It emphasizes "medium and long-range air combat" because traditionally China's indigenous fighter aircraft have been short-legged (Su-27 is imported), but more importantly one of the key design goals of China's 5th-generation fighter aircraft is that its combat range reach neighboring countries' capital. I had shown an internal requirements document a while back on SDF with illustrative map of the said combat ranges, covering several (obvious) countries' capitals. I also commented back then that unlike in the European theater, western Pacific theater has a much larger area and much of it is over water, thus the longer-range requirements compared to F-22.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
It emphasizes "medium and long-range air combat" because traditionally China's indigenous fighter aircraft have been short-legged (Su-27 is imported), but more importantly one of the key design goals of China's 5th-generation fighter aircraft is that its combat range reach neighboring countries' capital. I had shown an internal requirements document a while back on SDF with illustrative map of the said combat ranges, covering several (obvious) countries' capitals. I also commented back then that unlike in the European theater, western Pacific theater has a much larger area and much of it is over water, thus the longer-range requirements compared to F-22.
Good at something does NOT equate to bad at (doesn't want to do) something else, does it? It is surprising that you are making this kind of simple logical mistake.
The omission is implying that the aircraft is stronger at "medium and long-range air combat" than short-ranged air combat. We've had the pilot interview corroborate this; the J-20 is "not bad / good (depending on how you'd like to translate it)" subsonically, but excels supersonically.
You guys have a ridiculous idee fixe of the J-20 as a ultra-maneuverable dogfighter, when none of the videos of the J-20 betray exceptional subsonic maneuverability. You're upset because the Western media is claiming the aircraft is an interceptor or striker and not intended for air superiority roles, and you're creating what Nietzsche calls Ressentiment in forming the opposite opinion that the J-20 is now a ultra-maneuverable dogfighter.
The best thing is, you guys are pissed off that the J-20 isn't something it doesn't need to be. From the outset, where does the J-20 excel? It's a heavyweight fighter, meaning that it's less competent WVR than lightweight fighters because it's less suited to attrition warfare (cost), but tends to have a more powerful sensor suite (scaling) than lightweight fighters. This translates into having excellent BVR capability and sensor suites. In comparison to the other 5th gen fighters, it has IR sensors, which the F-22 still lacks, and is designed for IR sensors, which the F-22 will only have a suboptimal retrofit. It purportedly has the largest AESA (950-1100mm diameter) of any 5th generation fighter, while the F-35 has to rely on technological sophistication because it's a mediumweight fighter with 700-800mm radar aperture.
Put another way, the F-22 doesn't want to get into a dogfight either. In the BVR regime, it's essentially invincible against most targets due to its combination of AESA sensors and stealth. In WVR, it's highly superior, but it can be outnumbered, and it can be shot-down with a HOBS shot the moment the enemy can see it on IR. Hell, not even the F-15 wants to get into WVR unless it's been outmatched, for the same reason that you don't want to throw a heavyweight fighter platform into WVR because it can't exploit its BVR superiority over medium (Rafale, Eurofighter) and lightweight fighters (Gripen, F-16, MiG-29).
====
My point, to make this clear to everyone, is that the J-20 subsonically or in dogfights is comparable to most 4th gens. It will eventually get TVC to give it an edge, but TVC is generally one use because it bleeds off energy quickly. For the J-20's operational role and likely opponents, this is enough. The Taiwanese haven't been approved to receive F-35s, and if we're talking carriers, Super Hornets are 4th generation while F-35s are mediocre in the dogfight category.
Where the emphasis on the J-20 should be should be on its performance as a high-speed sensor platform and missile shooter. The exceptional supersonic maneuverability means that at high-speed flight, provided it doesn't get picked up too early by EODAS, it can outmaneuver other fighters to better set up the firing solution and to maneuver through pickets of counter-stealth radar.
As I've mentioned before, the last time the Americans suffered an air-to-air kill was from Iraqi MiG-25. Interceptors are perfectly viable as air superiority solutions because their superior speed allows them to determine the context of the battle, letting them stack the battle as they'd like. And the J-20 is not a MiG-25 or even a MiG-31, it's likely more maneuverable than that so it doesn't have a glaring WVR weakness excepting the 5th gen air superiority aircraft. Even then, it can still choose to run from F-22s if it doesn't win the BVR fight.
You guys have a ridiculous idee fixe of the J-20 as a ultra-maneuverable dogfighter, when none of the videos of the J-20 betray exceptional subsonic maneuverability. You're upset because the Western media is claiming the aircraft is an interceptor or striker and not intended for air superiority roles, and you're creating what Nietzsche calls Ressentiment in forming the opposite opinion that the J-20 is now a ultra-maneuverable dogfighter.
The best thing is, you guys are pissed off that the J-20 isn't something it doesn't need to be. From the outset, where does the J-20 excel? It's a heavyweight fighter, meaning that it's less competent WVR than lightweight fighters because it's less suited to attrition warfare (cost), but tends to have a more powerful sensor suite (scaling) than lightweight fighters. This translates into having excellent BVR capability and sensor suites. In comparison to the other 5th gen fighters, it has IR sensors, which the F-22 still lacks, and is designed for IR sensors, which the F-22 will only have a suboptimal retrofit. It purportedly has the largest AESA (950-1100mm diameter) of any 5th generation fighter, while the F-35 has to rely on technological sophistication because it's a mediumweight fighter with 700-800mm radar aperture.
Put another way, the F-22 doesn't want to get into a dogfight either. In the BVR regime, it's essentially invincible against most targets due to its combination of AESA sensors and stealth. In WVR, it's highly superior, but it can be outnumbered, and it can be shot-down with a HOBS shot the moment the enemy can see it on IR. Hell, not even the F-15 wants to get into WVR unless it's been outmatched, for the same reason that you don't want to throw a heavyweight fighter platform into WVR because it can't exploit its BVR superiority over medium (Rafale, Eurofighter) and lightweight fighters (Gripen, F-16, MiG-29).
====
My point, to make this clear to everyone, is that the J-20 subsonically or in dogfights is comparable to most 4th gens. It will eventually get TVC to give it an edge, but TVC is generally one use because it bleeds off energy quickly. For the J-20's operational role and likely opponents, this is enough. The Taiwanese haven't been approved to receive F-35s, and if we're talking carriers, Super Hornets are 4th generation while F-35s are mediocre in the dogfight category.
Where the emphasis on the J-20 should be should be on its performance as a high-speed sensor platform and missile shooter. The exceptional supersonic maneuverability means that at high-speed flight, provided it doesn't get picked up too early by EODAS, it can outmaneuver other fighters to better set up the firing solution and to maneuver through pickets of counter-stealth radar.
As I've mentioned before, the last time the Americans suffered an air-to-air kill was from Iraqi MiG-25. Interceptors are perfectly viable as air superiority solutions because their superior speed allows them to determine the context of the battle, letting them stack the battle as they'd like. And the J-20 is not a MiG-25 or even a MiG-31, it's likely more maneuverable than that so it doesn't have a glaring WVR weakness excepting the 5th gen air superiority aircraft. Even then, it can still choose to run from F-22s if it doesn't win the BVR fight.
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
btw how many short range PL-10 can J20 carry? only 2?
how do we know the side panels don't have carousel in them carrying multiple missiles ?
those flaps can close while the missile hangs on the external rails yes ok but why would you want that unless you are reloading ?
and its 4 x PL-15 under the belly?
how do we know the side panels don't have carousel in them carrying multiple missiles ?
those flaps can close while the missile hangs on the external rails yes ok but why would you want that unless you are reloading ?
and its 4 x PL-15 under the belly?
So far, we know it's 2 PL-10 and 4 PL-15, with the present fin arrangement on the PL-15 and the carousel on the PL-10. It's theoretically possible that the J-20 could be modified to carry more missiles in its sidebays with LOAL, but the swing-arm attachment is pretty golden as a pod attachment point.
Think about it this way. All pods impose some level of stealth and drag penalty on the host aircraft, because it's outside the aircraft. With the carousel attachment on the sidebays, the J-20 could theoretically load non-stealthy pods, which can be designed more simply and produced more cheaply because they don't have to be stealth. The only time the pods impose a stealth and drag penalty on the J-20 is when they're deployed, such as when using ECM modes, when you're going to be glowing on radar anyways, or laser modes, where the laser should be able to shoot down incoming missiles.
Think about it this way. All pods impose some level of stealth and drag penalty on the host aircraft, because it's outside the aircraft. With the carousel attachment on the sidebays, the J-20 could theoretically load non-stealthy pods, which can be designed more simply and produced more cheaply because they don't have to be stealth. The only time the pods impose a stealth and drag penalty on the J-20 is when they're deployed, such as when using ECM modes, when you're going to be glowing on radar anyways, or laser modes, where the laser should be able to shoot down incoming missiles.
This entire dogfight thing is a dick-measuring contest for me. The premiere airforce globally, the USAF, doesn't want to dogfight anymore because of HOBS. They have an aircraft with F-16-like maneuverability, the F-35, and they're happy with it. They've gone to stealth, sensors, and BVR, instead of emphasizing ultra-maneuverability. The people who have done so are the Russians, who definitively behind the Americans, don't emphasize airpower, and can resort to air denial instead of air superiority.
China, in the present case and in contrast, is capable of seizing air superiority from the Americans and forcing them to contend for the first time with the possibility of losing the skies and getting bombed the hell out of it. It's simply a matter of economics and location; the US has distributed forces globally, the Chinese can concentrate their forces locally. From historical development perspectives, the Chinese have emphasized either a guerrilla or a brute force strategy. They don't have the experience needed to attempt an unconventional air-superiority strategy, and their alternative anti-5th gen strategy, in exercises, was shown to be an utter failure tested against their own J-20s. It makes sense for the Chinese simply to copy the American BVR-centric strategy and put more resources into it than the Americans.
If the Chinese choose a symmetric strategy (force-on-force) with the Americans, they have two points of failure, that their symmetric strategy could fail to amass the forces needed, and that the Americans disrupt their symmetric strategy (B-21 sensors). If the Chinese choose an asymmetric strategy, they now have three points of failure, that their doctrine shift (dogfighting) turns out not to work, that they don't have enough force for it to work, and that the Americans disrupt their asymmetric strategy.
China, in the present case and in contrast, is capable of seizing air superiority from the Americans and forcing them to contend for the first time with the possibility of losing the skies and getting bombed the hell out of it. It's simply a matter of economics and location; the US has distributed forces globally, the Chinese can concentrate their forces locally. From historical development perspectives, the Chinese have emphasized either a guerrilla or a brute force strategy. They don't have the experience needed to attempt an unconventional air-superiority strategy, and their alternative anti-5th gen strategy, in exercises, was shown to be an utter failure tested against their own J-20s. It makes sense for the Chinese simply to copy the American BVR-centric strategy and put more resources into it than the Americans.
If the Chinese choose a symmetric strategy (force-on-force) with the Americans, they have two points of failure, that their symmetric strategy could fail to amass the forces needed, and that the Americans disrupt their symmetric strategy (B-21 sensors). If the Chinese choose an asymmetric strategy, they now have three points of failure, that their doctrine shift (dogfighting) turns out not to work, that they don't have enough force for it to work, and that the Americans disrupt their asymmetric strategy.
I think the Russians have realised they made a mistake by emphasising dogfighting ultra-manoeuvrability over stealth for the Su-57.
I think that is part of the reason why procurement of the Su-57 was slashed.
Plus the Indians have completely pulled out of the project, partly because it just wasn't stealthy enough for them.
And could you expand on what exactly happened during "the alternative anti-5th gen strategy, in exercises, was shown to be an utter failure tested against their own J-20s"
I think China does have to go with a symmetric strategy for actual air-to-air combat.
But as is often said, the best place to hit an aircraft is when it is on the ground. That definitely lends itself to asymmetric approaches.
Excelling at one regime is not the same thing as being worse than other comparable fighters at another regime. And to rehash, 不错 implies “Pretty good” to “very good”.
Having superb supersonic manueverability, aka expanding a fighter’s high maneuver envelope across a greater range of flight regimes, would qualify as being “ultra-maneuverable”. Maneuverability isn’t a quality limited to just the subsonic regime.
No one is saying that the J-20 must be “ultra-maneuverable” in the sense that it is somehow leaps and bounds above other fighters. Mostly what the rest of us have been arguing is that nothing we’ve seen confirms that the J-20 is less maneuverable in the subsonic regime than comparable fighters, or excludes it from being so. We literally have only had two only airshow videos of the J-20, both times with the implication that the pilots were only giving a taste of what it could do. The logic you’re using is like saying Chinese Flankers must be less maneuverable than their Russian counterparts because we’ve never seen videos of them flying as aggressively.
Honestly, it sounds a lot more like you’re the most butthurt one here, because you *keep* bringing this topic up over and over again while *completely* sidestepping or twisting any evidence or arguments that go against what you seem to want to believe. The study for the J-20’s design literally says “supermaneuverability”. You go as far as distorting the meaning of a language, trying to presume more knowledge about a language than native speakers you rely on to translate stuff for you, just to try to downplay any suggestion that maybe the J-20 is not as bad in the subsonic regime as you want to believe. You omit details from sources when it is inconvenient for your position, like when you seem to cling to that one supposed source declaring the J-20’s subsonic maneuverability is comparable to an F-16, and then use that to suggest it must be bad compared to other post 4th generation fighters, while leaving out that the same source also said this made the J-20 the best gun fighter even if it didn’t have a gun. How does being compared to the F-16 make the J-20 bad at subsonic maneuverability but also the best gun fighter?
No one is forming an opposite opinion here but you. Example, “不错” means pretty good, but I don’t like latenlazy so I’m going to insist it means “average”. Example, latenlazy says supersonic maneuverability confers an energy advantage to surviving close range missiles, so I’m going to argue close range missiles are inescapable. You’ve made entire arguments on the basis of misrepresenting and misstating what other people have been saying while totally ignoring and omitting the actual reasons and evidence of their arguments, often it seems based on your personal biases about that person, so I’m not sure you’re really in a position to declare that other people are the ones who are building their beliefs around an irrational basis.
No one’s pissed off about the J-20. We just think you’re a bit of a dishonest sleeze who can’t seem to register in good faith anything that disagrees with your speculative arguments or your high opinion of yourself.
1) Radar size does not necessarily confer radar power. Signal processing, power generation, and element sizes also matter.
2) That a plane has a large nose doesn’t mean it necessarily has a large radar. Until we see what’s inside the J-20’s nose you’re making a highly speculative argument (again).
Subsonic is not the same thing as “dogfight”.
That you can’t seem to tease the two apart when they are not essentially the same things is one of the biggest problems with your points.
Depends on how you use it.
But according to you somehow that supersonic maneuverability advantage can’t be used at close range because somehow fighters magically cannot fly at supersonic speeds during a visual range encounter.
No one designs an air superiority fighter that has to run away against a key potential adversary. The mission profile of an air superiority fighter is to attain and maintain air superiority. That doesn’t happen if you are forced to turn tail because you can’t handle another fighter. That’s why fighters are designed to have very expansive capabilities. These fighters are designed to accomplish their missions, which means minimizing the possibility that you are forced to run away as much as possible.
If it’s a dick measuring contest for you then what does it say when you’re the one who keeps bringing it up?
I don't get why people give a damn about Western media "misreporting" the J-20. They feed their readership what they want to hear, which is that they should buy Lockheed Martin stock because the F-35 is perfectly good for the job. Likewise, downplaying the J-20 helps to feed American regional security guarantees. It's like this, would you ever expect Pravda back in the Soviet days to say something good about the West? Or would you expect say, the NYt or WSJ not to demonize the Soviet Union? The trick is not overdoing the reaction, as people seem to tend to.
And yes, the US and Europe can easily beat down the J-20, just as China can easily beatdown the F-22. All anyone has to do is to destroy the planes on the ground.
And yes, the US and Europe can easily beat down the J-20, just as China can easily beatdown the F-22. All anyone has to do is to destroy the planes on the ground.
- Status