J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Jason_ said:

There has been a clear trend in post-Vietnam aerial combat that the side with superior aircraft not only win the battle, but do so with minimum losses in a lopsided victory. Even in the Eritean-Ethiopian war, the marginally superior Su-27 shot down 4 MiG-29s without loss. So being better 1 on 1 is important.

Click to expand...

Not really. tactics, pilot training and everything else matter a lot.

I like to use F-22 vs F-35 as an example here. On paper, F-22 has more powerful radar, better T/W ratio, can supercruise, turn faster, carry more missiles, has better all around stealth. Everything looks better. But in reality, it has low readiness (only available 50% of time using very generous metrics), cost a whole lot to maintain, doesn't have the same modern EW suite/avionics architecture as F-35, inferior passive sensor suite, inferior situation awareness and less flexibility to do software upgrade. The more F-35s you have together, the better they become since they can better share their sensor data to overcome the smaller radar and they more of them can just rely on passive sensors to get picked up and they can also confuse enemy more easily with EW suite.

When you have a force multiplier like F-35 and J-20, the more of them you have, the better they become individually and also add capabilities to surrounding fleet.

Something like J-20B (two seater), it's greatest utilities would be from commanding and directing and fusion data from all the aircraft around it. You can't measure its value just by its stealth or radar tracking range or turn rates.

siegecrossbow said:

View attachment 84362

Click to expand...

#61061 or #61067. Add this to the already known #61160.

lcloo said:

#61061 or #61067. Add this to the already known #61160.

Click to expand...

On East Pendulum, a reply to Henry K attached a clear photo of #61023 on nearly identitical posture and shadow. So the chance of it being #61023 is far greater.

ZeEa5KPul said:

You're looking at things from a "system of systems" approach and that certainly has its place. Sure, if the tactical circumstances are favourable, like a fight near the mainland where China has a higher number of J-20s on station and they're backed by long wave radar, the battle is likely to resolve in China's favour. But the J-20 should also be able to survive and prevail in circumstances that aren't as permissive. This is essential if China is to be a true peer competitor of the US.

Moreover, I feel that this approach overlooks comparing assets one-to-one at the unit level, which I feel has a lot of merit. After all, "systems of systems" are built out of individual units, and the stronger they are individually the more capable they are unison. You can mitigate weaknesses with creative tactics, but why go for that approach if you don't have to? China certainly has the experience to correct the defects with the J-20's rear RCS (if they exist). I expect any remaining shortcomings to be fixed with the WS-15.

Click to expand...

system versus system is much better comparison because the objective, goal and doctrine of the opposing force are different. everything China have been developing and building have one main goal in mind: "Deny enemy access of the Sea and Air upto 2000km from mainland China". America needs its armed force to be the most powerful presence anytime anywhere.

With this in mind J-20 needs to do 2 things, dominate 4th generation none stealth fighters and threaten enemy force multiplyer such as tankers, AWACS and other assets in a complex EW environment. I think J-20 can do both relatively well.

Only American force when asking for additional funding says China as near peer competitor, but I think that's really needs to be put in context with China's objective and goals.

optionsss said:

With this in mind J-20 needs to do 2 things, dominate 4th generation none stealth fighters and threaten enemy force multiplyer such as tankers, AWACS and other assets in a complex EW environment. I think J-20 can do both relatively well.

Click to expand...

The primary mission of J-20 is to be contest air superiority, that primarily includes being capable of competing on an equal basis with F-22 and F-35.

Naturally it will also mean operating within a part of a larger system of systems manner as well, but it is also intended to be capable of competing with F-22 and F-35 on its own merits.


Being capable of defeating older 4th generation fighters and targeting vulnerable and slow tankers or AWACS of course all goes without saying, but it is not the pacing threat that J-20 was designed for.

Bltizo said:

The primary mission of J-20 is to be contest air superiority, that primarily includes being capable of competing on an equal basis with F-22 and F-35.

Naturally it will also mean operating within a part of a larger system of systems manner as well, but it is also intended to be capable of competing with F-22 and F-35 on its own merits.


Being capable of defeating older 4th generation fighters and targeting vulnerable and slow tankers or AWACS of course all goes without saying, but it is not the pacing threat that J-20 was designed for.

Click to expand...

When I say main design objective, this is taking into account how PLA will operate J-20 to achieve maximum results. Compared to F-35, J-20's flight characteristic is much better, the airframe can generate a lot of lift are are much better at retaining energy. Missile fired from J-20 would have much more initial energy. The ideal operating environment for J-20 is to fire missile at targets limuniated by other systems, perferably tankers and awacs. Since it is a stealth, fast platform, J-20 can pentrate enemy defense and threaten these vulnaerable but high valuable system much more.

In any realistic situation involving F-22/F-35, PLA will likely face more 5th generation fighter than it will have, at least in the foreseable future. Even if J-20 can achieve a 1:1 kill ratio, that's not winning. I don't think the best way to operate J-20 in such conflict is to send them into a hostile air space to establish air suporiority, like the classic American F-15 fighter sweep over Iraq airspace. There will be times J-20 will need to perform these mission but only if it can achieve a critical objective.

optionsss said:

When I say main design objective, this is taking into account how PLA will operate J-20 to achieve maximum results. Compared to F-35, J-20's flight characteristic is much better, the airframe can generate a lot of lift are are much better at retaining energy. Missile fired from J-20 would have much more initial energy. The ideal operating environment for J-20 is to fire missile at targets limuniated by other systems, perferably tankers and awacs. Since it is a stealth, fast platform, J-20 can pentrate enemy defense and threaten these vulnaerable but high valuable system much more.

In any realistic situation involving F-22/F-35, PLA will likely face more 5th generation fighter than it will have, at least in the foreseable future. Even if J-20 can achieve a 1:1 kill ratio, that's not winning. I don't think the best way to operate J-20 in such conflict is to send them into a hostile air space to establish air suporiority, like the classic American F-15 fighter sweep over Iraq airspace. There will be times J-20 will need to perform these mission but only if it can achieve a critical objective.

Click to expand...

That entirely depends on how many J-20s are in service during the time of a conflict.

There is a big difference between the missions which an aircraft are capable of doing as a result of its design, versus what missions an aircraft will selected to do during a specific conflict under XYZ conditions.


What Zeak was talking about is the full range of missions that J-20 should be capable of doing as a result of its design and the overall pacing threats it was intended to contest and compete against.
How 100 J-20s might be used would be very different from how 500 J-20s might be used, but the breadth and range of ways in which they can be used is ultimately dependent on its design.

ZeEa5KPul said:

I want to say that the pride bit is quite important. Who ever competed for silver? Second place is just first loser.

Practically, the more capable your aircraft is individually, the more missions it can perform successfully, and the more effective it is when working collectively. This accumulation of advantage is what decides wars.

I expect the J-20 with WS-15s to feature more changes to the airframe than just a new engine. I don't expect anything radical, but certainly extensive corrections to whatever problems remain with the rear. I also don't agree that your claim (if I understood it correctly) that the J-20's quality is inferior to the F-35 when it comes to things like fit and finish - problems with the housing of the WS-10C aside.

Click to expand...

I've heard some rumours that canards could be removed as the ws15 tvc can compensate for the loss in maneuverability

sndef888 said:

I've heard some rumours that canards could be removed as the ws15 tvc can compensate for the loss in maneuverability

Click to expand...

No, that's nonsense. The plane simply wouldn't fly if the canards were removed, they're intrinsic to the aerodynamics. That would have to be an entirely new aircraft and it would be nuts for CAC to take on such a project when they're working on the 6th gen fighter.