WS-10 version J-20 go public?
J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
SinoSoldier
Colonel
For all intents and purposes the WS-10 variant of the J-20 is already public knowledge.
Offensive counterair step-by-step in a nutshell:
- Take out enemy fighters, AWACs, and tankers patrolling the skies
- Why stealth BVR is so important to avoid detection
- Where the J-20 really comes into play
- Suppression (with anti-radiation missiles) and destruction (with PGBs) of enemy air defenses
- Might benefit from a bit of stealth to avoid radar detection, but not the end of the world
- Probably more important to have speed and manoeuvrability to dodge SAMs and AAA
- EW really comes into play to jam enemy radar, that's why the need for the J-16D... and perhaps where I could see a two-seater J-20 developed.
- More like Step 3a - Strike interdiction on crucial strategic targets like you mentioned
- Don't really need stealth with enemy fighters taken out in Step 1 and integrated air defense system defeated in Step 2
- More important to have a larger weapons loadout capability
- That's when we roll in strike bombers like J-16s, older JH-7s and H-6s.... eventually the H-20
- Exactly why I don't think there needs to be a strike variant of the J-20
- Step 3b - Fighter sweep and escort while strike interdiction happens
- Non-stealthy fighters such as J-10s and J-11s (only because they're cheaper to operate than stealth fighters, and there really isn't a need for stealth at this point) sweep off any "runners" that were missed in Step 1, or enemy reinforcements that are scrambled in
- They'll also provide fighter escort to PLA airborne assets such as tankers, AWACs, and other ISR platforms
As for strike capability; the J-20 itself has 6 internal hardpoints and 2-4 external hardpoints, for 10 total hardpoints + the ability to go stealth if needed.
Modifying it for strike is going to be substantial, unfortunately, and will require enlarging the plane to an extent, but the Su-57 arrangement where a weapons bay sits between the engines
The J-11's problem is that despite having lots of external hardpoints, it's still not an F-15EX (can carry 22 missiles). A heavier strike J-16 might be a solution, or you could just go with a strike 5th generation. You have to remember that by definition, a strike fighter is capable of air superiority missions and a J-16 is obsolete for that role.
Re: stannislas: I'm talking 2027 timeframe, by which laser technology could have come a long way. If the PLAAF goes with the laser pod approach, we might be looking at a baseline of 4 km range (linear scaling).
As for the F-22, the F-22 can carry the same missile payload as a F-35, despite costing a lot more. The J-20 can likewise carry the same missile payload as a F-35, but it's still a heavier platform at the very least and likely a more expensive platform, especially if the RMB continues to appreciate (around 5% so far this year).
===
@Bltizo The problem is on what timeline will American 6th gens be ready? The American 6th gens seem oriented at extreme stealth and likely laser capability. If American 6th gens see mass production in the early 2030s with LRIP in the late 2020s, China will want better 5th gens to minimize the 6th generation advantage. NGAD, for instance, reputedly took its first flight this year, and if it's following a F-35 / J-20-type production schedule, you'll see mass production in the early 2030s.
From rumors given, it seems to be a XLO platform with possible lasers, which is still counterable by lasers + a micromissile set-up.
Moreover, this is WHY Chengdu seems to be talking about a strike J-20. An air superiority platform like the the F-22 or J-20 ends up getting relegated to an interceptor role once it's obsolete, A strike J-20, on the other hand, continues to be useful for strike even when it's no longer guaranteed to be effect in an air superiority role. The F-15, notably, had a good after-life as a strike fighter in its strike incarnations.
It loses the ability to go stealth the moment it uses its external hardpoints, it's RCS will light up like a christmas tree if it does
Modifications will have to so substantial I doubt it'd look anywhere near the original J-20 airframe, you might as well design a new plane
The EX was taken on to replace older F-15Cs, the premature termination of the F-22 program, and delays to the F-35. I wouldn't exactly say it's cutting edge new technology that'll give it an edge against our J-10/11s, given the USAF and DoD have indicated it's missions sets will be limited to air defense and the enforcement (and not the establishment) of no-fly zones. Might I also add the more missiles you carry, the heavier the plane becomes, and ultimately the more fuel it consumes alongside the decrease in manoeuvrable. I can't see the EX carrying all 22 missiles if it intends on keeping its drop tanks in order to get to the battlefield, preserving its fuel for the engagement against the enemy. Flankers on the other hand have higher internal fuel capacity and don't require external fuel tanks.
The J-16, like the F-15E, is designed NOT as an air superiority fighter. Rather it was designed for self escort strike missions, which is what separates them from JH-7s and the old F-111s. In essence the expectation is that the J-16 and F-15E can hold their own if they ever encountered enemy fighters on their way to conducting their strike mission, but BFM (or BVR for that fact) aren't their bread and butter. Air superiority is reserved almost exclusively for the J-20.
The F-15K/SG/QA variants of the F-15E are only seen as multi-role air superiority fighters primarily because their respective countries don't have the luxury to field multiple airframes to conduct different mission sets within their combat air force.
Last edited:
I have been hearing a similar rumour about the maiden flight of a new J-20 variant over at cjdby. In the rumour I've been hearing it's a twin seat version. The rumour didn't say if it was regular twin seat or tandem seat.
Guys ... can we return to the topic!??
Again any discussions on potential Su-57 purchases, its benefit on aerodynamic knowledge for China, the F-22 vs J-20 and potentian 6th generation types are way off-topic. There is a dedicated thread somewhere on the future PLAAF composition, continue there but NOT here!
Again any discussions on potential Su-57 purchases, its benefit on aerodynamic knowledge for China, the F-22 vs J-20 and potentian 6th generation types are way off-topic. There is a dedicated thread somewhere on the future PLAAF composition, continue there but NOT here!
Could it be that cjdby restricts access from countries outside of China? Even if I can see the discussion, since some time the images are all blocked.
I would use the J-20 as an interceptor, that is their specific difference ... in addition to air superiority
I see external hard points as a way to increase the radius of action with more fuel
a J-20 ... F/A ... strike version (JH-20 (?)) .... maybe it could be sold to Nato to attack russia, but it seems to me a surprising idea
I see external hard points as a way to increase the radius of action with more fuel
a J-20 ... F/A ... strike version (JH-20 (?)) .... maybe it could be sold to Nato to attack russia, but it seems to me a surprising idea
- Status