J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Gloire_bb]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "much less of aircraft"

Ah, simply reference on single engine carrying around 12-15 tons instead of two carrying around 25-30.
When we add a tanker into the equation, 3t of fuel space for a single 13t engine is just as comfortable as 6-7t of fuel for two. But for tanker it is a world of difference.

And I don't understand why a J-10 would be able to rotate faster than a larger fighter.
You would be operating from the same airbase (and distance) and loading the same number of weapons.

J-10-sized aircraft(referring to F-16 here) can be mostly serviced from the ground with simple and readily available ground equipment. Lesser number of people immediately able to access whatever is necessary, faster. Fast weapon load from a simple elevating cart. Etc. It isn't Gripen level of simple, but it's reasonable.

Su-27...one needs to stay under it to feel how huge this m-lover actually is. All service operations take much longer - not just because the amount of service is twice(or more) over, but because technicians literally need to reach every single service port. Loading weapons is also more annoying and time-consuming. It's more annoying to navigate on the ground. Etc.
Overall, flanker(and F-15) service in the modern aviation world is kinda (in)famous - the only reliably more annoying fighter a/c is the f-22.

Flankers were designed under requirements mostly written by the Soviet Air Defense. That meant good, well-equipped, safe airfields far in the rear, and no pressure to fly 6 sorties per day. They require lots of attention - but even giving them this attention isn't easy.
On top of that - J-16 is a twin-seater only.

And long-range operations is where the bulk of future Chinese Air Force operations will be.

Long-range operations per se don't favor large fighters - for the reasons listed above.
Long-range independent operations do - but they're a relative minority.

And, frankly speaking, majority of ops *overall* are never long-range operations. Even in PTO - even when it can be done, it's better to be done only when necessary and for as short as possible. Force operating on a shorter leg has an advantage.

But if we get to the point where the Chinese Air Force has to start standing up entirely new airbases and brigade personnel for J-20 units, it's likely more cost-effective to retire a J-10C unit and replace it with J-20. The key metric being [long-range air-to-air combat capability versus cost] and it is still able to perform a CAP/DCA mission.

The problem is the number of flights(per time)/price of operation.
Heavy fighters are lesser at either aspect...

 

[TK3600]

But when a tanker is already within the equation ("rich air force") - one engine of J-10(50% of J-16/20 just by that count alone) carries much less of aircraft.
It means, for instance, when both are already in air, and initial fuel expenditure doesn't matter that much - one tanker will literally refuel twice the number of aircraft, for more or less the same additional time on station.

On top of that - when smaller aircraft have to rotate home(for example, it used its missiles, etc), they will rotate on the ground much faster. It's especially so for "delivery" type of operations (strike), where rotation(not loiter) is at a premium.
It may operate from a less secure, closer-located forward airfield. Flanker or J-20 can't be hidden in anything lesser than a dedicated, large shelter.

Writing off light fighters is very, very premature.

In a larger scheme of things(i.e. other than long-range independent operations), it's less important.
I'd even argue that for this situation(large external shared data input), for most of the force, much lesser signature of J-10c is probably much more of an asset than the larger sensor capacity of a flanker.

For large-scale combat, those 7-something squadrons of J-10C can probably give a short/medium/long-term sortie generation of several times the number of flankers(the longer, the more). And since it's sorties that contribute to the effort, not just the number of aircraft - they're disproportionally important, despite their lower "cool factor".

Replacement of light weight fighter J-10 is a forgone conclusion. The domestic production already ceased not long after it started. It is possible that J-35 will fill the light role so we are not entirely writing off light/medium fighters.

People are freaking out when I say J-10C is outdated. Not like we are replacing it now. There are still older planes to go like J-7, J-8, J-10A, old flankers, JH-7... Replacing J-10C will be like 10 years later. Yes it is still very capable with lots of life span left. No, that will not prevent it from being replaced. Just like J-7 being replaced still have life span left.

 

[antiterror13]

Replacement of light weight fighter J-10 is a forgone conclusion. The domestic production already ceased not long after it started. It is possible that J-35 will fill the light role so we are not entirely writing off light/medium fighters.

People are freaking out when I say J-10C is outdated. Not like we are replacing it now. There are still older planes to go like J-7, J-8, J-10A, old flankers, JH-7... Replacing J-10C will be like 10 years later. Yes it is still very capable with lots of life span left. No, that will not prevent it from being replaced. Just like J-7 being replaced still have life span left.

Totally agreed that light weight fighter is needed, no question. From this move by PLAAF, I think a clear message that China is confident that J-35 (or whatever is called) land based will be operational soon (~5-7 years) with WS-19 engine

 

[tphuang]

guys, a lot of roles may be taken over UCAVs in the future. So think about that when considering what their future fleet compositions will look like

 

[Michaelsinodef]

guys, a lot of roles may be taken over UCAVs in the future. So think about that when considering what their future fleet compositions will look like

Indeed.

What's more, it feels like the light fighter role might be the most susceptible for drone replacement in the near to mid future.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Indeed.

What's more, it feels like the light fighter role might be the most susceptible for drone replacement in the near to mid future.

Light fighter role isn't any different from heavy fighter role, though. Same core qualities, different - much less specialized on top end of the missions spectrum, - optimization point.

Thus, it isn't affected any differently by UCAVs. Those are largely parallel existences, competing only at procurement(ratio) level, IMHO.
And pilot carrier in a manned-unmanned team doesn't need to be heavy.


In fact, as it happened, say, during the age of sail, commanders may prefer secondary/weaker platforms(frigates) to main combatants - freedom of maneuver and lack of excessive attention matter.

Drone can be heavy and twin, manned a/c can be small, stealthy and as passive as possible.

 

[TK3600]

Light fighter role isn't any different from heavy fighter role, though. Same core qualities, different - much less specialized on top end of the missions spectrum, - optimization point.

Thus, it isn't affected any differently by UCAVs. Those are largely parallel existences, competing only at procurement(ratio) level, IMHO.
And pilot carrier in a manned-unmanned team doesn't need to be heavy.


In fact, as it happened, say, during the age of sail, commanders may prefer secondary/weaker platforms(frigates) to main combatants - freedom of maneuver and lack of excessive attention matter.

Drone can be heavy and twin, manned a/c can be small, stealthy and as passive as possible.

Drone command platform favors heavy plane like J-20, J16. Especially twin seaters.

 

[Kalec]

I agree with the numerical analysis but still one more thing, the 234th J-20 should be the Batch 12 or CB11234 if the existing numerical system still applies to the post Batch 9 counting.

However, the *rumor* suggests that it exists a certain airframe with CB number CB08193 which makes me wonder if Chengdu changed the CB system after the expansion of their factory assembly plant.

The number of CB09234 would make sense to me if they increase number per batch from 20 to 40 after CB07XXX or Batch 8. Meanwhile the proof we need is a CB number larger than 180 to determine their numbering system.

0​

1​

2​

3​

4​

5​

6​

7​

8​

9​

10​

11​

12​

20​

40​

60​

80​

100​

120​

140​

160​

200​

240​

280​

320​

360​

20​

40​

60​

80​

100​

120​

140​

160​

180​

200​

220​

240​

260​

The same rumor spreader

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

posted New Year post with "CB10280".

IMO the numerical system is consistent with the logic of "each batch consists of 40 airframes after Batch No.7" but it is very weird that no photo proof ever surfaced on social media meanwhile the number keeps going up.

 

[Blitzo]

The same rumor spreader

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

posted New Year post with "CB10280".

IMO the numerical system is consistent with the logic of "each batch consists of 40 airframes after Batch No.7" but it is very weird that no photo proof ever surfaced on social media meanwhile the number keeps going up.

View attachment 123302
View attachment 123304

He posted CB10288 rather than CB10280?

But yes, this kind of number does kind of track even though we haven't had any recent pictures of 200 range CB numbers.


The Scramble estimate of 250 J-20s also does seem a bit low to me given where they were likely at in the beginning of 2023 and what the expectations of 2023 J-20 production capacity were going to be, and being around 280+ would be a bit more consistent to me.
But maybe scramble was just being conservative.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Drone command platform favors heavy plane like J-20, J16. Especially twin seaters.

Not necessarily, especially going forward.

Given how the US is seemingly dead-set at providing the F-35s with the ability to command loyal wingman UCAVs (namely CCA) in the years to come - And with no plans for the F-35 to have a twin-seater variant, I really don't think that having twin-seaters is a prerequisite for this task as things develop further.

Besides, given how China is already testing AI co-piloting on a J-16 all the way back in 2021 (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, hello Mihaly) if not earlier - Having an AI surrogate for a "second pilot" onboard the J-20s (and perhaps even the J-35s) that would be responsible for automating some of the tasks for the sole pilot onboard when it comes to commanding loyal wingman UCAVs should become viable in the future.

I believe that we will see the first signs of that from the PLAAF within this decade... And I'm willing to bet that one of the tasks for that particular "X-plane" spotted at Chengdu AC is to develop and test this capability.