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

b787

Captain
In my personal opinion the J-20 is multirole, modern avionics allow with the flick of a thumb change from fighter to striker,
Modern stealth aircraft use advanced missiles and thrust vectoring to cover for whatever performance or maneuverability loss stealth causes.

So if you ask me, can i envision a J-20 doing the striker and interception role as well the air superiority mission, yes i can, it will do all, simply for price these aircraft are prohibitively expensive to do just a single mission.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Very sound and very true. This theory that the J-20 is a strike fighter could also be seen as an reflection, and the bias it carries, of the fear among western analysts for what the aircraft means for the US military in Asia, with aircraft carrier groups being the cornerstone of American power in the Asian pacific region. This is why many western articles speculate so much that the J-20 is a specialist at naval strike missions as such of scenario would implicate enormously for defence planners. However does such fears identify what the J-20 aircraft really is?

I'm going to first off say excellent article Blitzo, and Jeff is right, it is suitable for publication, and your references and footnoting are excellent. My one criticism and I'm going to put it here is to refer to "western analysts" as fearful as master Tyloe is doing??? why not just refer to us as "capitalist pigs", its much more flattering? Westerner's are not fearful of China or Russia, remember, we are all cowboys? note master Jeff's hat and gun. Nor have western analysts over looked the fact that the J-20 is an air-superiority fighter, just noting that the J-20 would be the only choice for a stealthy, long range naval striker or interceptor, as it appears the J-31 is of little interest and lacks range and size, and even the lovely J-15 would show up on radar like a "neon sign"? \

Tyloe, you make some excellent points about configuration of the J-20, points that are relevant, and show you have a good eye for such differences, and an ability to relate them very well in writing. no need to characterize our disappointment that others are not as desirous of peace as the US is, as fear, it is however profound disappointment that jealousy and resentment seem to be the way of the world, and inevitably lead to the loss of innocent lives, and equally disappointing the hopeful brother-hood that many of us here on the Sino Defense Forum are working so hard to build and maintain??

Congratulations once again Blitzo, and Tyloe you have made some outstanding observations sirs, lets just stick to the truth, and not equate a very real concern for something it most def is not, you gentlemen will no doubt share this concern as all thinking men of honorable intent must? brat
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm going to first off say excellent article Blitzo, and Jeff is right, it is suitable for publication, and your references and footnoting are excellent. My one criticism and I'm going to put it here is to refer to "western analysts" as fearful as master Tyloe is doing??? why not just refer to us as "capitalist pigs", its much more flattering?

I'm not sure if you're joking or not.

Do you feel offended that I use the term "western analysts"? Because the term "west" or "western" is a generally accepted term used by not only non-western individuals but also western individuals in all kinds of news media and social commentary.
I certainly meant no offense when I use the term "western analysts" in my paper, and let's be frank, more often than not it did seem to be analysts or observers from the US or the UK whose opinions seem to propagate loudest on various Chinese military matters, including discussion about J-20.
If you interpreted my use of a generally accepted collective noun as offensive then frankly I'm surprised.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
I'm not sure if you're joking or not.

Do you feel offended that I use the term "western analysts"? Because the term "west" or "western" is a generally accepted term used by not only non-western individuals but also western individuals in all kinds of news media and social commentary.
I certainly meant no offense when I use the term "western analysts" in my paper, and let's be frank, more often than not it did seem to be analysts or observers from the US or the UK whose opinions seem to propagate loudest on various Chinese military matters, including discussion about J-20.
If you interpreted my use of a generally accepted collective noun as offensive then frankly I'm surprised.

No, I don't object to western analysts as a term, only to the inference that they are ignorant or fearful, those who write for the Air Force Magazine have been aware and made some very astute observations about the J-20 and T-50 for some number of years. I use them as an example because in contrast to those characters who are most often quoted, they have provided objective and fair assessments of both of these aircraft, the Air Force Magazine publishing many of Jane's outstanding assessments of Sino and Russian aircraft and forces through the years.

No doubt BHO and Bob Gates were surprised, LOL, perhaps their wives didn't tell them about the J-20??? but there are many more analysts who are right on in their reporting and assessment of J-20 and T-50, and it is illogical to besmirch their reputations, because of Sweetman, Sprey, and company?? We have the F-22 and F-35 as moot testimony to the foresight and assessment of "western analysts" most of whom are never published outside of military circles?

so no I wasn't offended, just think that credit should be given where it is due, just as I gave you full credit for an outstanding article, and Tyloe for making some very good points, western analysts have in fact been very good for the most part, and objective as well.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
No, I don't object to western analysts as a term, only to the inference that they are ignorant or fearful, those who write for the Air Force Magazine have been aware and made some very astute observations about the J-20 and T-50 for some number of years. I use them as an example because in contrast to those characters who are most often quoted, they have provided objective and fair assessments of both of these aircraft, the Air Force Magazine publishing many of Jane's outstanding assessments of Sino and Russian aircraft and forces through the years.

No doubt BHO and Bob Gates were surprised, LOL, perhaps their wives didn't tell them about the J-20??? but there are many more analysts who are right on in their reporting and assessment of J-20 and T-50, and it is illogical to besmirch their reputations, because of Sweetman, Sprey, and company?? We have the F-22 and F-35 as moot testimony to the foresight and assessment of "western analysts" most of whom are never published outside of military circles?

so no I wasn't offended, just think that credit should be given where it is due, just as I gave you full credit for an outstanding article, and Tyloe for making some very good points, western analysts have in fact been very good for the most part, and objective as well.


Fair enough -- there may well be western assessments and outlets who have been more on the mark, although I admit I have not read that many. Maybe I'm simply not watching the right publications.

But I'd say that the usual suspects found on the internet: aviation week, flightglobal, warisboring, the diplomat, the national interest, foreign policy, among others, are all guilty of generally reaching poor conclusions WRT their assessments of J-20.
 

Tyloe

Junior Member
Honestly I'm meant no disrespect to anyone in the community of Sino Defence. What I was countering was the overwhelming negative and inaccurate portrayal of the J-20 and other such Chinese weapon systems, in the mainstream media. This forum is one of a few sources that are unbiased on topics on the Chinese military and industry, unlike what a majority of sources try to write off Chinese systems as being vastly inferior to their western counterparts or obsolete in role. Sino Defence and other such objective sources deserves all the respect for being unprejudiced and insightful on Chinese defence and so does its members and analysts regardless of their background.
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Honestly I'm meant no disrespect to anyone in the community of Sino Defence. What I was countering was the overwhelming negative and inaccurate portrayal of the J-20 and other such Chinese weapon systems, in the mainstream media. This forum is one of a few sources that are unbiased on topics on the Chinese military and industry, unlike what a majority of sources try to write off Chinese systems as being vastly inferior to their western counterparts or obsolete in role. Sino Defence and other such objective sources deserves all the respect for being unprejudiced and insightful on Chinese defence and so does its members and analysts regardless of their background.

Well those characters made a fine living criticizing the F-22 and the F-35, so the J-20 is simply in good company?

Really, most of the very fine analysts work for the US military and defense contractors, their demeanor is anything but fearful, and many are ex-military with real world combat experience. They do their best to make accurate, substantive assessments that help us all to be prepared and to counter strength with strength?

The internet has opened this whole new world to many of us, while allowing the "fear mongers" carte blanc to peddle their drivel all across the internet. I cite AFM because it has been a primer for those wanting timely and accurate assessments of the threat, and means to counter those threats on the aviation front? Thank you gentlemen for your honest and upfront response, and I only mention it because of your otherwise excellent posts, thank you both for your kindness and honesty here.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Yes, I didn't bother to try and estimate the volumes or weights for J-20 or other fighters, given those numbers won't be really useful unless we have other things to work with.

Of course, the difference in internal volume will say a lot for J-20's potential range compared to F-22, but that was an argument for another time.

Since i like to just muse about what could be, i'll go ahead and say it: I do expect j20 to have quite a bit more internal fuel than f-22 and greater unrefuelled internal fuel only ferry range. When taking into account those 10-ish cubic meters of volume, and substracting the volume of larger weapon bay, more volume for engine intake tunnel and/or engine volume itself (i do expect ws-15 to be larger than f119) and volume for longer body, meaning more support structures, I still think some 3-5 cubic meters of pure extra space should be left over what f-22 has. That's roughly 2,5 to 4 tons of fuel.

On the other hand, j-20 is bound to be heavier than f-22, if all else is even remotely comparable. (if it isn't made for 2,000 hour life, if it can carry at least some bombs in bay and under wings, if its RAM materials are made of similar quality and used in similar quantities, etc)

Assuming a similar lift coefficient since roles are roughly similar, a simple linear increase of fuel consumption should suffice. So something like 23-24 tons of empty weight for j-20 might be in order. for a greaters mass (and similar lift) more fuel would be needed during flight. So instead of 8,2 tons something like 10 tons might be needed to achieve same range as f-22. Which leaves 0,7 to 2,2 tons of extra fuel for cruise segment. That bit is hard to asses but if we know that f15e uses some 2,5 tons of fuel per hour for max range at 40k feet and f-35 uses 1,8 tons per hour at same altitude, we might conclude j-20 might enjoy 12 to 40 minutes worth of extra cruising time, equalling anywhere from 100 to 300-ish extra km of unrefuelled ferry range.

Yes, i am aware that margin of error here is so big that it might completely eclipse the final figures but it's still fun to guesstimate.

Then again, j-20 might indeed be purposefully made to have an airframe which will never carry anything outside the weapon bays, an airframe that will last just half or less of lifetime that f-22 was made for and/or airframe lined with RA materials that are less heavy and less voluminous, made to combat a narrower swath of EM bands. In which case the empty weight of j-20 could probably be even comparable to f-22.
 

Engineer

Major
There is an obvious clue that J-20 isn't a dedicated striker as Western analysts like to claim. That clue is F-22. F-22 represents the biggest threat to China's ability to maintain air superiority. Without air superiority, talk of surface strike is meaningless. So there is no sense for China to build yet another class of dedicate striker knowing it cannot be protected from the F-22. Furthermore, if F-22 could wipe the floor in a confrontation with China as Western media like to boast, then it is imperative for China to have a counter. That counter cannot be in the form of cumbersome surface strike aircraft.

I will not go through the same points that have already been addressed by other posters. Instead, I will focus on the stealth angle, which I believe others have missed. I remember in the very early days, before 2001 first flew, that this picture appeared on Chinese BBS:
7CpS58u.jpg

Bill Sweetman promptly used it as a proof to claim that J-20 isn't stealthy, arguing that the wing's trailing edges are not swept. In fact, I managed to dig up exactly what he said:
J-20 - Denial Is Not An Option

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/28/2010 7:51 AM CST

More photos of the Chengdu stealth fighter prototype, reportedly the J-20, continue to emerge - although they don't add too much as yet to our understanding of the aircraft itself. It will take a little more measurement to pin down the jet's size, and without a plan view we can't say much. (The last time this happened was with the YF-12, and most people were miles away from the real aircraft.)

First, it looks like a delta, not a lambda:

That has some signature implications, with what looks like an almost unswept trailing edge, because edges scatter forward and backwards.

I would like to challenge the reader to re-see what Bill Sweetman saw. The ironic thing is, many on Chinese BBS were wondering whether the wing's trailing edge is swept, and that specific picture was posted by a wall climber to show that the answer being "unequivocally yes". Clearly, we have an example of Western analysts forming conclusion first then looking for premises later. We can also conclude Bill Sweetman's analysis is a joke, and not the kind that's supposed to be funny.

Another claim critics like to use is "canard is unstealthy", which gets repeated as if the-Earth-is-round whenever a discussion on J-20 comes up. Not once did I see someone backs up this claim with an actual study. What's more, proposals submitted for ATF (what eventually led to F-22) and JSF (what eventually led to F-35) included stealth designs featuring canard. If critics' claim is true, one must wonder why such glaring error of putting canard on a stealth designs would be missed by seasoned aircraft designers. Of course, the claim can't be true, because the X-36 technology demonstrator features canard, and was praised as a very stealthy design.

Finally, critics like to point at J-20's engine nozzles and proclaim "J-20 doesn't have all aspect stealth", while praising F-22 nozzles as the de-facto stealth design. In reality, the F-22 nozzles don't make the plane stealthy from the rear. Let's look at an illustration. Here we have a picture of F-22 on afterburners:
vXJ0wsU.jpg


We know the afterburners are on because we can see the flame. The flame is held by flame holders, so what we are looking at is the flame holders themselves. One important thing to know about them is that they are concave, so as to shield the flame from very fast moving exhaust. Here, one can see the flame holders in the nozzle of a F-22, with about sixteen of them in each engine:
r21dGky.jpg


Needless to say, the requirement to hold the flame precludes the assembly from being stealthy. Then, there are the turbines sitting in front of the flame holders, with all sort of voids to bounce radar signal in an uncontrollable fashion. The fan at the front of the engine has the same problem, but engineers meticulously designed the intake duct so as to hide the engine from view, as illustrated:
6q8JUO6.jpg


It is hard to appreciate the design, and the amount of work in coming up with such design, until one looks at the intake duct before its installation:
sA84KBM.jpg


So, the notion that F-22 styled nozzles give the aircraft all-aspect stealth is flawed, simply because hiding the engine from view clearly involves way more effort than just making the exhaust rectangular or adding sawtooth to the exhaust petals.

In short, for the each issue raised regarding J-20's deficit in stealthiness, there is a counter-example showing it not to be an issue at all. We can conclude that, as far as stealth is concerned, Western analysts' criticisms of the J-20 do not come form an engineering point of view.
 
Last edited:
Top