Striker or Interceptor? Assessing commentary on J-20's role

Now, with this:

Bltizo said:

(...) but an airframe designed for strike will fare far worse as an air superiority fighter, with the same applying for airframes designed for dedicated interceptor function),[...]

Click to expand...

you've started a fight.

Though the precise initial operational requirements for the F-4 Phantom are debatable, I believe I'm standing on fairly firm ground in stating that the initial design objective was for an interdictor and the initial Navy requirement was for an interceptor. And, we all know how that turned out!
Of course, I'm not serious about fighting! I just love the F-4, and the concept of a unified fighter.

The Western analogue would be the F-15, which has been configured for various roles. But the F-15 belongs to a different generation. The canards must be the enablers.

Bltizo said:

J-20 as an air superiority fighter:

Air superiority is a crucial possible role for J-20 which no western defence publication (to the author’s knowledge) has sought to seriously consider it for.should be almost a resounding yes.

It is worth noting, that if J-20 really were an air superiority fighter, it would also be capable of performing the interceptor role and acting as a striker as well, which dramatically broadens the scope of its utility in potential conflict scenarios if the aircraft were merely an interceptor or striker.

Click to expand...

Excellent article, Bltizo. Should be published in Aviation week and Space Technology or some place like that.

Yoi should submit it.

I believe the last quote sums it up nicely.

I believe the J-20 will be the PLAAF's premiere air-superiority fighter, and that ultimately will be positioned and outfitted to be a premier strike fighter too.

janjak desalin said:

Now, with this:
you've started a fight.

Though the precise initial operational requirements for the F-4 Phantom are debatable, I believe I'm standing on fairly firm ground in stating that the initial design objective was for an interdictor and the initial Navy requirement was for an interceptor. And, we all know how that turned out!

"The Phantom has the distinction of being the last U.S. fighter flown to attain

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

status in the 20th century (Wikipedia contributors, 2015)."​

Of course, I'm not serious about fighting! I just love the F-4, and the concept of a unified fighter.

Click to expand...

Definitely true, though I did say it was a "general rule of thumb". I think it is the case that fighters designed more for the traditional aerodynamic characteristics of a striker or an interceptor would function less well as an air superiority fighter in an absolute sense, while an air superiority fighter can still be effective as a striker or interceptor, at least in the modern age of smart guided munitions, stand off weapons, and BVR air to air missiles.

janjak desalin said:

Ultimately, for me, this is your most cogent argument/consideration. It is unlikely that any organization would place operational constraints upon a project that is intended to achieve the state-of-the-practice, at least, if not the state-of-the-art. It is more likely that the philosophical approach to such a project would be to achieve the most capable product possible, and then develop the set of operational objectives this product could fulfill.

Additionally, would an either interceptor or an interdictor platform neccesitate the additional investment of resources required to incorporate high AOA facilitating canards or moveable vertical stabilizers into the design?

Your ideas and arguments are presented clearly. I do suggest a re-read in order to achieve a smoother flow of ideas. Also, be careful to not end clauses or sentences with prepositions.
Example 1, flow:
might read: Ever since its January, 11th, 2011maiden flight, the Chengdu J-20 has been a source of great speculation and discussion in the defence community and general media. Just a suggestion, but this seems, to me, to flow into the subsequent sentence better.

Example 2, final preposition: might read: Air superiority is a crucial possible role for J-20 to which no western defence publication (to the author’s knowledge) has given serious consideration.
Actually, there were only 2 instances of prepositions at the end of either a clause or sentence.

Just a couple of observations!

Click to expand...

Cheers, yeah I wrote the entire thing in one afternoon and I typically find it difficult to start off papers in a graceful way.

Jeff Head said:

Excellent article, Bltizo. Should be published in Aviation week and Space Technology or some place like that.

Yoi should submit it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm not really sure where I could go about submitting it -- aviation week doesn't just take write ups from any old schmucks I don't think.

There are some sites which do take unsolicited write ups, such as the Diplomat, but I think this paper is a bit long for their website... not to mention I'm not overly fond of the Diplomat to begin with.

I believe the last quote sums it up nicely.

I believe the J-20 will be the PLAAF's premiere air-superiority fighter, and that ultimately will be positioned and outfitted to be a premier strike fighter too.

Click to expand...

I think J-20 could make a good strike fighter in the sense that the present F-22 is also a good strike fighter, but I doubt we will see a "Strike J-20" in the same way that F-15E was derived from F-15D. 4th generation air superiority aircraft could be modified without extensive change to their airframes structure to carry more munitions, but for a stealthy aircraft to carry more munitions without compromising its stealth, it needs larger weapons bays which would definitely necessitate a dramatic change in the airframe's structure and geometry which has implications for the aircraft's performance in other domains. If one wanted a dedicated stealthy striker it may be better off to start with an almost clean sheet design.

Bltizo said:

I think J-20 could make a good strike fighter in the sense that the present F-22 is also a good strike fighter..

Click to expand...

Precisely.

Bltizo said:

I doubt we will see a "Strike J-20" in the same way that F-15E was derived from F-15D.

Click to expand...

No need to. Performing in th role in a similar manner that the F-22 does its strike mission would be more than adequate.

Most people, especially early on, that claimed the J-20 an interceptor or striker do it simply to declare it's less than the F-22. What scant evidence they used was the size? They thought it was as large as a F-111. Now we know it's no bigger than a Flanker. Well turn around that scant logic. A Typhoon is capable of besting an F-22. A MKI has just beaten Typhoons. Just as with news that a F-16 beat a F-35, defenders say the F-35 and F-22 would hardly be in a dogfight situation because the enemy would be shot down before it ever comes to it. Then what makes it an air superiority fighter? Stuff that makes size or maneuverability not matter.

Now the speculative unknown. What are those two "vents" on each of the sides next to the intakes. No one ever seems to be able to explain them. I've read speculation it's plasma stealth. Plasma stealth is suppose to envelope the aircraft in an ionized gas much like how the Apollo moon capsules could not be tracked when plasma enveloped them during reentry. There's a change in pattern on those vents with each angle you see in pictures. Meaning those screens on the vents are possibly diffusers aimed in a certain and different direction from one another... maybe enough to cover most of the side of the J-20 in an ionized gas? It also covers the rear when both sides are ejecting. Someone fires a radar-guided missile. The pilot of the J-20 flips the switch ejecting ionized gas and it disappears from radar tracking... It makes the J-20 a whole different animal if it has plasma stealth.

Bltizo said:

Definitely true, though I did say it was a "general rule of thumb". I think it is the case that fighters designed more for the traditional aerodynamic characteristics of a striker or an interceptor would function less well as an air superiority fighter in an absolute sense, while an air superiority fighter can still be effective as a striker or interceptor, at least in the modern age of smart guided munitions, stand off weapons, and BVR air to air missiles.

Click to expand...

I thought Janjak was not disputing your "general rule of thumb". He gave the example of the F-4 that thought it could, but failed in the transformation. As his line reveals

And, we all know how that turned out!

Click to expand...

t2contra said:

I thought Janjak was not disputing your "general rule of thumb". He gave the example of the F-4 that thought it could, but failed in the transformation. As his line reveals

Click to expand...

Oh, I thought he was saying the F-4 was successful as a fighter despite originally having ground attack roots, which I do agree with.
I'm actually of the opinion that the F-4 served relatively successfully as an interceptor, an interdictor/striker and an air superiority fighter at least in the era it was fielded in... despite the F-4 originally having its roots as a strike aircraft.

Great job Blitzo! Must've taken you a long time to gather all the sources and provide compelling arguments. Hopefully Bill Sweetman will take note.