That's my thinking as well.
But I think quite a few people in this thread are still calling it J-20B rather than J-20S.
@Deino
J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
That's my thinking as well.
But I think quite a few people in this thread are still calling it J-20B rather than J-20S.
@Deino
We do not know what the Intelligence Victory demonstrator is, so by extension we do not know how or if it can have applications to J-20S.
Also, if you want to repeat a question that you asked previously, please write it out again and elaborate on what you are asking instead of just requoting your last post.
Because chances are if no one answered it, it's because the way you asked it didn't give people enough to work with.
Great answers!
IMO if there is going to be J-20B, then the current single-seat is J-20A. And so current tandem-seat is J-20AS. Future J-20BS will be tandem-seat + WS-15 + (potentially) further upgrades/improvements.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
That's the angle I've been waiting for for a long time but would've perfect if it was a little more to the nose.
Indeed, I currently prefer to call it J-20B but maybe more due to a feeling of hope than logic.
I know and as such agree that J-20S or J-20AS is the much more likely designation, but I don't expect this to be a simple twin-seater aka trainer like a J-10AS or J-11BS but a fully operational type for other missions than the single seater. As such a J-20S or J-20AS following the previously common scheme seems IMO inappropriate and therefore I expect or at least hope for a J-20 variant that deserves the next letter which would be "B".
By the way, a very huge THANKS you to my friend Ugo Crisponi from , who made my day with these wonderful J-20B - or J-20AS - profiles!
I see your reasoning, though I think the J-20S or AS designation right now seems to make more sense for two reasons:
1. as far as we can see so far, the twin seater seems to have the same overall airframe size and configuration as the single seater, and the chances of it being structurally different (like a larger weapons bay or others) seems quite low to me.
2. the S designation was never really a signifier of "role" but rather whether it was "only" a twin seater relative to the single seater. In the case of J-10AS or J-11BS, those aircraft are twin seaters that serve the role of combat capable trainers as well, but where the rear seat IMO is also still fully missionized.
For this twin seater J-20, IMO the only difference is the addition of the second seat.
I imagine the same avionics, sensors, datalinks, automation etc, should be the same as the current production single seater aircraft. The increased battle management/command and control capability of the twin seater relative to the single seater IMO should only be a result of having an additional human being in the aircraft, not a reflection of any increase in sophistication of the twin seater's subsystems.
Putting it another way, in terms of role, I think the single seater J-20 should already have significant capabilities to do battle management/command and control -- but the twin seater J-20 should be much, much more capable than it while possessing the same subsystems, with the only difference being the second human crewmember.
Of course, until the PLA explicitly gives us a name for it I think we cannot call it yet, but IMO at this stage the safer and more understandable name for it would be J-20S.
The reason I raise this with you of course, is because you here also have a significant following in the public domain and I think it would be good to keep a consistent nomenclature for this aircraft.
By the way, a very huge THANKS you to my friend Ugo Crisponi from , who made my day with these wonderful J-20B - or J-20AS - profiles!
View attachment 78804
View attachment 78805
View attachment 78806
Those are nice art, though have to point out I think the strange non-continuous leading edge of the all moving tail (should be continuous from tip to base), and the most recent picture showing us details of some antennae on the nose/intake being different.
Otherwise, nice drawings.
Thanks for the comments above and yes, I should take it as an advice.
And for the profile drawing; I also expect the number 2031 to remain on the front too like on all previous prototypes.
5th gen trainer is an immense waste of money tbh.
This will end up being C&C / force multiplier for drones, decoys etc. I think eventually there would be more specific subsystems.
- Status