J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
There is a chance that the TVC equipped J-20s will go to Dingxin initially since they could better emulate the Raptor in close-in combat. They could also be used to gain experience flight experience for WS-15 tvc later down the pipeline.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too, but I didn't want to say it aloud because really there are just so many other reasons why having combat capable J-20s with TVC WS-10s make sense, whether it's in service among training/tactic/opfor units, or in service as regular combat J-20s (alongside standard J-20s w/ WS-10s or Al-31s)... or both.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Figaro said:
But hasn't the TVC system already been tested on the J-20 sometime ago?
Click to expand...
Just because you’ve developed a FCS system with one prototype doesn’t mean you know everything about how that FCS system will behave in real conditions. Expanding testing to multiple units helps you cover a broader range of flight conditions more quickly to refine your FCS system.

Bltizo said:
I was thinking that too, but I didn't want to say it aloud because really there are just so many other reasons why having combat capable J-20s with TVC WS-10s make sense, whether it's in service among training/tactic/opfor units, or in service as regular combat J-20s (alongside standard J-20s w/ WS-10s or Al-31s)... or both.
Click to expand...
siegecrossbow said:
There is a chance that the TVC equipped J-20s will go to Dingxin initially since they could better emulate the Raptor in close-in combat. They could also be used to gain experience flight experience for WS-15 tvc later down the pipeline.
Click to expand...
I’m still stuck on the fact that the leaker referred to these units as 量产. While he might just mean they’re making these planes as a batch it usually implies production planes, not test planes....
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
I’m still stuck on the fact that the leaker referred to these units as 量产. While he might just mean they’re making these planes as a batch it usually implies production planes, not test planes....
Click to expand...

The way I see it there are three main interpretations of it.

1: these 6 J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s are a limited production run but are produced as part of the current batch of J-20s (which presumably will include J-20s w/ non TVC WS-10s).
2: these 6 J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s reflect beginning of parallel production run alongside J-20s w/ non TVC WS-10s.
3: these 6 J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s reflect the beginning of production whereby all J-20s going forwards will have TVC WS-10s.


Regardless of which of these interpretations are true, chances are the first 6 (or the "only 6") of these J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s will be going to one of the training/test/tactics units like Dingxin or Cangzhou.
 
Arienai

Arienai

New Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
The way I see it there are three main interpretations of it.

1: these 6 J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s are a limited production run but are produced as part of the current batch of J-20s (which presumably will include J-20s w/ non TVC WS-10s).
2: these 6 J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s reflect beginning of parallel production run alongside J-20s w/ non TVC WS-10s.
3: these 6 J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s reflect the beginning of production whereby all J-20s going forwards will have TVC WS-10s.


Regardless of which of these interpretations are true, chances are the first 6 (or the "only 6") of these J-20s w/ TVC WS-10s will be going to one of the training/test/tactics units like Dingxin or Cangzhou.
Click to expand...
The leaker said "mass production start in second half of 2020" and he expect roughly (毛估估) 6 to be produced before the end of the year.

I mean as a native speaker it looks like he's saying this is just a start of many to me... So I'm against theory #1.

And consider Pupu mentioned J20B will be equipped with TVC:1.png

And later he said the ones with enhanced WS-10s are named J20B...
2.png

I'm gonna go with #3.

But I'm just interpreting their words so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I

Inst

Captain
There's an intrinsic problem with TVC, which is the TVC reliability. One of the major reasons the F-22s did 2D TVC instead of 3D TVC was simple; their 2D TVC broke down way less often than American 3D TVC designs. Likewise, if you ask about Indian Su-30MKIs, one of the first things that comes up is how often the TVC or the engines has to be overhauled due to lock-ups.

The problem is, when it comes to reliability, you can't prove reliability without testing it; i.e, the TVC systems have to be tested to failure, preferably in real situations, and both the pilots and maintenance crews need to know what to do when the TVC fails.

So 6 TVC J-20s makes sense (and we'll see pictures before we know whether Minnie Chan is full of it again) to test and improve the reliability of the TVC system.

===

And likewise, if Chinese TVC nozzles are detachable, it might make sense to have J-20s operate both with and without TVC because of the difference in maintenance requirements.

===

I'd argue that TVC is an important step forward for J-20s. Canard stealth fighters, as I've stated before, really benefit from TVC as TVC allows them to lock the canard control surface to reduce RCS. And as mentioned before, this is one step forward to a finless mod of the J-20 that can beat current American 5th gens in terms of pure RCS stealth.
 
Last edited:
free_6ix9ine

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
50 J-20s in about 2-3 years of LRIP isn't impressive and this rate isn't either but 50 fighters is more than most airforces have. It's semantics but 50 is a lot of J-20s to me. People have been lamenting how few there are around for the last two years like J-20s are unicorns. I called them "all over the place" because there are way more J-20s than Su-35s in PLAAF already. Probably around twice as many. How much is a lot then? I admit I was quick to treat the production rate post as another one of those complain posts because I unfairly associated it with the total numbers. It's a new fighter and probably demands a lot more to build. 12 per year isn't anything to write home about but it's also not something to be whinging about. 50 units in service is about 1/5th of the entire J-11 fleet nearly.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that China basically has a defensive military strategy that relies on ballistic missiles. A fifth-gen fighter is mostly used for offensives against heavily defended air-space, which is the type of war that the USAF plans for. Simply put, China's main worry is confrontation with the US over Taiwan or the South China sea, which means that ballistic missiles and SAM systems are much more of a priority than fifth-gen fighters.

Which in my opinion is fine. There is no need to overspend on the military, if America wants to fight stupid wars and play "world police" let them do it. Imperial overstretch is what did Rome in.
 
daifo

daifo

Captain
Registered Member
Over reliance on defence gets you defeated or at least most of your country destroyed in pretty much in any modern warfare. SAMs haven't exactly worked for low-offensive airforce iraq , iran, libya, syria etc. It works in Israel because they go out on a search and destroy offensive mission once they detect an attack.


free_6ix9ine said:
Keep in mind that China basically has a defensive military strategy that relies on ballistic missiles. A fifth-gen fighter is mostly used for offensives against heavily defended air-space, which is the type of war that the USAF plans for. Simply put, China's main worry is confrontation with the US over Taiwan or the South China sea, which means that ballistic missiles and SAM systems are much more of a priority than fifth-gen fighters.

Which in my opinion is fine. There is no need to overspend on the military, if America wants to fight stupid wars and play "world police" let them do it. Imperial overstretch is what did Rome in.
Click to expand...
 
free_6ix9ine

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
daifo said:
Over reliance on defence gets you defeated or at least most of your country destroyed in pretty much in any modern warfare. SAMs haven't exactly worked for low-offensive airforce iraq , iran, libya, syria etc. It works in Israel because they go out on a search and destroy offensive mission once they detect an attack.
Click to expand...

Ballistic missiles forms China's offensive firepower. The air force is really second to the ballistic missile force, for a variety of reasons. China's main concerns are at near-shore conflict zones, Taiwan, SCS, that could end up in high-intensity conflicts. Ballistic missiles are much more suited for high intensity conflicts, since they are hard to intercept etc. Plus ballistic missiles are cheaper to develop and technologically less intense than fighter aircraft which might not even survive in an high intensity conflict anyways. That's why you see countries like Iran and North Korea also focus on their missile force than airforce. Because missiles are cheaper to develop and harder to interecept than aircraft. Iran basically has a cobbled up airforce from the 70's, that relies on cannabilizing parts, while north korea has an outdated air-force from the 50's, that doesn't even have sufficient fuel.

The US focuses on their airforce more because they don't envision fighting an high intensity war where aircraft are not as useful. Instead they plan on small wars against weaker adversaries across the globe with no air defense systems, and the need to drop ordinance accurately and cheaply using airplanes is more important than survivability. That's why the US doesn't really focus all that much on their missile force (partly because they signed a treaty) but also because they don't really have a use for it, besides nuclear war.

The J-20 is more of a prestige project than anything that China really needs in any of the conflicts that could happen, to demonstrate that China has the capability to develop a 5th gen aircraft. Thats why there won't be hundreds of J-20's.

TLDR: Ballistic missiles have a higher return on investment than fighter/multirole aircraft when it comes to high intensity war. It is easier to shoot down a stealth jet, than it is to shoot down a ballistic missile.
 
Last edited:
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
free_6ix9ine said:
Ballistic missiles forms China's offensive firepower. The air force is really second to the ballistic missile force, for a variety of reasons. China's main concerns are at near-shore conflict zones, Taiwan, SCS, that could end up in high-intensity conflicts. Ballistic missiles are much more suited for high intensity conflicts, since they are hard to intercept etc. Plus ballistic missiles are cheaper to develop and technologically less intense than fighter aircraft which might not even survive in an high intensity conflict anyways. That's why you see countries like Iran and North Korea also focus on their missile force than airforce. Because missiles are cheaper to develop and harder to interecept than aircraft. Iran basically has a cobbled up airforce from the 70's, that relies on cannabilizing parts, while north korea has an outdated air-force from the 50's, that doesn't even have sufficient fuel.

The US focuses on their airforce more because they don't envision fighting an high intensity war where aircraft are not as useful. Instead they plan on small wars against weaker adversaries across the globe with no air defense systems, and the need to drop ordinance accurately and cheaply using airplanes is more important than survivability. That's why the US doesn't really focus all that much on their missile force (partly because they signed a treaty) but also because they don't really have a use for it, besides nuclear war.

The J-20 is more of a prestige project than anything that China really needs in any of the conflicts that could happen, to demonstrate that China has the capability to develop a 5th gen aircraft. Thats why there won't be hundreds of J-20's.

TLDR: Ballistic missiles have a higher return on investment than fighter/multirole aircraft when it comes to high intensity war. It is easier to shoot down a stealth jet, than it is to shoot down a ballistic missile.
Click to expand...
In military strategy parlance “offensive power” refers to the power to invade and hold territory, while “defensive power” refers to the power to the obstruct and evade invasion. Ballistic missiles are not “offensive” in that sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top