J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Blitzo]

I think it is more accurate to say J20 is intended to have a gun in the 2000s when it was under design phase. Its future doctrine may or may not incorporate a gun.

Was that what he had written? I can't remember the exact wording of what he'd written

This is similar to the American ATF program in the 1990s, where people are not sure of what next gen A2A combat will be like. Simply because speed and maneuverability were important in the previous generation, those performance were viewed as valuable for ATF. China has a better idea of the importance of sensor and net working over kinematics, but completely removing the gun is too big of a risk, so it has its place reserved. As J20 development proceeds, it becomes more clear that guns are not worth the trouble on logistics, maintenance (gun fires could damage stealth coating), and weight, therefore PLAAF is in no hurry to include the gun, if ever. After all, F35B and C do not carry guns as well, so the Chinese are not the only ones that do not emphasize a gun for their 5th gens.

I think there are various factors why F-35B and C do not have guns, but the fact that F-35A still does makes me suspect that if the F-35B and C had the space available for guns without compromising other factors (such as internal volume) then they would have.

I do not believe that there is any evidence at all to suggest that the PLAAF can afford J-20 to have been designed without a gun at this stage.

I'm not sure what adverse impact on maintenance or logistics you've described that the PLAAF had concluded as I have not heard of such rumours.
In terms of logistics the impact of operating a gun for a stealth fighter should not be particularly more than operating a gun on any other non-stealth fighter.
In terms of maintenance, naturally every aspect of a stealth fighter is more maintenance intensive than that of a non-stealth fighter, but the fact that various other stealth fighters also operate guns as part of standard fit without crippling its maintenance makes me believe it should not be that significant of a problematic factor when properly implemented.

 

[watdahek]

Was that what he had written? I can't remember the exact wording of what he'd written





I think there are various factors why F-35B and C do not have guns, but the fact that F-35A still does makes me suspect that if the F-35B and C had the space available for guns without compromising other factors (such as internal volume) then they would have.

I do not believe that there is any evidence at all to suggest that the PLAAF can afford J-20 to have been designed without a gun at this stage.

I'm not sure what adverse impact on maintenance or logistics you've described that the PLAAF had concluded as I have not heard of such rumours.
In terms of logistics the impact of operating a gun for a stealth fighter should not be particularly more than operating a gun on any other non-stealth fighter.
In terms of maintenance, naturally every aspect of a stealth fighter is more maintenance intensive than that of a non-stealth fighter, but the fact that various other stealth fighters also operate guns as part of standard fit without crippling its maintenance makes me believe it should not be that significant of a problematic factor when properly implemented.

It is my interpretation that gun slot for J20 was a 2000's design, but Yankee did mention gun fires wearing out stealth coating. (I couldnt find the original article, was it from August?)

I agree the PLAAF designed the aircraft with a gun in mind, however my argument is that in present and future air combat a gun is more of a liability than an asset. The PLAAF tested this out in the J20 trials, and does not feel the need to add a gun, at least not yet. The fact that F35B and C do not carry a gun is pretty significant, especially the naval variant, as establishing air superiority is as much a concern for USN as USAF. A2A combat since Gulf War also place less and less emphasis on guns.

 

[latenlazy]

It is my interpretation that gun slot for J20 was a 2000's design, but Yankee did mention gun fires wearing out stealth coating. (I couldnt find the original article, was it from August?)

I agree the PLAAF designed the aircraft with a gun in mind, however my argument is that in present and future air combat a gun is more of a liability than an asset. The PLAAF tested this out in the J20 trials, and does not feel the need to add a gun, at least not yet. The fact that F35B and C do not carry a gun is pretty significant, especially the naval variant, as establishing air superiority is as much a concern for USN as USAF. A2A combat since Gulf War also place less and less emphasis on guns.

If we’re going to bring the F-35 in as a point of reference, I think it would be remiss not to mention that the B and C variants were designed to be able to mount a gun pod *precisely* because the USN made a very big stink about the C variant not having an internal gun built in.

 

[Inst]

The problem with guns is the moving parts, i.e, you'd need a container for the gun, the ability to extend and retract the gun, and you'd need to load/unload the gun every time you do maintenance. Adding these moving parts adds greater weight than simply the weight of the gun and of the ammo, since you'd also need to include a motor to power the gun compartment.

If the J-20 is designed as gun-retrofittable, but without guns, this is a correct decision. Latenlazy makes endless nitpicking and personal attacks, but the fact of the matter is that the max range on an AIM-9X exceeds 40km, while GAU-22 is rated at 3600 meters max range and the GSh-30-1's effective range is 1800 meters.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

but the fact of the matter is that the max range on an AIM-9X exceeds 40km, while GAU-22 is rated at 3600 meters max range and the GSh-30-1's effective range is 1800 meters.

But one also must consider that AAM missile are susceptible to both failure and jamming, while these issues are present on a gun system. It is still better to have a variety of options to deal with the enemy. And a missile is only good for one fighter, whereas a gun system with 5-8 sec fire duration can nail 3-4 if the pilot is good enough.
Such issues are also exacerbated with the proliferation of stealth and jamming capabilities. And it would not be the first time someone has claimed that AAMs had rendered the gun system obsolete, only to be proven wrong.

 

[by78]

Level flight with afterburners...

 

[latenlazy]

The problem with guns is the moving parts, i.e, you'd need a container for the gun, the ability to extend and retract the gun, and you'd need to load/unload the gun every time you do maintenance. Adding these moving parts adds greater weight than simply the weight of the gun and of the ammo, since you'd also need to include a motor to power the gun compartment.

If the J-20 is designed as gun-retrofittable, but without guns, this is a correct decision. Latenlazy makes endless nitpicking and personal attacks, but the fact of the matter is that the max range on an AIM-9X exceeds 40km, while GAU-22 is rated at 3600 meters max range and the GSh-30-1's effective range is 1800 meters.

I’m not nitpicking or making personal attacks. I’m calling you out for misrepresenting what I’m actually saying. That you like to put words in people’s mouths and twist what people are trying to tell you in order to make a strawman to attack is precisely why no one takes you seriously in any forum. If you interact with bad faith expect reciprocation.

 

[Inst]

But one also must consider that AAM missile are susceptible to both failure and jamming, while these issues are present on a gun system. It is still better to have a variety of options to deal with the enemy. And a missile is only good for one fighter, whereas a gun system with 5-8 sec fire duration can nail 3-4 if the pilot is good enough.
Such issues are also exacerbated with the proliferation of stealth and jamming capabilities. And it would not be the first time someone has claimed that AAMs had rendered the gun system obsolete, only to be proven wrong.

Radar-guided missiles are susceptible to radar jamming, not IR or optical missiles, and moreover, these are degraded in tracking vs a stealth target. When it comes to IR missiles, laser jammers are a maturing technology.

Also, if we're comparing guns to missiles, you're not doing an apples-to-apples comparison. A fighter aircraft only has one gun, while an F-22 has at least two AIM-9X and a bay that can hold more if the WVR-missile paradigm becomes dominant.

Ironically, where a gun helps out most is for the interception mission; i.e, a supercruising aircraft can rapidly close the distance with a subsonic opponent and finish it with guns, since it's unagile and undefended.

@latenlazy: Our argument is about whether guns are obsolete. You're nitpicking because you're focusing on irrelevant factors, then moving on to personal attacks, much of which are recycled from other posters on other forums. If they're not personal attacks, you're trying to point out missile inadequacies, which is why I'm doing your the grace of putting implied claims in your mouth.

@Both posters:

The problem is that the last time no-gun aircraft were shown to be inadequate were in Vietnam. There's been 40 years of technological adaptation since then; it's like people claiming that since the first hand-guns were highly inaccurate, people should stick to pikes and crossbows. There is of course a chance that guns and close-in dogfighting will actually turn out to be a factor in modern air combat, which is why the F-35's other models can at least mount guns in gun pods, and the J-20 at least has a gun emplacement, even if reports are that it's empty.

I want to highlight that the J-20's subsonic maneuverability is being compared to that of an F-16. It is not being compared to an F-22 or Su-57. And for that matter, the F-35's design goals were to have maneuverability on par with the F-16, and even if earlier variants are inferior, later up-engining will restore its F-16-level maneuverability. The point is that the J-20 is not emphasizing dogfight ability; its dogfight ability is on par with 4th and 4.5th generation aircraft, but it's not seeking to win subsonically.

The reports of the J-20 having exceptional supersonic maneuverability and J-10 / F-16-like subsonic maneuverability, as well as the absence of guns, show the point. It wants to win in far WVR or BVR, not in a dogfight. It simply doesn't make sense for a heavy air superiority fighter to win in a dogfight, since in a dogfight it's easily-vulnerable to attrition.

Get over it, the J-20 is not going to be more maneuverable than its heavy aircraft peers. Where it's going to stand out is at high speeds and long-ranges, it's not going to be an aircraft that wins in a phonebooth knifefight.

 

[latenlazy]

Radar-guided missiles are susceptible to radar jamming, not IR or optical missiles, and moreover, these are degraded in tracking vs a stealth target. When it comes to IR missiles, laser jammers are a maturing technology.

Also, if we're comparing guns to missiles, you're not doing an apples-to-apples comparison. A fighter aircraft only has one gun, while an F-22 has at least two AIM-9X and a bay that can hold more if the WVR-missile paradigm becomes dominant.

Ironically, where a gun helps out most is for the interception mission; i.e, a supercruising aircraft can rapidly close the distance with a subsonic opponent and finish it with guns, since it's unagile and undefended.

@latenlazy: Our argument is about whether guns are obsolete. You're nitpicking because you're focusing on irrelevant factors, then moving on to personal attacks, much of which are recycled from other posters on other forums. If they're not personal attacks, you're trying to point out missile inadequacies, which is why I'm doing your the grace of putting implied claims in your mouth.

@Both posters:

The problem is that the last time no-gun aircraft were shown to be inadequate were in Vietnam. There's been 40 years of technological adaptation since then; it's like people claiming that since the first hand-guns were highly inaccurate, people should stick to pikes and crossbows. There is of course a chance that guns and close-in dogfighting will actually turn out to be a factor in modern air combat, which is why the F-35's other models can at least mount guns in gun pods, and the J-20 at least has a gun emplacement, even if reports are that it's empty.

I want to highlight that the J-20's subsonic maneuverability is being compared to that of an F-16. It is not being compared to an F-22 or Su-57. And for that matter, the F-35's design goals were to have maneuverability on par with the F-16, and even if earlier variants are inferior, later up-engining will restore its F-16-level maneuverability. The point is that the J-20 is not emphasizing dogfight ability; its dogfight ability is on par with 4th and 4.5th generation aircraft, but it's not seeking to win subsonically.

The reports of the J-20 having exceptional supersonic maneuverability and J-10 / F-16-like subsonic maneuverability, as well as the absence of guns, show the point. It wants to win in far WVR or BVR, not in a dogfight. It simply doesn't make sense for a heavy air superiority fighter to win in a dogfight, since in a dogfight it's easily-vulnerable to attrition.

Get over it, the J-20 is not going to be more maneuverable than its heavy aircraft peers. Where it's going to stand out is at high speeds and long-ranges, it's not going to be an aircraft that wins in a phonebooth knifefight.

Same person comparing it to F-16 also called the J-20 the best gun fighter even though it doesn’t have a gun. You keep talking about the F-16 as if it’s trash compared to the F-22 and Su-57 when it’s commonly regarded as having the best subsonic turn rate of its generation. You also keep talking about dogfighting as if it is restricted to the subsonic regime. If you haven’t noticed, there are no phonebooths in the air. The total space of engagement is as large or as small as the participants choose. You’re drawing a lot of sweeping conclusions based on poorly examined assumptions. There’s nothing to “get over”.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... it is enough!

All arguments are on the table, we all have enough to make our own opinion and I'm sure after reading the last posts that we won't come to a final agreement.

So just leave it.