J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[tamsen_ikard]

I doubt the J-31 will ever enter service.

I think its naval derivative, the J-35, will join the J-15 in active service with the PLANAF, whereas the PLAAF will focus on fielding a mix of J-20s and J-16s. I expect the J-15 and J-35 to be procured in incremental quantities and, given the PLANAF's divestment of its shore-based fleet, to track the expansion of the carrier fleet.

The J-15 and J-16 can carry a higher payload than the J-20 and the J-35, and will serve as long-range maritime / strike fighters, as well as EW/SEAD/DEAD platforms in their "D" variants.

The J-20 and J-35 will primarily serve in an air superiority role, with the latter also having a main maritime strike mission.

I expect the AESA-equipped J-10C and J-11B (with upgrade) to be retained for a while, but for all other tactical combat aircraft types to be retired within the decade.

Overall, I expect the PLAAF to stabilize at a force of ~55 / ~57 combat Air Brigades with ~1,650 / ~1,710 first-line aircraft, with the PLANAF adding ~48 J-15 and J-35 for each Type 003/004/+ carrier subsequently added to the fleet.

Just 1700 aircraft is kinda low when US and allies in the region can muster upto 3500. China will atleast have to match that to gain parity.

 

[james smith esq]

[...] Third, and most importantly, China's strategic and security objectives demand a fleet of J-20s on this scale.

At least!

 

[manqiangrexue]

Just 1700 aircraft is kinda low when US and allies in the region can muster upto 3500. China will atleast have to match that to gain parity.

Although numbers are important and I'm happy to see China grow to triple digit production on J-20, it's more important to fight a smart fight rather than just trying to one-up the other's arsenal. If they have 100 jets on a carrier, don't send 120 jets to kill them expecting 20 to survive, take them all out with a carrier killer missile. If enemies are launching from their airbases, don't just launch more; use superior missile tech to pierce their defenses and destroy their bases then use superior interception capability to protect yours. And of course, 1 jet =/= 1 jet. Use superior technology to make your fighters better than your enemy's.

The point is, technology and strategy are king. Build an asymmestric strategy around your technological advantage to target your enemy's weaknesses while protecting and closing yours and that will win the day.

PS How did you figure American/Pro American forces can muster up 3,500 aircraft around China?

 

[drowingfish]

Although numbers are important and I'm happy to see China grow to triple digit production on J-20, it's more important to fight a smart fight rather than just trying to one-up the other's arsenal. If they have 100 jets on a carrier, don't send 120 jets to kill them expecting 20 to survive, take them all out with a carrier killer missile. If enemies are launching from their airbases, don't just launch more; use superior missile tech to pierce their defenses and destroy their bases then use superior interception capability to protect yours. And of course, 1 jet =/= 1 jet. Use superior technology to make your fighter better than your enemy's.

The point is, technology and strategy are king. Build an asymmestric strategy around your technological advantage to target your enemy's weaknesses while protecting and closing yours and that will win the day.

PS How did you figure American/Pro American forces can muster up 3,500 aircraft around China?

for an industrial power the size of China, symmetric and asymmetric approaches to warfighting are not mutually exclusive. you can build triple digit J-20 per year AND a bunch of missiles. sun tzu famously said build redundancy into your plan with more missiles and stealth fighters.

 

[manqiangrexue]

for an industrial power the size of China, symmetric and asymmetric approaches to warfighting are not mutually exclusive. you can build triple digit J-20 per year AND a bunch of missiles. sun tzu famously said build redundancy into your plan with more missiles and stealth fighters.

I agree. I have said before and will say it again that China deserves to have the largest and most powerful military in the world by any measure. I am definitely not arguing that the Chinese military should reduce its procurement; I want them to increase it as they see fit. But the statement I am arguing against is that since the enemy has 3,500 aircraft, we need at least 3,500 to match them.

1. How was this 3,500 number calculated? Does it include a ton of Indian MiG-21?
2. We need not strain to match just a superficial number, but build what we can afford and can intelligently incorporate into our strategy.
3. Saying that we need X to match X is to imply that the PLA cannot win by strategy or superior technology, which I strongly disagree with. Our commanders are better and our technology is already competitive with the best in the world, world-beating in some cases and still growing like a young calf. We will win by strategy and technology... and dominate by number. We don't need the latter, but will have it anyway because it is what we deserve.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

What about J10As upgraded with air-cooled AESA?

I believe that older airframes (J-10AG/BG, J-11BG) in the PLAAF can be assigned for escort and/or rearguard duties during missions alongside newer and more capable allied units, and/or CAP duties in friendly/less-contested airspaces in the theaters of war. Besides, they can also be relegated to mostly territorial/homeland defense roles, and/or for the protection of sites and installations deemed critical to China's national security and survival.

Otherwise, I believe these airframes can also be mothballed and stored in the arid deserts of western China, similar to the famous Boneyard in Arizona, USA. These aircrafts can have their components and parts stripped and utilized for the maintenance and upkeep of existing in-service units, alongside providing reserves for reactivation, which should allow the rapid expansion of the PLAAF's fighting force in case of high tension or war.

 

[Deino]

Interesting comparison of both the J-20 vs the J-20A's profile and as it seems, the new version's radome (below) has not only a more beak-like shape (2nd image) but seems to be also quite different from below.

(Image modified on an image posted by @CadderVoyager from Weibo)

 

[james smith esq]

Interesting comparison of both the J-20 vs the J-20A's profile and as it seems, the new version's radome (below) has not only a more beak-like shape (2nd image) but seems to be also quite different from below.

(Image modified on an image posted by @CadderVoyager from Weibo)

View attachment 119812
View attachment 119813

Could the AESA array-panel be more oval and less round (wider and shorter)?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Interesting comparison of both the J-20 vs the J-20A's profile and as it seems, the new version's radome (below) has not only a more beak-like shape (2nd image) but seems to be also quite different from below.

(Image modified on an image posted by @CadderVoyager from Weibo)

View attachment 119812
View attachment 119813

DSI bump shape also looks different.

 

[by78]

One nice image to start the week.