J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

• 30-300 Drones. These are in front. They are expendable platforms for sensors and weapons.
• 3x J-20 1seater. These are 100km behind. They are in reserve, and can control a smaller number of drones if required.
• 1x J-20B 2seater mini-AWACs. This is another 100km behind in the rear. They receive sensor data from the other platforms

• KJ-500 AWACs further to the rear
• Divine Eagle Surveillance/anti-stealth/targeting UAVs
• Other surveillance/bomber UAVs
• Potentially near real-time satellite surveillance and comms

AndrewS said:

I think the key driver is the mini-AWACs role when you have tens/hundreds of friendlies and enemies in the airspace.
That is when you really need a dedicated person looking at the overall battle picture.
And yes, a KJ-500 AWACs is too vulnerable in many situations.

Also, once you have a mini-AWACs version, you get an ECM version or training version for free.
But I think these versions are more of a side bonus.

---
Looking at the E-2D Hawkeye as a guide, there are 3 Naval Flight Officers.
But if all the sensor links are automated, and you're controlling drones on a screen rather than having to speak to everyone, then you only need 1 person, namely the "Combat Information Center Officer"

So theoretically, automation means 1 person on a J-20 mini-AWACs could do the job of an E-2D Hawkeye, as long as there are other platforms feeding sensor data.

So here are my thoughts on how it could work circa 2030.

• 30-300 Drones. These are in front. They are expendable platforms for sensors and weapons.
• 3x J-20 1seater. These are 100km behind. They are in reserve, and can control a smaller number of drones if required.
• 1x J-20B 2seater mini-AWACs. This is another 100km behind in the rear. They receive sensor data from the other platforms

In addition, support could be expected from:

• KJ-500 AWACs further to the rear
• Divine Eagle Surveillance/anti-stealth/targeting UAVs
• Other surveillance/bomber UAVs
• Potentially near real-time satellite surveillance and comms

So if inexpensive unmanned fighter/bomber/sensor drones are successfully developed, I would expect a minimum of 25% of all J-20s to be a 2seater mini-AWACs version.

If there is an lifetime production run of 800 J-20s, that would mean 200 of the J-20 2seater mini-AWACs version.
And if unmanned airborne drones really work out in the future, we might see a larger proportion of J-20 2seater mini-AWACs.

EDIT: Just realised that the J-20 actually has a higher takeoff weight than an E-2D.
And that a J-20 2seater mini-AWACS could use external fuel drop tanks whilst over mainland China, if its shorter range was an issue.

Click to expand...

Tirdent said:

Perhaps the best analogy for a twin-seat J-20 would be the Su-30 (by which I mean the Soviet-era Su-27PU command version, not the later multi-role derivatives)? In a 21st century 5th generation setting, U(C)AV control is a natural extension of this concept, so that task seems a likely addition to its mission spectrum.

Modest airframe changes compared to an FB-22 or Su-34 type version, though perhaps more than a straight twin-seater derivative like the F-15D (think Su-30 raised rear seat or J-10AS avionics spine). Weight penalty would probably be 5 - 10%, Gripen deletes the gun to get below 5% - while the J-20 doesn't have one in the first place, the point is that compromises compared to the single-seater were required to limit weight gain. We're expecting it to have *more* capability and equipment than the base aircraft over and above the addition of a second seat, not less!

I doubt training figures prominently in the rationale though - if you think simulators are expensive to procure and operate, try a fully functional stealth fighter instead!

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

IMO it isn't about cost so much as speed.

If a twin seater combat capable trainer aircraft is able to accelerate the speed at which new J-20 pilots can be familiarized and converted to fly standard single seaters than without a twin seater combat capable trainer, then IMO it becomes a question of what the cost vs benefit (i.e.: speed) is.
I get the impression that the PLA is respecting the proliferation of F-35s to be a challenge to be confronted, and part of that process is to accelerate the rollout of J-20 capability. Apart from simply building/procuring more J-20s faster + building the infrastructure to support J-20s faster, it also requires training pilots faster. A twin seater J-20AS that is capable of acting as a combat capable trainer would fit very well to achieve that last requirement.


As I wrote previously, if a twin seater combat capable J-20AS is able to do all three jobs of "combat capable trainer" + "drone commander" + "forward air commander" then I think I think all three of those benefits may be significant enough to make development of a twin seater viable and desirable.

If a J-20AS was "only" able to do one of the above roles then IMO it wouldn't have been worth developing a whole separate twin seater variant. But a twin seater variant able to do all of those tasks would probably be a far more attractive proposition.

Click to expand...

davidau said:

Click to expand...