J-20... The New Generation Fighter

[kyanges]

Re: New Generation Fighter

He suggested skipping out on 4th gen fighters and moving straight to 5th gen. That is not very likely.

Does anyone know where huitong got the NATO callsign "Firefangs". Sounds like something he made up.

The actual name MUST be simply the, "Long", because it is. Works in both languages too, perfect.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: New Generation Fighter

He suggested skipping out on 4th gen fighters and moving straight to 5th gen. That is not very likely.

Does anyone know where huitong got the NATO callsign "Firefangs". Sounds like something he made up.

Actually Huitong's calling it "Black Eagle" on his page... the supposed NATO designation is called "Firefang" (I think martian posted a link of it a couple of pages back) -- but I find it a little curious seeing as they haven't even given the T-50 a designation yet.

I personally don't like NATO names -- it clumps all hostile (from a western pov) aircraft into one blob, and calls it good.

 

[Roger604]

Re: New Generation Fighter

lol ... I think you got it wrong, that's not what Roger 604 suggesting ....

Ha ha.... I'm imagining China would come out and say "We have spoken to an alien civilization and they gifted us this advanced aircraft. China is the interlocutor for the alien civilization. Obey us or else the spaceships will come to vaporize you all."

The other countries would have to believe it because there's no other explanation for China going from J-7 all the way to J-20 in one big step!

 

[Blitzo]

Re: New Generation Fighter

The actual name MUST be simply the, "Long", because it is. Works in both languages too, perfect.

Haha well played, well played... But I hope the PLAAF don't name it something with "dragon" in it -- they've overused that word far too much.

(The actual name MUST be simply the, "Sexy", because it is. )

 

[no_name]

Re: New Generation Fighter

Too small for air brake. Besides, she can turn the vertical tail planes against each other for braking.

Me thinks it's for the landing parachute

edit: lol nevermind about the late reply.
Wonder when we will have thread part 2.

Damn going away fron 1st jan to 18th, gonna miss out alot. Wonder when will we see 2002.

 

[Roger604]

Re: New Generation Fighter

However, given the limited number of missiles it could carry, the one or two AShMs it can take internally (under the most optimistic assumptions) would need to be very fast to have any chance of getting past the carrier's point defense even if the J20 somehow managed to evade all the picket ships and CAP (which is unlikely). I was thinking of something like the KH31P here. But such a weapon would not cause enough damage to cripple let alone destroy a carrier.

Interesting analysis, but I wonder why the J-20 can't be used for anti-ship as you say.

First, you get a very rough position of the CVBG via satellite, OTH radar, long-range UAV or sonar.

Then you fly in a few J-20. The CVBG will not be emitting as its trying to hide. Neither side will have an easy time finding each other, but mostly likely J-20 will find the CVBG first since it's so much bigger.

Once J-20 finds the CVBG, they each fire one small but advanced ASM at <100 km range and turn tail.

J-20 is optimized for S-band stealth (among others) and SM-2 will not be able to lock onto it. EP-3 can't track it effectively either. Nor can F/A-18 deal with it.

The small but advanced ASM uses ramjet and travels at high supersonic speeds. In 1 to 2 minutes it impacts the carrier. The small size is compensated by a tactical nuclear warhead. Point defenses like SeaRAM can't handle too many of these incoming at once.

If the size of the plane has to do with bigger fuel tank (and thus longer range), is it plausible that it (the J-20) was designed with the South China Sea in mind? ... perhaps there is a similar interservice rivary between the PLAAF and the PLAN? J-20 vs aircraft carriers argument?

Yes, it is designed with Malacca Straits in minds. You bring up an interesting argument about interservice rivalry but it could also just be multiple approaches to the same goal.

 

[ztz99g]

Re: New Generation Fighter

Please enlighten us as to why on earth a SEAD/DEAD aircraft has to be seen by enemy radar in order to carry out its mission.

I'll grant that the J-20 can perform SEAD under certain circumstances. In situations where a static target is being defended and the SAM batteries are immobile, SEAD can be performed without being lit up by enemy radars. In this case you just go over there and bomb a fixed location. This type of attack actually blurs the line between SEAD and Strike. Classic SEAD as performed by tag-teaming wild weasel and jammer aircraft is done versus mobile SAM units where you don't know their location and thus cannot fly under stealth to a specific location and take it out with a JDAM. The wild weasel serves as bait while trolling around in enemy airspace, when an enemy radar lights it up, the EA-6B trailing behind blasts noise, the weasel destroys the radar with a HARM or JSOW, next target.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: New Generation Fighter

The small but advanced ASM uses ramjet and travels at high supersonic speeds. In 1 to 2 minutes it impacts the carrier. The small size is compensated by a tactical nuclear warhead. Point defenses like SeaRAM can't handle too many of these incoming at once.

The Chinese have said that they won't be the first to use nuclear weapons

 

[Blitzo]

Re: New Generation Fighter

Interesting analysis, but I wonder why the J-20 can't be used for anti-ship as you say.

First, you get a very rough position of the CVBG via satellite, OTH radar, long-range UAV or sonar.

Then you fly in a few J-20. The CVBG will not be emitting as its trying to hide. Neither side will have an easy time finding each other, but mostly likely J-20 will find the CVBG first since it's so much bigger.

Once J-20 finds the CVBG, they each fire one small but advanced ASM at <100 km range and turn tail.
J-20 is optimized for S-band stealth (among others) and SM-2 will not be able to lock onto it. EP-3 can't track it effectively either. Nor can F/A-18 deal with it.

The small but advanced ASM uses ramjet and travels at high supersonic speeds. In 1 to 2 minutes it impacts the carrier. The small size is compensated by a tactical nuclear warhead. Point defenses like SeaRAM can't handle too many of these incoming at once.

If they have a small but advanced ASM that is. I don't think there will be any supersonic anti ship missiles in the near future which can fit into the weapon bays of 5th gen fighter aircraft.
Also the use of tactical nukes effectively gives you world war three (GG) -- China won't be using nukes unless it's a "all the sh*t hits the fan" scenario.
I also doubt an overlapping environment of many Aegis, Hawkeye and CAP won't be able to detect a flight of stealth fighters closing in, espicially if it's to within 100 km. (And why mention EP-3, it's an ELINT platform not a AWACS/AWEC)

This whole J-20 vs CBG scenario depends on too many variables -- detection via sonar, uav, OTH and the like, the ability of J-20 to penetrate an IADS and CAP at sea and get within a dangerously close kill envelope, the size and capability of the missiles (let's assume small subsonic, conventional warhead at the moment. We don't know of any supersonic AShM at the moment)... and then fire off the missiles and turn tail, where their higher RCS hindquarters will be visible to all the remaining ships and aircrafts radar.

I doubt the number of AShMs able to be carried by a flight of J-20's -- if any -- can cripple let alone sink a carrier.

And all this again depends on whether the weapons bay is deep enough to fit AShMs and if China has any AShMs able to fit in there.
The risk of sending in your premier, stealthy air superiority fighter is massive and the chances of all them coming back is slim. Why gamble with expensive J-20s when you can use equally capable JH-7As or H-6 variants instead, which can fire missiles with longer range so they don't need to enter the danger zone?
(Or ASBM, land based AShM, sub launched AShM, or even just a submarine itself)

 

[ztz99g]

Re: New Generation Fighter

J-20 is optimized for S-band stealth (among others) and SM-2 will not be able to lock onto it. EP-3 can't track it effectively either. Nor can F/A-18 deal with it.

The SM-2's guidance is performed by the Mk99 FCR which emits in X-band, not S-band. Stealth aircraft are typically optimized to mitigate higher frequencies like X and C-band, namely those used by aircraft and missile radars for illumination. So in a perverse and roundabout manner you are actually right, though not at all in the way you think. Lower frequencies do much better at picking up stealth aircraft, though the lower the frequency the more sacrifice you make in accuracy. The yagi antenna on the 052C for example is a metric wave radar that emits in UHF band, meaning this radar is actually classified as an "early warning" radar. You know something is there and roughly the direction, but that's about it. That said, ANY radar can pick up a stealth aircraft if close enough to the emitter. An AWACS for example that can detect nonstealth aircraft targets at 600+ km ranges may be reduced to ranges of 200km or less against a stealth aircraft like the J-20. Does the PLAN possess a weapon which can launch from outside that distance? Who is to say exactly what distances are involved? Exactly how much will the stealth of the J-20 mitigate the detection range of the SPY-1 S-band radar? Who is to say? Don't be so quick to assume the J-20 is a silver bullet. It's not. Everything is just a matter of degree.

The small but advanced ASM uses ramjet and travels at high supersonic speeds. In 1 to 2 minutes it impacts the carrier. The small size is compensated by a tactical nuclear warhead. Point defenses like SeaRAM can't handle too many of these incoming at once.

Tactical nuclear warhead..... ? Yeah, maybe the PLAN should equip all its missiles with nukes, since nukes do more damage. Roger, there's a reason both Russia and the US stopped doing that decades ago. Think about it.