J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
The fact that you are laughing at the thought of a J-20 fighting drones shows to me that you are the retarded one.
It’s very simple… guns give magazine depth. Hope you can understand the concept, cause what are you gonna do when your missiles run out but there are still many drones coming in? You gonna fly home and cry about it?
In fact, they should add TWO f’ing guns!
Last edited:
You have other aircraft closer to home which are lower end who are better equipped with lower cost missiles and guns to target low cost drones, as well as low cost ground based layered air defense.
If you are using J-20s to shoot down 5000 dollar drones to begin with then you're doing something wrong, and at minimum it is a highly inefficient use of a valuable resource, and at worst it probably means your commander is an idiot.
Not again with putting words in my mouth please!
Global Hawk costs $100M+, do you think it’s worth a round? or how about a nuclear armed tomahawk cruise missile, is it worth adding a gun to shoot one of them down?
Because of your horrible track record of misunderstanding what I am saying, I need to point out that I never mentioned low cost drones, in fact I mentioned..
Please don’t let this descend. There is nothing ridiculous about suggesting adding a gun to Chinas only 5th Gen aircraft.
Last edited:
I am referring to your original post, here:
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
11:55 A ltalian travel YouTuber serendipitously shot j-20 in Guilin
www.sinodefenceforum.com
"Haven’t we just seen F-15’s shooting down many dozens of drones during operation True Promise? Surely they used guns.
A J-20 with a gun could shoot down 100 drones, but without a gun it can only do a max of 8."
The fact that you compare an F-15 shooting down "many dozens of drones during operation True Promise" or the idea of "J-20 with a gun could shoot down 100 drones" very much indicates you are talking about low cost drones, and that is what I was addressing.
If you want to talk about higher end drones or UCAVs that border on the performance of a fighter aircraft, well you wouldn't be using a gun to shoot those down to begin with but rather you'd be using your AAMs.
Even for cruise missiles, you are far better placed to use AAMs -- which if anything serves as an argument for why development of low cost, moderate performance AAMs is important for all leading air forces today.
I personally have nothing against the idea of adding a gun to J-20 -- however you are using a very silly way of trying to justify it.
The purpose of a gun on a modern fighter aircraft is best viewed as a last ditch self defense weapon. It's nice to have and would benefit the aircraft if they could add it without incurring significant costs or complexity.
Right, so you are just going to ignore my MAIN argument that it is about magazine depth, and that once your missiles run out you have no option but to stop fighting?
EDIT: I’m stopping here.
Last edited:
Gun could be an asset for warning shots when you need to escort/force an intruding aircraft to an airport. But that discussion is becoming long and boresome. We need more pictures of that humped ws-15 J-20 and twin seater.
First of all, no that was not your "main argument". You've been repeatedly changing your position since your post in #1716, changing the target characteristics you are describing -- first describing lower capability drones, then talking about cruise missiles and higher end UCAVs.
Secondly, if you want to talk about magazine depth, then for J-20's primary mission a gun is at best a last ditch self defense weapon. Once you run out of missiles, your aircraft should be returning to base anyhow because a 5th generation fighter with only a gun is next to useless because the primary mission of such an aircraft won't be to intercept low cost drones or low performance cruise missiles, and such an aircraft also is not well suited to intercept higher performance fighter-jet-esque UCAVs or cruise missiles.
Again, I have nothing against the idea of having a gun on J-20.
But just accept that it's a last ditch self defense weapon and does not actually meaningfully contribute to the primary roles or characteristics of a 5th generation fighter aircraft.
If you genuinely want to add magazine depth against moderately challenging targets, then pursuing smaller footprint AAMs is a far superior method.
Meanwhile, if you want to defend against lower cost drones or cruise missiles, you absolutely do not need your most capable 5th generation fighter to do so, instead having a combination of legacy aircraft equipped with plentiful low cost AAMs, networked with airborne sensors and ground based air defenses is the best way of doing so both in terms of capability as well as allocation of resources.
Everyone in the last two pages has been quite patiently explaining to you why your conops doesn't make sense.
If you want to argue that J-20 should have a gun, that's very reasonable. But just accept it would be a last ditch self defense weapon.
This is ridiculous.
First, i mentioned the low end drones in operation true promise as an example of why guns are needed! not the main use case. It was in response to this.
Just STOP man. Every interaction with you is a torture of misunderstanding. Can you not just leave me the F alone.
First, i mentioned the low end drones in operation true promise as an example of why guns are needed! not the main use case. It was in response to this.
To which I gave an example of the need for a gun in todays war.
Just STOP man. Every interaction with you is a torture of misunderstanding. Can you not just leave me the F alone.
Look, if you can accept these two premises then there is no disagreement:
1. If J-20 can have a gun added without significant cost or complexity or degradation of other performance then there is no reason not to.
2. Adding a gun to J-20 will not contribute to its primary roles, and a gun for J-20 at most will be a last ditch self defense weapon.