J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Blitzo]

2x/3x J-20As with WS-10C2 engines. Posted by @欧阳振我86468 on Weibo.

Given how the J-20As with WS-15 engines have entered serial production late last year/earlier this year, it's kinda odd that we haven't seen any such J-20As in grey (in service) paint at this point.

Considering they likely only began production late last year or early this year, and considering their sensitivity, I think it's pretty normal that we wouldn't get any pictures until like the beginning of 2027 at the earliest, and even that may be optimistic.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

At current pace we will likely get to 1000 airframes by 2030, and I don’t think we should expect 6th gen production to ramp up on a 1-2 year turnaround from LRIP, especially since the first few years of adoption will have to be spent on tactical development.

That's the thing. "At the current pace" is an assumption, and it's subject to change due to the pace of the next gens.

Unlike the complementary relationship of 4th and 5th gen aircraft, the transition to 6th gen aircraft and associated UAVs is much more of a direct upgrade. Instead of pouring resources into building more J-20s, it might be more efficient to put those resources into speeding up the 6th gens. Conversely, speeding up the 6th gens may also impact the rate of J-20 production, e.g. the factory may need to go through various changes.

York did mention that "even people in the know were surprised by this". Of course, it's just an opinionated rumour, but something to keep in mind as I think many people have naturally assumed that the total J-20 count will reach 4 digits.

 

[Blitzo]

That's the thing. "At the current pace" is an assumption, and it's subject to change due to the pace of the next gens.

Unlike the complemental relationship of 4th and 5th gen aircraft, the transition to 6th gen aircraft and associated UAVs is much more of a direct upgrade. Instead of pouring resources into building more J-20s, it might be more efficient to put those resources into speeding up the 6th gens. Conversely, speeding up the 6th gens may also impact the rate of J-20 production, e.g. the factory may need to go through various changes.

Just for the record, I think relationship and gap of inherent onboard airframe capabilities between 4th and 5th generation aircraft, should be larger than that of 5th and 6th generation aircraft.

If anything, 6th and 5th generation aircraft are more complementary to each other (smaller gap in capability uplift) than 5th and 4th generation are (larger gap in capability uplift).


The best way of viewing it imo is how it is more feasible to give 5th gen aircraft near 6th gen capabilities (or what we anticipate to be 6th gen capabilities) namely more potential avionics, weapons and command of UAVs, versus giving 4th gen aircraft near 5th gen capabilities (they can be upgraded with avionics and weapons, but they will never get the internal weapons bays and stealth shaping of 5th generation aircraft).

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Just for the record, I think relationship and gap of inherent onboard airframe capabilities between 4th and 5th generation aircraft, should be larger than that of 5th and 6th generation aircraft.

If anything, 6th and 5th generation aircraft are more complementary to each other (smaller gap in capability uplift) than 5th and 4th generation are (larger gap in capability uplift).


The best way of viewing it imo is how it is more feasible to give 5th gen aircraft near 6th gen capabilities (or what we anticipate to be 6th gen capabilities) namely more potential avionics, weapons and command of UAVs, versus giving 4th gen aircraft near 5th gen capabilities (they can be upgraded with avionics and weapons, but they will never get the internal weapons bays and stealth shaping of 5th generation aircraft).

I agree that the gap in inherent capabilities from 4th to 5th generation is larger than from 5th to 6th generation, but "complementary" here is more about being more cost-effective in their respective roles than about the capability gap. For example, perhaps the lack of stealth makes 4th gens better suited to being missile trucks. Perhaps they are also cheaper to operate against lower-end opponents when carrying out many of the "dirtier" tasks.

The point regarding 5th and 6th gen aircraft is that, for future procurement, basically every role that these additional 5th gen aircrqaft could do could be done better (and more cost-effectively) by 6th gens (by this point, we'd be looking at almost 1,000 J-20s, if not more, plus several hundred J-35s). So the argument is to simply procure the 6th gen aircraft instead.

 

[Blitzo]

I agree that the gap in inherent capabilities from 4th to 5th generation is larger than from 5th to 6th generation, but "complementary" here is more about being more cost-effective in their respective roles than about the capability gap. For example, perhaps the lack of stealth makes 4th gens better suited to being missile trucks. Perhaps they are also cheaper to operate against lower-end opponents when carrying out many of the "dirtier" tasks.

The point regarding 5th and 6th gen aircraft is that, for future procurement, basically every role that these additional 5th gen aircrqaft could do could be done better by 6th gens (by this point, we'd be looking at almost 1,000 J-20s, if not more, plus several hundred J-35s). So the argument is to simply procure the 6th gen aircraft instead.

Oh I see.
I suppose if it is in context of dealing with lower end scenarios or scenarios where high intensity conflict is brief, then that makes sense and I agree


If it is in context of fighting a large scale high intensity conflict though (the PLA focus imo), I would say that 5th and 6th generation aircraft are more "complementary" and also cost-effective (where large scale high end capabilities are necessary and just the ticket for entry).

 

[Gloire_bb]

I agree that the gap in inherent capabilities from 4th to 5th generation is larger than from 5th to 6th generation, but "complementary" here is more about being more cost-effective in their respective roles than about the capability gap. For example, perhaps the lack of stealth makes 4th gens better suited to being missile trucks. Perhaps they are also cheaper to operate against lower-end opponents when carrying out many of the "dirtier" tasks.

The point regarding 5th and 6th gen aircraft is that, for future procurement, basically every role that these additional 5th gen aircrqaft could do could be done better (and more cost-effectively) by 6th gens (by this point, we'd be looking at almost 1,000 J-20s, if not more, plus several hundred J-35s). So the argument is to simply procure the 6th gen aircraft instead.

We would need to know something reminiscent of specs for 6th aircraft to be sure.
I.e. broadly yes, but it also broadly doesn't make much sense for CMC to order direct replacement of 5th gen aircraft so soon; we aren't in 1950s after all.
I.e. they may (and likely have) prioritized somewhat different key specifications, and in many cases downsides of flat aircraft either don't make sense, or aren't quite worth it.
Broadly, visible 6th generation aircraft are for the cases where you need broadband/multi-aspect LO, which more often than not are deep offensive operations.

Also, as a remark - China appears to work on 2 fighter aircraft of 4.5 and 5.5th generation: LIFT and (unconfirmed) VTOL.

 

[siegecrossbow]

You guys have to understand that doctrine/tactics is just as important as physical hardware. A lot of time will be spent refining those for Sixth Gen since there is nothing like it anywhere else for PLAAF to reference.

 

[latenlazy]

That's the thing. "At the current pace" is an assumption, and it's subject to change due to the pace of the next gens.

Unlike the complementary relationship of 4th and 5th gen aircraft, the transition to 6th gen aircraft and associated UAVs is much more of a direct upgrade. Instead of pouring resources into building more J-20s, it might be more efficient to put those resources into speeding up the 6th gens. Conversely, speeding up the 6th gens may also impact the rate of J-20 production, e.g. the factory may need to go through various changes.

York did mention that "even people in the know were surprised by this". Of course, it's just an opinionated rumour, but something to keep in mind as I think many people have naturally assumed that the total J-20 count will reach 4 digits.

That really depends on the speed with which you can reach sufficient operational maturity with initial 6th gen adoption to justify a rapid shift to mass production. If IOC is say in 2028 I’d be extremely skeptical that you can get to such condition of initial operational maturity by 2030 that would justify ending J-20 production quickly. Even if they relax J-20 production from say the 100 a year cadence we’ve expect they’re capable of doing, I’d be surprised if we’re not well over 1000 J-20s if the full rate mass production of 6th gens don’t start until say ~2032 assuming a 2028 IOC date.

 

[siegecrossbow]

We are getting cyberstalked…

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

An opinion from York. Maybe he's basing it on some info, but it is an opinion to consider nonetheless.

He thinks the prior for the total number of J-20s produced should be reconsidered and revised downwards, and that it might not surpass 1000 airframes. The reasoning is simple: 6th gens are on the horizon, and it would probably be more cost-effective to shift resources to 6th gens and UADFs.

Given his recent ranting over the viability of CZ-10B (which earned him a "slap-on-the-wrist" by Adorable Whale) - I'm kinda reluctant to take his words as-is.