J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

ecaedus said:

what's the advantage of having a drone operator in the back vs a more automated approach like the F35 has? By having an operator, does that mean the current single seat J20 processing power can't handle drone wingman operation?

Click to expand...

Are you sure F-35s are even controlling drones in a relevant manner? It doesn't actually take much effort for a drone to follow you around or fly in a set path.. even DJI has that..

Its will take a extra person to create realtime strategies for drones. Do you think a single pilot can process flying the aircraft/not getting shot down/analyze the situation at the same time as programming the drones with new strategies/waypoints?

I think the pilot is far more likely to be automated away than the WSO.

ecaedus said:

what's the advantage of having a drone operator in the back vs a more automated approach like the F35 has? By having an operator, does that mean the current single seat J20 processing power can't handle drone wingman operation?

Click to expand...

When I was in ROTC, I talked a lot to air force recruiters before deciding on a branch. Generally, the Air Force doesn't have enough pilots and even has to contract out to private pilots for many of their aircraft. They can't spare a second person functioning solely as a WSO so they have to automate.

ecaedus said:

what's the advantage of having a drone operator in the back vs a more automated approach like the F35 has?

Click to expand...

This has been discussed multiple times in the thread already.

Take two aircraft where everything is held equal, including degree of automation. One aircraft has a single pilot, while the other aircraft has a pilot and a second crew member.

Which one will be more capable in the command role?

ecaedus said:

By having an operator, does that mean the current single seat J20 processing power can't handle drone wingman operation?

Click to expand...

As I wrote in a previous post,

"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."

gongolongo said:

When I was in ROTC, I talked a lot to air force recruiters before deciding on a branch. Generally, the Air Force doesn't have enough pilots and even has to contract out to private pilots for many of their aircraft. They can't spare a second person functioning solely as a WSO so they have to automate.

Click to expand...

You are making it sound like the PLA is awash in pilots.

Every military force in the world is heading towards more automation, not simply because of issues with recruiting enough soldiers/pilots/sailors whatever, but because automation allows your individual human to be more efficient and effective and more capable.

ecaedus said:

following that train of thought, if AI automation does continue to progress, which it most likely will, does that mean eventually the second person will become obsolete?

Click to expand...

That depends on what the service's requirement are.

Let's throw out some hypothetical numbers.
Let's say, for example an aircraft with one pilot only might be able to control 4 UCAVs effectively. A twin seater variant of the aircraft with two pilots might be able to control 12 UCAVs effectively.

With advancing technology and automation, let's say in 10 years, an aircraft with one pilot might be able to control 12 UCAVs effectively.
Great, right? But does that make a twin seater unnecessary? Well that depends on how many UCAVs you want your aircraft to be able to control.
Because with that advancing technology and automation, your twin seater aircraft will also benefit from it, meaning your two pilots might be able to control 36 UCAVs effectively.

(The same above also applies for general battle management and general command/control tasks, not just UCAV control).


So, does automation make the second crew member obsolete? Not really, because advancements in automation will make the second crew member more effective and efficient as well.
The question is more about what the requirements for an individual aircraft's level of battle management and command/control will be, and at which point does the greater capability of a twin seater become too much capability that is not worth the cost.

Some photos for the weekend.

This cartoon illustration was posted in 2018 by its originator. The banner read "Congratulation in advance to the winner of competition by physical aircraft (i.e. real aircraft)". Note the twin front wheel of J20X and number 2031. The other aircraft is FC-31/J-XY/J35...

Is the J20B prototype a rebuilt of the original 2031, or was it just a coincident that the carrier borne compeitor was given the same number 3 years ago?

lcloo said:

This cartoon illustration was posted in 2018 by its originator. The banner read "Congratulation in advance to the winner of competition by physical aircraft (i.e. real aircraft)". Note the twin front wheel of J20X and number 2031. The other aircraft is FC-31/J-XY/J35...

Is the J20B prototype a rebuilt of the original 2031, or was it just a coincident that the carrier borne compeitor was given the same number 3 years ago?

View attachment 78800

Click to expand...

I suspect it was artistic license.
I don't think we ever heard of a proper airframe of a navalized J-20 from CAC being built.

===

On a different note, so what's the nomenclature here, are we calling it J-20B, or J-20S?

Personally, I think as we are pending proper confirmation, I think J-20S makes more sense than J-20B.

Bltizo said:

That depends on what the service's requirement are.

Let's throw out some hypothetical numbers.
Let's say, for example an aircraft with one pilot only might be able to control 4 UCAVs effectively. A twin seater variant of the aircraft with two pilots might be able to control 12 UCAVs effectively.

With advancing technology and automation, let's say in 10 years, an aircraft with one pilot might be able to control 12 UCAVs effectively.
Great, right? But does that make a twin seater unnecessary? Well that depends on how many UCAVs you want your aircraft to be able to control.
Because with that advancing technology and automation, your twin seater aircraft will also benefit from it, meaning your two pilots might be able to control 36 UCAVs effectively.

(The same above also applies for general battle management and general command/control tasks, not just UCAV control).


So, does automation make the second crew member obsolete? Not really, because advancements in automation will make the second crew member more effective and efficient as well.
The question is more about what the requirements for an individual aircraft's level of battle management and command/control will be, and at which point does the greater capability of a twin seater become too much capability that is not worth the cost.

Click to expand...

It's always going to be more efficient to have a twin-seater until it's more efficient to have a no-seater.

Bltizo said:

I suspect it was artistic license.
I don't think we ever heard of a proper airframe of a navalized J-20 from CAC being built.

===

On a different note, so what's the nomenclature here, are we calling it J-20B, or J-20S?

Personally, I think as we are pending proper confirmation, I think J-20S makes more sense than J-20B.

Click to expand...

It should be J-20S as per Chinese nomenclature. J-20B should be reserved for WS-15 equipped J-20.