J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
IMO, the J-20 is already sort of obsolete. The primary task of J-20s will be to knock out enemy AEW&C with long-range missiles like the PL-15 and PL-21, but technologies like the Lockheed CUDA missile will allow F-35s escorting AEW&C to knock out missiles. Likewise, CUDA is specifically designed to knock out BVR missiles, so dogfighting will become paramount. But once you get into the dogfight regime, HMCS dogfight missiles turn everything into a 1:1 attritional battle.
This is basically contingent on CUDA being mature, however; it's still 3-years out and is being self-funded by Lockheed.
Within this context, though, the PLAAF's decision to move with J-20s without an F-35 analogue is actually quite wise. If CUDA-like missiles become dominant, aircraft like the J-10, J-11, and J-15 can stock way more anti-missiles than stealth aircraft. Likewise, since CUDA-style anti-missiles are going to be short-to-medium range, stealth aircraft will be picked up by EOTS systems from outside their effective range: Stealth is obsolete.
Focusing on J-20 as an adjunct to a 4th-generation fleet then becomes extremely wise; while stealth may not deliver a decisive combat advantage, it still presents strategic and tactical advantages that can enhance the efficacy of a fleet. Likewise, the J-20, on a pure kinematic and radar-level, has superiorities to 4th generation aircraft in the PLAAF.
This is basically contingent on CUDA being mature, however; it's still 3-years out and is being self-funded by Lockheed.
Within this context, though, the PLAAF's decision to move with J-20s without an F-35 analogue is actually quite wise. If CUDA-like missiles become dominant, aircraft like the J-10, J-11, and J-15 can stock way more anti-missiles than stealth aircraft. Likewise, since CUDA-style anti-missiles are going to be short-to-medium range, stealth aircraft will be picked up by EOTS systems from outside their effective range: Stealth is obsolete.
Focusing on J-20 as an adjunct to a 4th-generation fleet then becomes extremely wise; while stealth may not deliver a decisive combat advantage, it still presents strategic and tactical advantages that can enhance the efficacy of a fleet. Likewise, the J-20, on a pure kinematic and radar-level, has superiorities to 4th generation aircraft in the PLAAF.
Last edited:
Good writing. It's clear that CAC and Salut have forged a very close and fruitful working relationship over the years. Salut has effectively become a key long-term supplier to the Chinese military aircraft industry. No wonder they have been mum about much of the details of this relationship. We could also put to rest the repeated rumors/speculations that China is buying Su-35 due to the interest in 117S.
vesicles
Colonel
Whenever you get a new weapon system, you should expect to see a counter to such weapon soon. that's how our brain works. When someone comes up with a seemingly invincible weapon, others see it as a challenge to come up with something else to counter it. Additionally, those who came up with the invincible weapon are also worried that others might catch them up and come up with similar systems. To ensure they can counter it, they almost immediately work on "anti-invincible" systems. So this cycle goes on and on all the time.
No matter how sharp your spear is, there is always a strong shield. That does not make your weapon obsolete. It's all up to how you use them. No matter what kind of shields your opponents have, it is always good to have the sharpest spear you can find and make.
Your argument is basically that a strong enough shield would have prevented gun dominance in the post-Renaissance period. That didn't happen; cavalry was a partial counter but needed support from artillery to break up bayonet walls.
The counter to CUDA and similar micromissiles is long-range WVR; they're light enough to avoid being intercepted efficiently (CUDA seems to expect 2 missiles per AAM), and with the right kinematics (which the J-20 has and the F-35 lacks) you can put their aircraft into NEZ before you yourself are in NEZ. So 90-km IR missiles like the Chinese were recently working on is a suitable counter to anti-anti missiles.
The counter to CUDA and similar micromissiles is long-range WVR; they're light enough to avoid being intercepted efficiently (CUDA seems to expect 2 missiles per AAM), and with the right kinematics (which the J-20 has and the F-35 lacks) you can put their aircraft into NEZ before you yourself are in NEZ. So 90-km IR missiles like the Chinese were recently working on is a suitable counter to anti-anti missiles.
vesicles
Colonel
That's exactly my point. Having a counter does not make a weapon obsolete.
You know we have bullet-proof vests, which compromises the effectiveness of guns? That has not made guns obsolete...
For bigger caliber guns and missiles, we have tanks and armored vehicles to counter them.
For tanks, we have anti-tanks HEAT missiles, etc to counter the thick armor.
This goes on and on...
None of the weapons mentioned above has become obsolete, despite the fact that they all have counters.
Again, it's about how you use it: protect your own weakness while exploiting your opponents'.
Guns made medieval iron/steel armor obsolete; troops by the 1700s were decked in cloth. And as I've said myself, stealth will retain a role when defensive armaments are powerful, as ambush and reconnaissance assets.
I think the main point is that the existence of counter-counters and counter-counter-counters does not render the counter irrelevant, but development changes the optimal design for the tech period. Stealth, in the 1990s, would have made mincemeat of any 4th gen, but by 2030 stealth aircraft may be effectively countered by 4th gens using EOTS and anti-missiles.
Also, one other advantage the J-20 has as a heavy fighter is that unlike the F-35, it's a large aircraft with a large radar aperture. With eventual GaN AESA as well as the predominance of anti-missiles, the other way aircraft might attempt to kill each other is with their AESA as an EM weapon. The larger aperture on the J-20, compared to the F-35 and J-31, allows it to fire a stronger pulse at larger distances.
I think the main point is that the existence of counter-counters and counter-counter-counters does not render the counter irrelevant, but development changes the optimal design for the tech period. Stealth, in the 1990s, would have made mincemeat of any 4th gen, but by 2030 stealth aircraft may be effectively countered by 4th gens using EOTS and anti-missiles.
Also, one other advantage the J-20 has as a heavy fighter is that unlike the F-35, it's a large aircraft with a large radar aperture. With eventual GaN AESA as well as the predominance of anti-missiles, the other way aircraft might attempt to kill each other is with their AESA as an EM weapon. The larger aperture on the J-20, compared to the F-35 and J-31, allows it to fire a stronger pulse at larger distances.
Last edited:
What you're missing is that the transition from steel armor to cloth took centuries. It wasn't sudden. Counters only have the force of obsoletiom if they shift entire paradigms. That wasn't crossed with guns for quite a while. Proportional impact matters. Most counters are not absolute, and many don't even shift designs that much.
You can also argue that technology didn't advance as quickly before the Industrial Revolution.
vesicles
Colonel
Tank wasn't invented until the 20th century. Since then, many counters have been developed against tanks. We have the dedicated attack helicopters whose main duty is to attack tanks. Yet, tanks haven't been obsolete.
- Status