J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[Max Demian]

Please accept the likely fact that if this does have a gun, we will probably only see it when the air force decides to reveal it to us in an official picture or maybe the CCTV documentary about the J-20's development one day.

Until then, the argument that it does not have a gun has at least equal merit.

The "we see no gun on J-20" mantra has become almost as irritating as the "J-20 is 23m long" idiocy, which in turn is only matched by the "J-20 is a dedicated interceptor/striker" stupidity.

How is saying that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor/striker any more stupid than saying that it's a dedicated air-superiority aircraft? Are you saying that it's neither?

For the sake of argument: ff we accept the no gun hypothesis as valid, what ramifications does that have on the J-20's intended role?

 

[vesicles]

Until then, the argument that it does not have a gun has at least equal merit.


How is saying that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor/striker any more stupid than saying that it's a dedicated air-superiority aircraft? Are you saying that it's neither?

For the sake of argument: ff we accept the no gun hypothesis as valid, what ramifications does that have on the J-20's intended role?

There is lack of evidence to make any conclusion on the gun, for or against. Let's wait for further evidence before making any more speculations. We simply don't have enough data.

 

[latenlazy]

Until then, the argument that it does not have a gun has at least equal merit.


How is saying that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor/striker any more stupid than saying that it's a dedicated air-superiority aircraft? Are you saying that it's neither?

For the sake of argument: ff we accept the no gun hypothesis as valid, what ramifications does that have on the J-20's intended role?

On the gun, we have identified features on the dorsal surface of the plane with potential. It's hard to disprove a negative here, but there are some positive indications, even if they're disputable.

On being a dedicated interceptor vs air superiority fighter, I don't think there's a dedicated interceptor with so many features meant to increase maneuverability. Key to the hypothesis that the J-20 was primarily meant for striking was the presumption that the J-20 was 23 meters long with a large weapons bay. We now know that its weapons bay is not much bigger than the F-22's which weakened the basis for that hypothesis. We've also heard it from the horse's mouth several times that the J-20 is meant to be an air superior fighter. If people want to insist that it's an interceptor or striker, they're going to have to argue against the evidence supporting the idea that the J-20 is an air superiority fighter, which we have some with reasonable merit.

 

[Blitzo]

Until then, the argument that it does not have a gun has at least equal merit.

I feel like such a statement would be a rather false equivalency of the two positions, and that if this were a research question the null hypothesis should be "J-20 does have a gun" as the default assumption due to the underlying assumptions and

How is saying that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor/striker any more stupid than saying that it's a dedicated air-superiority aircraft? Are you saying that it's neither?

Again, because of the underlying assumptions behind the different positions.

For the sake of argument: ff we accept the no gun hypothesis as valid, what ramifications does that have on the J-20's intended role?

I think you're mixing the gun issue with the J-20 role issue. I'm saying the arguments about J-20's role is stupid because of the underlying positions behind it and the J-20 gun issue is also stupid because of the underlying positions behind it.

 

[Blackstone]

There is lack of evidence to make any conclusion on the gun, for or against. Let's wait for further evidence before making any more speculations. We simply don't have enough data.

Agreed, and it goes for other parts of the J-20 too. We public simply don't have enough facts to judge it with other 5th gen aircrafts.

 

[Max Demian]

I think you're mixing the gun issue with the J-20 role issue. I'm saying the arguments about J-20's role is stupid because of the underlying positions behind it and the J-20 gun issue is also stupid because of the underlying positions behind it.

For what's it worth, the underlying assumptions tell me that the J-20 is a multi-role fighter.

 

[Blitzo]

For what's it worth, the underlying assumptions tell me that the J-20 is a multi-role fighter.

Yes I have no disagreement with such a position given the information that we have received over the years

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

God damn it, can people stop mentioning this.

Engines are propulsion, radar and sensors are targeting a gun is part of the weapons system and a fighter's whole function is to employ weapons.

Yes, there's no indication of a gun. Big deal. It's a fairly decent sized stealth fighter, with enough internal room for a gun mount to be flush with the external fuselage. It's not a big surprise for the lack of indication of a gun to still be ongoing at this point. If anything, I'd argue that the lack of an indication of a gun should be pretty much par for the course.

Unlike a missile a cannon cannot pop out or be dropped from the fuselage. IT has to have it' muzzle in bore of the nose of the fighter. I have seen one attempt at pointo to a gun port on the older J20's but that hatch vanished with the latest iterations.
Also please review my other posts one thing I reiterate a number of times is the likelihood that the current units we have seen have not gotten a gun as the J20 is not ready for one yet.

Please accept the likely fact that if this does have a gun, we will probably only see it when the air force decides to reveal it to us in an official picture or maybe the CCTV documentary about the J-20's development one day.

If we were to wait for CCTV documentaries we might as well not be in this thread.

Otherwise, stop whipping schrodinger's horse.

3 points to hufflepuff for good use of an amusing mental image. However again I am looking at weapons integration and readiness level.

The "we see no gun on J-20" mantra has become almost as irritating as the "J-20 is 23m long" idiocy, which in turn is only matched by the "J-20 is a dedicated interceptor/striker" stupidity.

Again I did give the Opinion that lack of a Gun may simply be the result of there only being 13-14 units in existence with 4 being early proof of concept machines. with the number of existing machines It is highly likely that the J20 is just not ready for a gun as a gun system would only really be needed on machines intended for participation in actual use. IE just like how every time i skim this thread there are constant arguments about them changing engines If we believe that the J20 is not at the mission ready package then a gun could be added at a later date.

 

[Blitzo]

Engines are propulsion, radar and sensors are targeting a gun is part of the weapons system and a fighter's whole function is to employ weapons.


Unlike a missile a cannon cannot pop out or be dropped from the fuselage. IT has to have it' muzzle in bore of the nose of the fighter. I have seen one attempt at pointo to a gun port on the older J20's but that hatch vanished with the latest iterations.
Also please review my other posts one thing I reiterate a number of times is the likelihood that the current units we have seen have not gotten a gun as the J20 is not ready for one yet.

If we were to wait for CCTV documentaries we might as well not be in this thread.

3 points to hufflepuff for good use of an amusing mental image. However again I am looking at weapons integration and readiness level.



Again I did give the Opinion that lack of a Gun may simply be the result of there only being 13-14 units in existence with 4 being early proof of concept machines. with the number of existing machines It is highly likely that the J20 is just not ready for a gun as a gun system would only really be needed on machines intended for participation in actual use. IE just like how every time i skim this thread there are constant arguments about them changing engines If we believe that the J20 is not at the mission ready package then a gun could be added at a later date.

The problem with weapons integration as a reason for trying to assess whether it has a gun or not, is that fighter aircraft will generally have something as significant as a gun mount emplacement or simulator built into the aircraft's prototypes well before they enter LRIP stage. Especially for stealth aircraft.


This is one of the underlying assumptions I was talking about that makes the entire constant discussion about J-20s fun issue a bit ridiculous for me.


And I consider the J-20 engine issue to be a bit silly as well. Not as frustrating as constantly saying "oh we still don't see a gun" or arguments saying it is an interceptor, but still irritating.


This expectation that we should expect to see a gun emplacement at this point IMO is entirely unreasonable.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The problem with weapons integration as a reason for trying to assess whether it has a gun or not, is that fighter aircraft will generally have something as significant as a gun mount emplacement or simulator built into the aircraft's prototypes well before they enter LRIP stage. Especially for stealth aircraft.

Well the early early ones will not need one the YF22 and YF23 lacked such as did the X35. and again a simulator could be a bit of software or a just a iron weight or both.

This is one of the underlying assumptions I was talking about that makes the entire constant discussion about J-20s fun issue a bit ridiculous for me.

I view it as a sign of readiness. the more weapons and systems integrated the closer to actual missions.

And I consider the J-20 engine issue to be a bit silly as well. Not as frustrating as constantly saying "oh we still don't see a gun" or arguments saying it is an interceptor, but still irritating.
This expectation that we should expect to see a gun emplacement at this point IMO is entirely unreasonable.

yet what that means is claims of an IOC any time in the next 2 years is a bit dubious.