Well, I guess we have a different understanding of "what is air-superiority".
I don't know you, but let F-22 drop JDAMs is sounds like total waste to me. And if you emphasis that "someone have some kind of capability", it is true, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-10, J-11, WZ-8, WZ-9, WZ-10.... all have the capability to fire rockets, and I bet if the crew install rocket pods on J-20, it can work well also.
The way you feel let J-20 fire rockests is a waste (if not stupid), is exactly the way I feel let F-22 to drop JDAMs. And as you can see, people keeps emphasise of this "capability".
Bltize, I have nothing personal to "emphasis" here, I think it is just the different way of thinking, for us.
Sure, no problem.
but arming an F-22 with JDAMs is not the same as arming a J-20 with rocket pods. One is useful, the other isn't. You wouldn't arm a J-20 with rocket pods anyway, you'd arm them with precision guided (satellite, optic, laser, or even a combination) munitions.
If you're up against an enemy with a relatively weak air force but a strong SAM defence network then that's where a fast, high altitude, stealthy striker is useful. Or even if it's a stronger air force the strike capability wll still be invaluable to target communication centres, air bases, etc.
Again I have to say that strike would be the J-20s secondary role, the primary will still be air superiority and the only real difference between the two is the additional avionics, which will not have a detrimental effect on air superiority.
Every plane you mentioned there -- J-6 to WZ-10, may be able to inflict the same amount of damage to the ground, but they won't be able to go to the places the J-20 can go, without being shot down.
I think that implicit in this argument about the role of the J-20 is the idea that it has to be the only plane to engage or scare away an American intervention. I don't think that makes any sense.
The J-20 is a huge leap forward, but it's still not an all-around match for the latest western designs. So if you don't currently have the same level of technology as your competitors, you make other trade-offs. The Chinese designers seem to have gone for range, so they might not be able to beat an F-22 head-on, but they'll be able to engage the F-22's battle group before the F-22 can get close enough to hit J-20's base.
I'm not sure about technology, but the capabilities should be there by about 2020, I see no reason why it can't take F-22s head on, while still having the extra bit of range and speed/altitude to pick off force multipliers like AWACS and tankers (if that's what you meant by the F-22's "battle group"). Honestly the J-20 isn't
that much larger than F-22 or PAK FA, and the idea that the extra size/range means it must have made trade offs in other areas (technology??) is not very sensible.
That ability makes the J-20 immediately useful, and also gives it a role in the medium term, after China introduces it's next fighter. If they introduce another fighter that focuses on air-superiority in the next ten or fifteen years, then that and the J-20 combined could be an excellent answer to the F-22, or even to the F-22's successor.
I'm not sure what you mean here -- you said the J-20 can strike the F-22s "battle group" (I assume aerial formation/assets) before the F-22 can strike the J-20s base... but isn't that a bit too subjective? Who knows what kind of scenarios the two will engage in. A number of constants will be there, such as the performance of the respective fighters and maybe the weapons load out, but they could very well face off in the middle of the ocean mid-patrol, or the J-20s could be moving to strike US bases in the pacific and F-22s intercept, etc etc...
I agree the J-20 will be certainly useful in the mid to long term even until the USAF fields a 6th generation replacement, but your reasoning is rather skewed.
