red herring, because the use of the word in relation with the J-20's EOIRST over the years has always been in contrast to the mock up EOIRST, which is reasonably accepted to be non-functional in every sense of the word.
I don't think anyone has used the word "functional" with any sort of insinuation about the EOIRST's actual operating capability (which would obviously transition along with the aircraft's overall development and testing over time), so it's kind of an odd thing to split hairs over.

Even ShariQ Ansari on the last page obviously didn't use the word "functional" in any operating capability sense, but rather was in regards to whether the EOIRST was the mock up or if it was a piece of representative hardware.

This conversation is connected to a broader subject which is how near this platform is to operational status. A platform such as this is built for one purpose only and that is that it can be deployed in a conflict situation. The principal determinants are whether the capabilities inherent are ready i.e. "functional". I have noticed a specific narrative on this forum (not you) that somehow because there are some J-20's potentially in LRIP that operational deployment is just round the corner. I am therefore trying to connect such a narrative or belief to the known functional capabilities of this platform to determine whether such a belief is indeed credible or is it wishful thinking.

This is after all a J-20 thread. There were substantial discussions in the Aircraft Engine thread demanding evidence to support a certain narrative.

 

[Blitzo]

This conversation is connected to a broader subject which is how near this platform is to operational status. A platform such as this is built for one purpose only and that is that it can be deployed in a conflict situation. The principal determinants are whether the capabilities inherent are ready i.e. "functional". I have noticed a specific narrative on this forum (not you) that somehow because there are some J-20's potentially in LRIP that operational deployment is just round the corner. I am therefore trying to connect such a narrative or belief to the known functional capabilities of this platform to determine whether such a belief is indeed credible or is it wishful thinking.

This is after all a J-20 thread. There were substantial discussions in the Aircraft Engine thread demanding evidence to support a certain narrative.

Okay, in that case I think it is important to clarify that the talk about the J-20's EOIRSTs being "functional" is not in relation to any assumption or claim about its operational capability, and is only a reference to visible hardware installation relative to the mock up EOIRST.

So far I don't think many people, if anyone at all, has made any sort of explicit connection between the potential functional capability of J-20's EOIRST at this stage vs the aircraft's overall operational capability. This whole time the whole talk of the functional EOIRST has only been in context of the hardware vs the mock up EOIRST.
So what you're asking about vis a vis J-20's present or upcoming operational capability is very much an entirely separate topic.


======

Now, on the separate topic...

The discussions about J-20 being in LRIP and being potentially operationally deployed soon is reflective of a number of indicators... most of it is due to credible rumours about the stage of the J-20 programme, some of it is due to simple logical inference (such as the transition of serial numbers of successive airframes which are indicative of their role in the programme), and a major part of the narrative also rests upon what we about the various J-20 prototypes flying at different airbases or facilities or institutions which we know to have certain differing roles for the PLA's development of new military aircraft, so on and so forth (e.g.: some are for mere flight tests, some are for weapons and sensors testing, some are for developing tactics and more operational testing).

But no one can make any 100% valid claim as to the specific operational capability of the aircraft in regards to its various subsystems, and at this point I don't think anyone has.
However, with all the combined indicators, the general consensus seems to be that J-20 has entered what appears to be its LRIP stage, and that the initial LRIP units may be delivered relatively "soon" (interpret that however you want) to the Air Force.

Some people might believe that just because LRIP has begun and that delivery of initial airframes to the Air Force may be imminent, that "operational deployment" will occur very soon afterwards, but I think those individuals may not have a very accurate grasp of how these sorts of programmes are transitioned from one stage to another -- not only for the Chinese Air Force, but for other air forces as well.

Also, if one really wants to split hairs, one can say that even if J-20s are "operationally deployed" we may still not know what the actual functional capabilities of the aircraft are, because for all we know they might roll out various capabilities for the aircraft in successive updates over time (which would actually be the norm)..... so I suppose my bottom line is that we'll probably never know what the actual functional capabilities of the J-20 (or indeed, any PLA aircraft or military asset) are at any one time, even when the J-20 does get "operationally deployed".

 

[Brumby]

Okay, in that case I think it is important to clarify that the talk about the J-20's EOIRSTs being "functional" is not in relation to any assumption or claim about its operational capability, and is only a reference to visible hardware installation relative to the mock up EOIRST.

So far I don't think many people, if anyone at all, has made any sort of explicit connection between the potential functional capability of J-20's EOIRST at this stage vs the aircraft's overall operational capability. This whole time the whole talk of the functional EOIRST has only been in context of the hardware vs the mock up EOIRST.
So what you're asking about vis a vis J-20's present or upcoming operational capability is very much an entirely separate topic.

I don't think it is a separate topic but rather an integral path in its development. Given the lack of transparency in China's J-20 program, how close it is to operational deployment is a function of the readiness of the components in the program. For example, do we know whether sensor testing, systems integration or weapons separation is being tested? My earlier question wasn't about capability as I have long resigned to the fact that such information are not available but rather whether there are any evidence of capabilities testing besides assumption.

The discussions about J-20 being in LRIP and being potentially operationally deployed soon is reflective of a number of indicators... most of it is due to credible rumours about the stage of the J-20 programme, some of it is due to simple logical inference (such as the transition of serial numbers of successive airframes which are indicative of their role in the programme), and a major part of the narrative also rests upon what we about the various J-20 prototypes flying at different airbases or facilities or institutions which we know to have certain differing roles for the PLA's development of new military aircraft, so on and so forth (e.g.: some are for mere flight tests, some are for weapons and sensors testing, some are for developing tactics and more operational testing).

I am not convinced that going to LRIP is a good indicator of the program's maturity. For example the F-35 program is well into many years since LRIP but have yet to declare IOC on the Alpha model. My estimate is that at best the J-20 program is about 20 to 25 % into development testing leading to IOC.

But no one can make any 100% valid claim as to the specific operational capability of the aircraft in regards to its various subsystems, and at this point I don't think anyone has.
However, with all the combined indicators, the general consensus seems to be that J-20 has entered what appears to be its LRIP stage, and that the initial LRIP units may be delivered relatively "soon" (interpret that however you want) to the Air Force.

Some people might believe that just because LRIP has begun and that delivery of initial airframes to the Air Force may be imminent, that "operational deployment" will occur very soon afterwards, but I think those individuals may not have a very accurate grasp of how these sorts of programmes are transitioned from one stage to another -- not only for the Chinese Air Force, but for other air forces as well.

Agree

Also, if one really wants to split hairs, one can say that even if J-20s are "operationally deployed" we may still not know what the actual functional capabilities of the aircraft are, because for all we know they might roll out various capabilities for the aircraft in successive updates over time (which would actually be the norm)..... so I suppose my bottom line is that we'll probably never know what the actual functional capabilities of the J-20 (or indeed, any PLA aircraft or military asset) are at any one time, even when the J-20 does get "operationally deployed".

The problem with using the term operationally deployed is that it doesn't actually tell us whether it is operationally ready to perform the mission tasks that it is build for. As such it could be operationally deployed in the field but it may not be operationally able to execute mission sets. For example, if it cannot engage weapons separation or its sensors are not operational then it cannot be mission deployed. Such a state is different from a conversation about incremental upgrades.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't think it is a separate topic but rather an integral path in its development.

First of all, I feel obliged to insist that it very much is a separate topic to the one which was previously being discussed.
When ShariQ Ansari mentioned whether the EOIRST was "functional" or not (or when anyone else has discussed whether the EOIRST was "functional" or not), it was specifically in relation to only a very limited context -- i.e.: whether the EOIRST on that lone specific aircraft was fitted with a mockup place holder or a non-mock up, hardware representative article.

Or putting it another way, the topic you're talking about is the relationship of the EOIRST with the overall programme's position in its development path, whereas I (and most other people) have been talking only about whether a particular J-20 airframe (from J-20 prototype 2011 all the way to current LRIP planes) has been mounted with a piece of stand in mock up EOIRST or if a particular airframe has been fitted with a hardware representative EOIRST.

Given the lack of transparency in China's J-20 program, how close it is to operational deployment is a function of the readiness of the components in the program. For example, do we know whether sensor testing, systems integration or weapons separation is being tested? My earlier question wasn't about capability as I have long resigned to the fact that such information are not available but rather whether there are any evidence of capabilities testing besides assumption.

Those are all things we do not know, though we do have some rumours now and then like those which say J-20 prototypes have been conducting weapons tests, but we obviously don't have hard evidence of it and we don't have any details beyond that (e.g.: are the weapons test integrating the aircraft's avionics and fire control, or is it merely a separation test, under what flight regimes, etc).

We can only rely on credible rumours, photos, deduction, and common sense to try and reach estimates and conclusions. That is why I like the word "consensus" so much for watching Chinese military programmes which are under development, because it reflects that none (or at least few) of the conclusions which are reached are fully proven as fact, but is the community's estimate using the given information that is present to provide a ballpark or a confidence interval in which the real situation is likely to reside. That confidence interval can be corrected, narrowed, or enlarged over time with new information which may emerge, and it provides an essential starting point to inform future analysis and a useful jumping point for discussion.


And btw when I used the word "capability" I didn't only mean "absolute capability" or "intended capability" but also "present capability" -- in other words the capability which has been demonstrated or attained via testing.

I am not convinced that going to LRIP is a good indicator of the program's maturity. For example the F-35 program is well into many years since LRIP but have yet to declare IOC on the Alpha model. My estimate is that at best the J-20 program is about 20 to 25 % into development testing leading to IOC.

Okay, but I was merely stating the consensus which seems to be present at the moment based on the limited information we have.
The current consensus obviously does not preclude the possibility of delays in the future which may lengthen the amount of time necessary for the aircraft to be operationally deployed or for the aircraft to attain and demonstrate certain capabilities.

Agree


The problem with using the term operationally deployed is that it doesn't actually tell us whether it is operationally ready to perform the mission tasks that it is build for. As such it could be operationally deployed in the field but it may not be operationally able to execute mission sets. For example, if it cannot engage weapons separation or its sensors are not operational then it cannot be mission deployed. Such a state is different from a conversation about incremental upgrades.

The incremental upgrades suggestion was just an example of how being operationally deployed doesn't tell us much about its capability.
Obviously it goes without saying that an operationally deployed aircraft may also lack key capabilities or be unable to achieve its mission, for a whole range of other reasons too, such as technical glitches, or improper testing prior to being deployed, etc.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

J-20 in the rain.