I feel a lot of the discussions above are based on the assumption since F-35 has no duel seaters and claim need no duel seaters, so if J-20 have duel seaters that means Chinese technologies must lag US. This not necessarily be true since
1. Chinese is now the biggest AI technology leader in the world surpass US in paper count, no of patent, and most importantly the market to try out those technologies, of course US is still the strongest AI developer in the world given Google, Facebook, Microsoft, apple are all us companies, but overall the these two countries are leading the rest of the world by some margin
2. If my memory is correct, the initial F-35 sensor requirements are mostly EW and make be some battlefield coordination, but control some UAV fleets was not its task. So J-20 in this case could lead F-35 in development that area, and we might see F-35 in duel seaters or some other twin seat jets for US in the future
3. Assume duel seater is for UAV is true, then the whole point for the second pilot is nothing to do with AI at all. Far as we know , the job for second pilot is not to fly UAV, but to make decisions of target engagement in the high EMI battle field. Just like those who seat in the UAV control vehicle these days.
The twin seater is definitely for UAV swarms and commanding loyal wingman units. J-20 is an air superiority fighter and not a ground striker or attack plane. It has no need to weapons officer and even if it were, it still has no need for weapons officer. Computers have taken over that role. J-16's second seat is getting more pointless with every passing year and every leap in computing and software technologies.
Second seat for human command over drone swarms and loyal wingman or electronic warfare still suggest the human element is considered imperative for proper function and/or safe and planned function.
I think both of you are on the right track, but too focused on the UAV control factor.
The technologies that allows an aircraft to effectively network, share data, and cooperate in a complex battlespace environment are the same technologies that you use to control UAVs.
That is to say, I do not ever expect a "dedicated" UAV control aircraft in widespread service among air forces with capable aerospace industries, simply because an aircraft that can effectively control a UAV fleet is also very valuable as a general battle management and networking node as well.
Putting it another way -- I fully expect the F-35 (as well as various other 5th gen and 4.5th gen aircraft that are in service and are in development) to all be capable of controlling UAVs going forwards to one extent or another, limited only by their avionics/sensors/automation/networking capability, and of course, by the number of human beings in the crew.
=====
Now, I agree that everyone is too focused on how capable J-20s avionics/sensors/automation/networking capability is relative to F-35 or F-22, and trying to backwards deduce how capable it is based on the existence of a twin seat J-20S.
IMO, there is a fairly simple litmus test for this.
We just need to ask three questions:
1. If J-20's avionics/sensors/automation/networking capability is
inferior to F-35 or F-22, would it make sense to have a twin seater to augment its battle management/control capabilities?
2. If J-20's avionics/sensors/automation/networking capability is
equal to F-35 or F-22, would it make sense to have a twin seater to augment its battle management/control capabilities?
3. If J-20's avionics/sensors/automation/networking capability is
superior to F-35 or F-22, would it make sense to have a twin seater to augment its battle management/control capabilities?
I believe the answer to all three questions, is
yes.
Which means that we simply cannot make any deduction as to what J-20's relative capabilities in avionics/sensors/automation/networking is relative to other aircraft, because no matter how the relative capabilities stack up --
it would make sense to have a second pilot to augment its battle management and control capabilities anyway.
=====
I also think everyone is being too focused on the role of the twin seater being a "UAV controller".
While it is true that the second seat will enable the aircraft to perform
an enhanced UAV control capability relative to a single seater -- I think it is very important to recognize that the second seat and the second human being in the aircraft can do much, much more than controlling UAVs.
I would argue that the enhanced capability to do battle management and networking role (
relative to a single seater) is as important if not more important to having enhanced UAV control capability. I would also argue that going forwards, UAV control capability should better be viewed as just a subset of general battle management and networking.
Right now, UAVs/UCAVs and MUM-T are all the rage of course, it's the flashiest new thing on the scene.
But the same fundamental technologies that enables a human being to control fleets of UAVs/UCAVs in battle are just as applicable to the overall capability of battle management and networking to all friendly assets on air, land, space and sea, whether they are manned and unmanned.
Yes, a twin seater J-20 will likely have enhanced UAV control capabilities relative to a single seater.
But it's important to not miss the forest for the trees -- that is to say, general
enhanced battle management and networking capability is more significant and consequential than
enhanced UAV control capabilities, and the latter should be viewed as one aspect of the former.
