J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if he had a glimpse of something in one of the hangers.
A XQ-58A Valkyrie drone is essentially a small fighter jet that is 9metres long and has a range of 4000km.
So a dedicated anti-drone defense system is actually another airborne drone.
In a ground-attack role, the drones would face the same air defence systems designed for a fighter jet anyway.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Dogfighting is only a tiny part of air combat. There are plenty of ways even current operationally deployed drone technology could be used to incredible effect in air to air combat.
Just a couple of obvious examples:
- off-board munitions carrier. With co-operative engagement, it’s pretty straight forward to have drones carry additional BVRAAMs that could be launched at enemy aircraft. Ideally you would want a dedicated developer platform for such uses, to incorporate things like VLO+internal weapons carriage and high speed and altitude to maximise the performance of BVRAAMs.
- off-board sensor platform(s). Aside from the obvious of carrying powerful active sensors to scan for hostiles to allow your own manned VLO platforms to avoid needing to use their own radars, a more interesting and useful means to counter enemy VLO would be for multiple VLO UAVs with passive sensors to fly in formation (doesn’t need to be fixed formation; they can also fly an optimised search pattern to maximise the odds of picking up defected signals) with a manned or unmanned actively scanning asset to form an effective network array. Current stealth tech works by deflecting the incoming radar energy so they bounce off into a different direction as the source of the radar waves. With such a sensor array, you can position UAV sensor platforms to maximise the odds that deflected radar energy are picked up by the UAVs (who’s sensor information could be data fused and displayed to the manned fighter), thereby rendering stealth irrelevant.
- have ultra high flying UAVs operating as mini-satellites and datalink nodes, so both your manned VLO and unmanned assets are directing datalinks into space rather than at each other, to minimise chances of detection or jamming.
Now, granted all of those uses of UAVs can be automated, but it is also inarguable that they would work much better with a human touch.
The idea is not to make every J20 twin seaters; or even to have a significant proportion of J20s as twin seaters, but having a single twin seater amongst a formation of J20s, to act as a mini-AWACS/forward controller, especially when J20s are operating on conjunction with one or more of the above mentioned UAV types, or others not even thought of, that can be a massively powerful force multiplier, especially when operating against other VLO fighters.
Just a couple of obvious examples:
- off-board munitions carrier. With co-operative engagement, it’s pretty straight forward to have drones carry additional BVRAAMs that could be launched at enemy aircraft. Ideally you would want a dedicated developer platform for such uses, to incorporate things like VLO+internal weapons carriage and high speed and altitude to maximise the performance of BVRAAMs.
- off-board sensor platform(s). Aside from the obvious of carrying powerful active sensors to scan for hostiles to allow your own manned VLO platforms to avoid needing to use their own radars, a more interesting and useful means to counter enemy VLO would be for multiple VLO UAVs with passive sensors to fly in formation (doesn’t need to be fixed formation; they can also fly an optimised search pattern to maximise the odds of picking up defected signals) with a manned or unmanned actively scanning asset to form an effective network array. Current stealth tech works by deflecting the incoming radar energy so they bounce off into a different direction as the source of the radar waves. With such a sensor array, you can position UAV sensor platforms to maximise the odds that deflected radar energy are picked up by the UAVs (who’s sensor information could be data fused and displayed to the manned fighter), thereby rendering stealth irrelevant.
- have ultra high flying UAVs operating as mini-satellites and datalink nodes, so both your manned VLO and unmanned assets are directing datalinks into space rather than at each other, to minimise chances of detection or jamming.
Now, granted all of those uses of UAVs can be automated, but it is also inarguable that they would work much better with a human touch.
The idea is not to make every J20 twin seaters; or even to have a significant proportion of J20s as twin seaters, but having a single twin seater amongst a formation of J20s, to act as a mini-AWACS/forward controller, especially when J20s are operating on conjunction with one or more of the above mentioned UAV types, or others not even thought of, that can be a massively powerful force multiplier, especially when operating against other VLO fighters.
I too consider the idea of a twin seater J-20 to be eyebrow raising.
BUT, I think the rationale for a twin seater could potentially be very solid.
First I'll address a few of your points.
1: FB-22 being single seater -- FB-22 was indeed proposed as a single seater. But yankee doesn't describe a twin seater J-20 as being a striker or a bomber. So, bringing up the FB-22 isn't really relevant.
2: Training -- combat capable trainers are common for a number of different aircraft types. J-10AS, J-11BS, do exist for a reason as do F-15B/D, F-18B/D/F... and many others
3: Controlling drones -- I think you are envisioning a single person "piloting" a drone, but that isn't how future UCAV concepts are going to work. Instead, it is likely going to involve a single person controlling units of multiple drones (or even multiple units) in a manner more like a real time strategy game than a flight simulator.
Now, I'll expand a little bit about why I think a twin seater J-20 could make sense for the roles suggested:
Training:
- Modern simulators for combat aircraft exist and they are quite advanced. One could make the argument that combat capable trainer aircraft like a potential J-20AS may not be needed.
- However, IMO the question of why a combat capable trainer may be "needed" isn't so much about whether the process of training new pilots can be done alone by using simulators and standard single seater J-20s for conversion training, but rather about the speed at which training new pilots can be done.
- I think everyone should agree by now that the PLAAF likely sees a significant need to procure a large number of J-20s in the immediate future to keep up with the proliferation of F-35s in the region. That means in the next few years and likely for the next decade or so they must rapidly procure not only a large number of J-20 airframes, but also the logistics/maintenance infrastructure, but also to train pilots and convert pilots to J-20s as fast as they can.
- I believe the role of a combat capable "J-20AS" offers the ability to greatly accelerate the speed at which pilots can be trained and/or converted to be capable on flying J-20s, compared to the use of only simulators + standard conversion training.
- If the PLAAF are indeed procuring a "J-20AS" with one of its roles being a combat capable trainer, IMO the most logical reason is because such an aircraft is expected to meaningfully shorten/accelerate the speed at which new pilots can be trained to become proficient and ready to pilot J-20s -- compared to not having J-20AS available.
Commanding drones:
- Various future air combat concepts from the US, Europe and other parts of the world involve semi-autonomous UCAVs, drones and "loyal wingman" type aircraft that are significantly cheaper than manned fighter aircraft. The most detailed concepts in the public domain are from the US and partly also Europe, and these involve a relatively large number of drones controlled by individual manned aircraft -- often conceived as either 5th generation fighter aircraft or future "6th generation" (or I would argue in some cases "5.5th" generation) fighter aircraft.
- The drones act as a dispersed sensor/shooter network that the manned fighters use to enhance their overall lethality. By having multiple different airborne drones armed with their own distributed sensors and weapons, it allows your manned fighter to preserve its stealth (by not having to actively emit its own sensors), and to out maneuver the enemy on multiple directions in a way that a formation of manned fighters may not. In other words, the raison d'etre for drones in future is not that they will be able to fly "high Gs that a manned fighter cannot handle because of its human" --- but rather, IMO it's because drones will be cheaper and more numerous than manned aircraft offering the ability to widely distribute sensors and weapons across a large number of aircraft. That provides a much more resilient and lethal sensor and shooter network that you can afford to deploy in high risk and a more attritable manner compared to a formation of only manned fighters.
- Autonomous drone technology is advancing, and will likely be capable of quite advanced networking and mission execution in the coming decade -- however, it will likely still need a human to interpret the battlespace and choose a mission to achieve a goal.
- In a high intensity enviroment, you will likely have to rely on an aircraft that is relatively close to the battlespace (where fighting is happening) to reliably datalink with your drone formations. That means your "controller aircraft" will not only need to be capable of controlling formations of autonomous drones, but it also needs to be very stealthy so the enemy cannot easily shoot down the "mothership" that is controlling your semiautonomous drones ---- but your "controller aircraft" will also have the need to be able to actively defend and attack any opposing aircraft (whether it be drones or manned fighters) that threatens it.
- In other words, I believe a future "controller aircraft" for future semi-autonomous drone formations will need to be stealthy and lethal in its own right, because they will likely be operating relatively close to the battlespace. A large unstealthy aircraft like a traditional AEW&C type aircraft will simply not be survivable, because of its unstealthy and large signature, its poor kinematic properties, its lack of ability to fight and defend itself, and the fact that the number of such aircraft will be relatively limited.
- Now, where a hypothetical twin seater "J-20AS" comes in -- IMO -- is that it can offer enhanced drone command capabilities relative to a single seat J-20A. Sensor fusion and automation technology will likely enable all manned fighter aircraft in coming years to have some degree to control formations of drones, BUT the ability of a human being to do multiple tasks is still a rate limiting factor -- remember, you want your drone "controller aircraft" to have the capability to command AND fight.
- A single seater J-20A may very well be able to command AND fight -- but a twin seater J-20AS with the addition of an extra copilot will likely be able to do both jobs better or to a greater extent, than a single seater.
Commanding other systems in general:
- One other role related to the "drone command" role, is the "command" role in general.
- 5th generation aircraft are equipped with very capable sensors, sensor fusion, and datalinking capabilities. The ability to suck up information via active and passive sensors, and to integrate and share information with friendly forces, to create a detailed battlespace picture to carryout missions is unprecedented compared to previous generations of fighter aircraft.
- One of the roles that 5th generation aircraft have had in the past and at present, is to act as "information gatherers + information nodes" to support friendly ships and aircraft. In other words, they become sort of like "mini-AEW&C/mini-ISR" aircraft that are stealthy, numerous, able to fight off opponents, and able to operate much closer to the battlefield.
- Similar to the ability to command drones, the ability to command friendly aircraft+ships+systems is also highly automated and will continue to be automated, however it is also still limited by the ability of a human to do multiple tasks at once. Your "command" aircraft will still have to operate close to the battlespace -- in other words, similar to the above "drone commander" function, a "forward controller/commander' aircraft will also need the capability to command AND fight.
- The same logic applies -- yes, a single seater J-20A will be able to command and fight, but a hypothetical twin seater J-20AS by virtue of its extra human being will be more capable of doing the "command/forward controller" job than a single seater J-20A.
... now, are the three reasons above enough to make development of a hypothetical twin seater J-20AS be a worthwhile investment?
IMO -- if a twin seater J-20AS was only able to do one of those three tasks, then I would agree that perhaps a twin seater J-20AS may not be worth the monetary cost or the cost of time and expertise.
However, if a twin seater J-20AS was able to do all three of those tasks, then I think a twin seater J-20AS could make much, much more sense and could even be said to be a very reasonable and logical procurement.
This isn't to say that I think a twin seater J-20AS is guaranteed -- I am treating that rumour with a bit of caution.
However, if a twin seater J-20AS does emerge, then I think there is quite a potentially robust rationale for why it is a logical and desirable procurement option.
Not every J-20 will need to be a twin seater. But having a fraction of the J-20 fleet be twin seaters could offer significant benefits.
Last edited:
Glad to see that the 2013 prototype is still in action!
When did they take this photo? If they took it recently then it is a bit of a surprise since I'd think that they would've suspended testing due to the coronavirus outbreak.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Having the J-20 in a dual seater configuration is a natural and logical progression of the fighter. Leaving all the possibilities of drone warfare and training aside. As the first 5th gen fighter in Chinese service, China has every reason to milk the airframe to it's fullest potential, in the end having 2 heads in charge of separate duties is more effective than one trying to do it all, advances in computer softwares notwithstanding.
- Status