J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Blitzo]

An article from the global times mentions that China..

Typically, it’s a bit cryptic, but this is what sparked my idea of a J-20 based interceptor.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, for the sake of analyzing this article, could we have a nice, friendly discussion about a J-20 based interceptor? @ACuriousPLAFan, maybe you could start?

For sake of discussion, and just for the discussion about this article, perhaps we can assume, for convenience, that the GT article is hinting that China will develop an interceptor, though there is nothing to indicate that it will be based on J-20.

Why do we need to have such a discussion in this thread?

We don't need to speculate so heavily about the idea of a "interceptor aircraft" simply based off something that Global Times wrote, given that modern aircraft do not have to be delegated into one specific role (interceptor versus air superiority), and we also know that the PLA is continuing to work on air to air combat platforms ("6th gen/next gen" fighter, as well as UCAVs which are all likely to emphasize range as a desirable trait).

 

[Andy1974]

Why do we need to have such a discussion in this thread?

We don't need to speculate so heavily about the idea of a "interceptor aircraft" simply based off something that Global Times wrote, given that modern aircraft do not have to be delegated into one specific role (interceptor versus air superiority), and we also know that the PLA is continuing to work on air to air combat platforms ("6th gen/next gen" fighter, as well as UCAVs which are all likely to emphasize range as a desirable trait).

Well I thought the reason to have the discussion was because the GT hinted there might be an interceptor aircraft as well as an air superiority aircraft.

I made some assumptions, as follows:

1. The GT article hinted there might be a separate interceptor aircraft, and I assumed this would be worthy of discussion.

2. I tried to come up with a reasonable strategy for the PLAAF to develop an interceptor.

3. I assumed an interceptor has he desired traits of being faster than an air-superiority optimized version. I assumed the J-20 was an air superiority fighter, and it made sense to modify an air superiority fighter to an interceptor. I see now that J-20 is not an air superiority fighter and is in fact multi-role.

But I still think you can have an interceptor version, for the following reasons/assumptions.

1. You could modify the J-20 to be faster maybe by modifying its canards, strakes, tail and maybe the hump? Ideally you could give up some maneuverability in return for more speed.

2. You could lengthen the weapons bay, allowing longer ranged A2A missiles, which would be ideal for interception.

I also thought of a way to do it, which is to modify the twin seat J-20 back to a single seat, and lengthening the bay into where the second pilot was, but I didn’t want to say it and hoped someone would mention it as a possibility.

That’s why I posted it, and why I posted it here.

 

[Blitzo]

Well I thought the reason to have the discussion was because the GT hinted there might be an interceptor aircraft.

I made some assumptions, as follows:

1. The GT article hinted there might be an interceptor aircraft, and I assumed this would be worthy of discussion.

2. I tried to come up with a reasonable strategy for the PLAAF to develop an interceptor.

3. I assumed an interceptor has he desired traits of being faster than an air-superiority optimized version. I assumed the J-20 was an air superiority fighter, and it made sense to modify an air superiority fighter to an interceptor. I see now that J-20 is not an air superiority fighter and is in fact multi-role.

But I still think you can have an interceptor version, for the following reasons/assumptions.

1. You could modify the J-20 to be faster maybe by modifying its canards, strakes, tail and maybe the hump? Ideally you could give up some maneuverability in return for more speed.

2. You could lengthen the weapons bay, allowing longer ranged A2A missiles, which would be ideal for interception.

I also thought of a way to do it, which is to modify the twin seat J-20 back to a single seat, and lengthening the bay into where the second pilot was, but I didn’t want to say it and hoped someone would mention it as a possibility.

That’s why I posted it, and why I posted it here.

You've been here a few years now, so let me explain why we are not going to have this discussion here.

We do not have the ability to freewheelingly speculate random projects/variants/aircraft in significant detail without being guided by credible rumours.
For example, in the 2010s we had increasingly credible rumours that the FC-31 would be the basis of a PLAN carrier based 5th generation fighter, therefore we had the capacity and the basis to do some informed speculation and discussion.

Meanwhile, there are no credible indicators that an "interceptor variant of J-20" is being pursued (your reasoning about the Global Times mentioning an "interceptor" most definitely is not basis of it).


So yes, I understand the reason why you posted it here, and I am explaining why it shouldn't have been posted at all to begin with, and why it is useful for you to carefully consider what topics are actually worth of discussion and which are better to not be raised in the first place.

 

[Andy1974]

Ok I have a question. What you are saying is that China should only have one land based fifth generation fighter?

Isn’t that risky?

EDIT: Can you also say how many 6th gen fighters you think China should build?

 

[Jason_]

The likelihood of China developing a 5th gen interceptor is 0. It is honestly revealing about your aviation knowledge when you suggest a faster interceptor with longer ranged missiles as a response to the B-21.

 

[tphuang]

Ok I have a question. What you are saying is that China should only have one land based fifth generation fighter?

Isn’t that risky?

EDIT: Can you also say how many 6th gen fighters you think China should build?

What are the differences between 5th and 6th gen fighter?
This might be a good place to start before we move forward on how many 5th and 6th generation fighter jet they need

 

[Blitzo]

Ok I have a question. What you are saying is that China should only have one land based fifth generation fighter?

Isn’t that risky?

I never said China "should only have one land based fifth generation fighter".
I am personally non-committal about whether they need another type of land based fifth generation fighter, I can see arguments for and against introducing another type.

What I did write (in the FC-31 thread) was that it is ridiculous to entertain the idea of introducing another heavyweight 5th generation land based fighter powered by WS-15s, alongside J-20 which itself is a heavyweight 5th generation land based fighter (which will be) powered by WS-15s.


The way you seem to understand and write about J-20 is also incorrect. J-20 is not a single type of aircraft -- it is already a family of variants already.

- There is the baseline J-20, which is in service and in production, powered by Al-31 initially and now by WS-10s. Even across the production batches for the baseline J-20, we have had credible indicators that newer batches have received physical and hardware upgrades as well as software upgrades.
- There is also the upgraded J-20A, with some external changes including a hump and which we've seen powered by WS-15s and is expected to enter service with WS-15s. This variant sees more extensive upgrades compared to the baseline J-20 as well, and significant hardware, software and material changes are expected. It is also likely that advances in manufacturing methods will be present. It is likely to feature more growth capacity and power management growth capacity than the baseline J-20 as well.

(There is also the "J-20S" or "J-20B" which is the twin seater tech demonstrator, which we do not definitively know if it will be pursued as a PLA service aircraft, but it too is said to be a more advanced iteration of J-20 similar in lieu to J-20A.)


If we talk about the J-20 and J-20A as the confirmed J-20 variants that are either in service, or intended for PLA service, all aircraft of these variants will receive rolling upgrades over their service. Software upgrades are likely to be more frequent than hardware upgrades, but these airframes will not remain static in their capabilities, and it is a constant arms race in terms of electronic warfare, sensors, and cyber capabilities at the platform level and system of systems level.


Pursuing a new heavyweight 5th generation fighter powered by WS-15s based on an enlarged FC-31, simply for the sake of being more multi-role than J-20, needs to be justified in context of the known programs that China is actively pursuing for introduction into the near future (next generation/"6th generation" fighter, H-20, stealthy UCAVs, as well as long range missile and strike systems), and existing aircraft which can already do that role, and whether expenditure on a program is worth the aerospace resources, monetary cost, and time, not to mention the operational and logistical costs of introducing a new type of aircraft into the fleet.

If the pursuit of a new heavyweight 5th generation fighter is to want to "diversify" your aircraft fleet to be less "vulnerable" if there was some kind of "unifying vulnerability" in your existing fleet of aircraft (J-20 in this case), then you need to weigh up whether the aforementioned costs (aerospace resources, money, time, operational/logistical) as well as whether there are better ways of minimizing the vulnerability to having a "single type" (e.g.: upgrades to the fleet).



..... all of what I wrote above is entertaining your suggestion in good faith, and presenting the questions that one would consider when thinking about the idea of "pursuing a new heavyweight 5th generation fighter alongside J-20".

But the genuine answer to the question is that in China's context (i.e.: from the perspective of the PLA and also the PRC aerospace industry), it is utterly ridiculous to even suggest the idea of a "new heavyweight 5th generation fighter alongside J-20" because:
1) J-20/J-20A as a family of aircraft will receive ongoing upgrades to remain competitive
2) J-20/J-20A as an air superiority fighter will also have multi-role capabilities
3) If one wants more extensive strike capabilities than J-20/J-20A, there are other platforms under development which can more effectively service those roles (H-20, high end UCAVs, long range missiles)
4) China is pursuing a next generation/6th generation fighter anyhow (with likely complementary platforms such as a number of CCA/UCAV types), as well as other new aerial combat platforms, all of which require funding, aerospace resources, and time, and initiating any new program must consider whether it will delay those other vital programs


Finally, I want to reiterate that there are no credible rumours or indicators of an "heavyweight fighter powered by two WS-15s based on an enlarged FC-31" to begin with, so you should stop speculating about it to begin with.
Again, you should never have posted about it to begin with.

We aren't here to consider the literally infinitesimal possibilities of PLA combat aircraft development options. We are here to focus on the paths of development which are likely to occur.

 

[Andy1974]

I never said China "should only have one land based fifth generation fighter".
I am personally non-committal about whether they need another type of land based fifth generation fighter, I can see arguments for and against introducing another type.

What I did write (in the FC-31 thread) was that it is ridiculous to entertain the idea of introducing another heavyweight 5th generation land based fighter powered by WS-15s, alongside J-20 which itself is a heavyweight 5th generation land based fighter (which will be) powered by WS-15s.


The way you seem to understand and write about J-20 is also incorrect. J-20 is not a single type of aircraft -- it is already a family of variants already.

- There is the baseline J-20, which is in service and in production, powered by Al-31 initially and now by WS-10s. Even across the production batches for the baseline J-20, we have had credible indicators that newer batches have received physical and hardware upgrades as well as software upgrades.
- There is also the upgraded J-20A, with some external changes including a hump and which we've seen powered by WS-15s and is expected to enter service with WS-15s. This variant sees more extensive upgrades compared to the baseline J-20 as well, and significant hardware, software and material changes are expected. It is also likely that advances in manufacturing methods will be present. It is likely to feature more growth capacity and power management growth capacity than the baseline J-20 as well.

(There is also the "J-20S" or "J-20B" which is the twin seater tech demonstrator, which we do not definitively know if it will be pursued as a PLA service aircraft, but it too is said to be a more advanced iteration of J-20 similar in lieu to J-20A.)


If we talk about the J-20 and J-20A as the confirmed J-20 variants that are either in service, or intended for PLA service, all aircraft of these variants will receive rolling upgrades over their service. Software upgrades are likely to be more frequent than hardware upgrades, but these airframes will not remain static in their capabilities, and it is a constant arms race in terms of electronic warfare, sensors, and cyber capabilities at the platform level and system of systems level.


Pursuing a new heavyweight 5th generation fighter powered by WS-15s based on an enlarged FC-31, simply for the sake of being more multi-role than J-20, needs to be justified in context of the known programs that China is actively pursuing for introduction into the near future (next generation/"6th generation" fighter, H-20, stealthy UCAVs, as well as long range missile and strike systems), and existing aircraft which can already do that role, and whether expenditure on a program is worth the aerospace resources, monetary cost, and time, not to mention the operational and logistical costs of introducing a new type of aircraft into the fleet.

If the pursuit of a new heavyweight 5th generation fighter is to want to "diversify" your aircraft fleet to be less "vulnerable" if there was some kind of "unifying vulnerability" in your existing fleet of aircraft (J-20 in this case), then you need to weigh up whether the aforementioned costs (aerospace resources, money, time, operational/logistical) as well as whether there are better ways of minimizing the vulnerability to having a "single type" (e.g.: upgrades to the fleet).



..... all of what I wrote above is entertaining your suggestion in good faith, and presenting the questions that one would consider when thinking about the idea of "pursuing a new heavyweight 5th generation fighter alongside J-20".

But the genuine answer to the question is that in China's context (i.e.: from the perspective of the PLA and also the PRC aerospace industry), it is utterly ridiculous to even suggest the idea of a "new heavyweight 5th generation fighter alongside J-20" because:
1) J-20/J-20A as a family of aircraft will receive ongoing upgrades to remain competitive
2) J-20/J-20A as an air superiority fighter will also have multi-role capabilities
3) If one wants more extensive strike capabilities than J-20/J-20A, there are other platforms under development which can more effectively service those roles (H-20, high end UCAVs, long range missiles)
4) China is pursuing a next generation/6th generation fighter anyhow (with likely complementary platforms such as a number of CCA/UCAV types), as well as other new aerial combat platforms, all of which require funding, aerospace resources, and time, and initiating any new program must consider whether it will delay those other vital programs


Finally, I want to reiterate that there are no credible rumours or indicators of an "heavyweight fighter powered by two WS-15s based on an enlarged FC-31" to begin with, so you should stop speculating about it to begin with.
Again, you should never have posted about it to begin with.

We aren't here to consider the literally infinitesimal possibilities of PLA combat aircraft development options. We are here to focus on the paths of development which are likely to occur.

Ok, thanks for the reply.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

So, for the sake of analyzing this article, could we have a nice, friendly discussion about a J-20 based interceptor? @ACuriousPLAFan, maybe you could start?

No.

Interceptor aircrafts are soooooooooo WW2 and early-to-mid-Cold War, and they belong to the historical archives a long time ago.

There are aplenty of good reasons why nobody develops specialized interceptor aircrafts anymore, which @Blitzo and others have explained pretty well. I don't think I need to add anything else.

 

[TK3600]

It could be a 6th gen variable bypass engine plane. No need to change j20.