J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[plawolf]

If the Indians had detected J20s, they would be claiming so in explicit terms and not playing around with maybes.

 

[kyuryu]

Only USAF is going head down into Stealth business, with replacement of whole combat fleet as a goal. Even China(steady believer as it seems) goes for a mixed fleet.
Among all producers, only Russia went to drop existing fighter program for a stealthy replacement. Funny enough.
All others maintained their own, even if they clearly had a chance to do otherwise.
(at least for France it isn't a secret).
On the contrary, there are quite a few new programs with limited stealth objectives. They clearly concern themselves with signature reduction, but only reduction(KFX).

What's even more curious is what all a2a weapon development doesn't concern itself with stealth all that much. No Anti-stealth developments from early 1990s are here.
No dual-mode seekers, like on aim-152. No super-AWACS (well, a-100 conceptually is simillar, but it lost all its "super" part).
Only more and ever more capable AESA(PESA) radars and IRST. Both predate stealth and have a much wider usage.

Actually, quite an interesting point about aam not keeping pace with the LO/stealth aircraft developments. It seems like everyone assumed that their 5th Gen stealth aircraft would be facing off against opponents 4th Gen aircraft. If both aircraft incorporate LO tech, the chance that existing aam like the AMRAAM (AIM 120D) would get a viable track at max range of +150 km is absurd, yet only the Israeli’s have pursued a dual mode seeker LR aam (Stunner)

 

[Pmichael]

The max ranges are always absurd against fighter targets.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Wrong. China wants new full stealth drones, full stealth carrier fighter, full stealth strategic bomber, full stealth attack/strike plane, full stealth 6th gen (assumed unless photonics radars make is pointless in decades time). I would say that is moving whole fleet towards stealth since all new platforms are/ will be full stealth. Current mixed fleet of non stealth is either old planes manufactured years before stealth or J-10C, J-15, and J-16 all of which have no current replacement programs.

For now, new Flanker and j-10 variants are entering service and rolling from production lines in parallel with J-20. And there is no sign of ceasure.
It means they're with us to remain for decades to come. Much like, say, pre-JSF USAF.

Europe is moving to F-35.

Europe is eating whatever they're given. When it was f-5, it was f-5. When it was MRAAM-only f-16, it was f-16.
European own fighters are:
1)eurofighter
2)Rafale
3)Gripen
Neither will be replaced with something stealthy before late 2030s. And for all 3 stealthy alternatives were proposed back in early 1990s, when ATF came out. All 3 considered it and discarded it, as "not worth the effort". And while Eurofighter nations more or less intend to go f-35(not all of them, and we aren't talking cheap scrubs here), France and Sweden is still here.
"moving as fast as possible" is taking 50 years to happen...

The nations without this ability

Let's avoid this.
Benefit of doubt gives 3 options:
1)Stealth fighter is a game changer to a degree of dreadnought revolution.
It basically nullifies worth of building anything pre-dating.
As we can see, it isn't the case.
Opposite:
2)Stealth is a fluke. Lol, no, China and US by themselves are enough to throw this point away, and we have so much more.

Middle ground:
3)Stealth is a part of equation, which, while extremely powerful, is very hard to add to an existing aircraft(1), contradicts many other design goals and so on.
This way, all new designs shall incorporate stealth techniques(most importantly, basic geometry), but existing designs can nevertheless proceed by using:
1)ever-developing active EW
2)payloads over platforms concept(including drones)
3)plug-in sensors and electronics.
4)applying available signature control options
And so on.
Just look at current Rafale and compare it with current F-35.
The first one is clearly not without its merits, isn't it?

My own conclusion is:
1)Stealth is a game changer(ha, I contradict myself, but let me explain).
2)Stealth strains other aspects of the aircraft too much, and/or makes mission unsustainably costly.
All-stealth fighting force, while cool and the most powerful per ce, just isn't too rational.
3)Stealth is never absolute: you both can be detected by a radar powerful enough or if you're maneuvering, or if enemy uses something else(passive means, ELINT). If you aren't visible, but a shock cone behind you is, consider yourself detected. And so on.
4)with all things said, stealth forces stealthlessvopponent to a strictly defensive scenario(if he has these defences to rely on), and no amount of counterweight will change this.
You can kill a shark, but if sharks lurk around in the dark, you just won't swim away from safety.
Having a better harpoon or a flashlight will make a fight with a shark easier, but won't fix the problem.

 

[ougoah]

If the Indians had detected J20s, they would be claiming so in explicit terms and not playing around with maybes.

If they actually had the usable ability to target or even detect J-20 at significant enough ranges (without LL) they would not say it but keep it hidden until they need to use that ability. Tensions between the two nations have cooled since Doklam, why reveal this as a statement now if it is true. Potential for conflict when the statement came out was far lower than at the height of the tension in 2017. Either way China is clearly calling the bluff and continues with producing the J-20 as it is. All other nations in a position to acquire stealthy aircrafts are doing similarly. Unless of course J-20 is not comparable in stealthiness

Actually, quite an interesting point about aam not keeping pace with the LO/stealth aircraft developments. It seems like everyone assumed that their 5th Gen stealth aircraft would be facing off against opponents 4th Gen aircraft. If both aircraft incorporate LO tech, the chance that existing aam like the AMRAAM (AIM 120D) would get a viable track at max range of +150 km is absurd, yet only the Israeli’s have pursued a dual mode seeker LR aam (Stunner)

The vast majority of fighters are 4th and 3rd gen. A portion of aam targets are tankers, bombers, refuelers, drones, AWACs, strikers, and transporters. 5th gen makes up <2%? of possible targets. There's the answer. Also since radar detection and targeting only occurs in short ranges between 5th gen fighters, they will be using short range missiles or guns anyway... that's if they decide to engage each other. e.g. J-20 probably won't be able to detect F-22 at PL-15 max no escape range. So MRAAMs are simply not designed to engage stealth fighters at anywhere near their max effective range but that doesn't mean they won't be carried. The role of these fighters isn't really to engage one another at 70km with MRAAMs. So the point is redundant.

 

[ougoah]

For now, new Flanker and j-10 variants are entering service and rolling from production lines in parallel with J-20. And there is no sign of ceasure.
It means they're with us to remain for decades to come. Much like, say, pre-JSF USAF.

Like I said. J-10, J-15, J-16 don't have direct stealth replacements. J-20 cannot replace their roles at all. They are different. Hence parallel production. The fallacy in your logic is assuming because they are in parallel production with J-20, therefore PLAAF is going with mixed fleet with the implication being stealth is not as effective enough to justify full fleet. Incorrect conclusion from incorrect logic.

Europe is eating whatever they're given. When it was f-5, it was f-5. When it was MRAAM-only f-16, it was f-16.
European own fighters are:
1)eurofighter
2)Rafale
3)Gripen
Neither will be replaced with something stealthy before late 2030s. And for all 3 stealthy alternatives were proposed back in early 1990s, when ATF came out. All 3 considered it and discarded it, as "not worth the effort". And while Eurofighter nations more or less intend to go f-35(not all of them, and we aren't talking cheap scrubs here), France and Sweden is still here.
"moving as fast as possible" is taking 50 years to happen...

Yes those fighters are from the freakin 90s. Of course if they had a choice they would go with stealth. You are using such bad reasoning it's frustrating rather than hilarious. I don't care about what Europe has. Of course USAF still has F-15 therefore F-22 are shite? Where are you trying to take it. I know what you're implying. Stealth isn't as effective (even if you don't want to say it. It's obvious this is what you're suggesting). Europe IS getting F-35s and loves F-35s. Airbus is looking into a full stealth fighter (not a conventional one or a half way stealth like PAKFA). What more evidence do you want? The future trend is crystal clear at this point.

Let's avoid this.
Benefit of doubt gives 3 options:
1)Stealth fighter is a game changer to a degree of dreadnought revolution.
It basically nullifies worth of building anything pre-dating.
As we can see, it isn't the case.
Opposite:
2)Stealth is a fluke. Lol, no, China and US by themselves are enough to throw this point away, and we have so much more.

Middle ground:
3)Stealth is a part of equation, which, while extremely powerful, is very hard to add to an existing aircraft(1), contradicts many other design goals and so on.
This way, all new designs shall incorporate stealth techniques(most importantly, basic geometry), but existing designs can nevertheless proceed by using:
1)ever-developing active EW
2)payloads over platforms concept(including drones)
3)plug-in sensors and electronics.
4)applying available signature control options
And so on.
Just look at current Rafale and compare it with current F-35.
The first one is clearly not without its merits, isn't it?

Agreed that LO platforms are only part of the equation. But they do give tremendous advantage. All factors being equal, stealth is many many times more effective than the equivalent non-stealth platform in many many more situations. That is worth it if the price can be paid and the technology can be produced.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Can we stop this? All this discussion over some insecure Indians with an inferiority complex who picked up a bird or something on radar and fell over themselves swearing they saw J-20... I find it very hard to take seriously the people who took over a decade to tender, select, draw up a deal, and then cancel the MRCA deal, and who flipped a warship on its side trying to launch it. They're not worth the real estate on this thread.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Yes those fighters are from the freakin 90s. Of course if they had a choice they would go with stealth.

They had this choice.
For Rafale, there was a study in early 1990s.
Conclusion was something along "too expensive to do at this point, most of actual gains can be achieved through advances in other fields".

Agreed that LO platforms are only part of the equation. But they do give tremendous advantage. All factors being equal, stealth is many many times more effective than the equivalent non-stealth platform in many many more situations. That is worth it if the price can be paid and the technology can be produced.

For any white sheet development, yes, without a doubt. I agree.

 

[ougoah]

They had this choice.
For Rafale, there was a study in early 1990s.
Conclusion was something along "too expensive to do at this point, most of actual gains can be achieved through advances in other fields".



For any white sheet development, yes, without a doubt. I agree.

Okay so if they had the choice, more specifically, they had the technical ability to produce VLO for the programs of Typhoon and Rafale (you allege at least), they did not have the funding. Therefore they would have preferred to go down that path provided they had the funding, demonstrating the superiority of going down that path. So my point in asking you to forget about J-10, Rafale etc is still valid. No one with the ability and choice to go with stealth decided against it unless it was for consideration of funds. This btw is all conjecture. Also Rafale's SPECTRA marketing nonsense is nothing special. It is just the marketing name they gave to the Rafale's sensor suite. Active cancellation may be theoretically useful to mask Rafale's radar returns but it is untested in actual combat (dropping bombs on Libya with little air threat and resistance can be done with Mig-21) and it most likely does not work as they advertise it otherwise all military nations will either copy it, buy it, or produce aircraft with similar systems. Therefore the "most gains can be achieved through" other means is 100% nonsense. If it were true, no nation would even bother with stealth shaping and materials. Yet all the evidence is against the claim and Rafale has yet to find itself fielded in another airforce 20 years later.

 

[plawolf]

Please let us keep the facts straight. Nowhere have I seen a direct quote form the Indian military that said they picked up a J20.

It was the Indian media who made the ‘connection’ that since their ACM said J20s are not that stealthy and J20s were in Tibet, that must mean the IAF picked up J20s in Tibet.

That is just random association without a shred of evidence to back up it.

Thinking back on this, I do wonder if this actually tells us more about the PAKFA’s stealth capabilities than the J20s.

India should have a good idea of the RCS of the PAKFA, so maybe if the PAKFA’s stealth capabilities are nothing to write home about (and no one should be surprised if that is the case, what with exposed front compressor fans and the apparent prioritisation of aerodynamics over signature reduction), then in Indian minds, the J20’s stealth credentials must be worse, because!