J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Totoro]

Sure, we basically said the same thing. it could very well be just 250 J20 available by 2030. (and possible 50+ J31 by that time). Or it could be something more like 500, as a total for both.

Versus some 250+ F35C/B, 180 F22, 1000+ F35A. But when talks about deployable figures, then there's also the matter of availability.

If 250-500 is total chinese figure, once the planes undergoing maintenance are substracted, some 70% may be expected to remain ready for missions daily. So that's down to 175-350.
Whereas US would have a more complex set of issues. Its ground bases, whether they house 500 or 1000 F35A/F22, could mostly rotate out the the planes needing heavy maintenance. Basically, if same 70% metric is applied, bases enough for housing 700 planes would cover a total of 1000 planes. Leaving some 180+ planes (from the total above) without room. Instead of 380 planes being without room to be deployed.

Ship born planes have a similar benefit, but some other issues. Out of a total of 250 F35B/C, maybe some 175 may be deployable if using the same metric. That's basically 7 carriers and 7 LHA ships. But using so many at once means that after some months the US would be left with very few ships to keep on station. So a number that's maintainable over a long period is probably closer to 3 or so carriers/LHAs, meaning something like 80 F35B/C.

 

[Blitzo]

Sure, we basically said the same thing. it could very well be just 250 J20 available by 2030. (and possible 50+ J31 by that time). Or it could be something more like 500, as a total for both.

Versus some 250+ F35C/B, 180 F22, 1000+ F35A. But when talks about deployable figures, then there's also the matter of availability.

If 250-500 is total chinese figure, once the planes undergoing maintenance are substracted, some 70% may be expected to remain ready for missions daily. So that's down to 175-350.
Whereas US would have a more complex set of issues. Its ground bases, whether they house 500 or 1000 F35A/F22, could mostly rotate out the the planes needing heavy maintenance. Basically, if same 70% metric is applied, bases enough for housing 700 planes would cover a total of 1000 planes. Leaving some 180+ planes (from the total above) without room. Instead of 380 planes being without room to be deployed.

Ship born planes have a similar benefit, but some other issues. Out of a total of 250 F35B/C, maybe some 175 may be deployable if using the same metric. That's basically 7 carriers and 7 LHA ships. But using so many at once means that after some months the US would be left with very few ships to keep on station. So a number that's maintainable over a long period is probably closer to 3 or so carriers/LHAs, meaning something like 80 F35B/C.

Hah, I think you're being way more specific here than I was.

I think just saying that 100 J-20 vs 20 F-22 by 2030 being a very non realistic comparison and likely not representative of actual deployable and relevant forces is enough.
Anything more specific I think skirts the risk of going down a rabbit hole of being much more off topic.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Both the Su57 and J20 looks and are reported to be able to carry a lot of fuel internally, which should translate into significant range.

That assumes that the fuel economy is good.

 

[plawolf]

Sure, we basically said the same thing. it could very well be just 250 J20 available by 2030. (and possible 50+ J31 by that time). Or it could be something more like 500, as a total for both.

Versus some 250+ F35C/B, 180 F22, 1000+ F35A. But when talks about deployable figures, then there's also the matter of availability.

If 250-500 is total chinese figure, once the planes undergoing maintenance are substracted, some 70% may be expected to remain ready for missions daily. So that's down to 175-350.
Whereas US would have a more complex set of issues. Its ground bases, whether they house 500 or 1000 F35A/F22, could mostly rotate out the the planes needing heavy maintenance. Basically, if same 70% metric is applied, bases enough for housing 700 planes would cover a total of 1000 planes. Leaving some 180+ planes (from the total above) without room. Instead of 380 planes being without room to be deployed.

Ship born planes have a similar benefit, but some other issues. Out of a total of 250 F35B/C, maybe some 175 may be deployable if using the same metric. That's basically 7 carriers and 7 LHA ships. But using so many at once means that after some months the US would be left with very few ships to keep on station. So a number that's maintainable over a long period is probably closer to 3 or so carriers/LHAs, meaning something like 80 F35B/C.

Where would the US base it’s 1000 F22s and F35As for operations against China?

Having the planes but nowhere to operate them from is just as meaningless. It would be same as if someone wanted to pitch a couple million PLA ground troops against the US army. Having the numbers but no viable way to get them to the fight doesn’t really count for much.

Worse would be if the US overcrowded the few bases they do have within range (only just and probably needing tanker support), as those bases are well within range of Chinese missiles. So that just gives China a target rich environment and an opportunity to decimate US air power on the ground; and/or by trapping them in the air by keeping those air bases offline with constent attacks after a big strike wave has left, and just wait for the planes to run out of fuel and crash all by themselves.

In any realistic conflict scenario, the bulk of US 5th gens will have to be Carrier based. With maybe a handful of F22s operating from Guam and Japanese bases as support.

 

[AndrewS]

Deino swooping down on this discussion in 3, 2, 1...
But before that happens, let me just say that any sort of number predictions are mostly futile. Not only do we not know the plans for J20 procurement over the next 5 to 10 years, at which pace would those planes be put into service, but it's impossible to predict what kind of allies might US have, which bases it might have access to, and thus how many US 5th gen fighters might get fielded. So we can't really carefully consider their number, we can only guess. Saying 20 J20s are added per year, to a total of some 260 in 2030 is a guess. Same with 400 J20. One of many possible guesses. Saying there'd be 500 F22/f35 fielded would also be just a guess. Certainly, there'd be something like 1500 f22/f35 by then in US inventory. Whether they'd have enough bases to place a third or two third of that number is another thing.

Then one could also talk about just how much do those deployed figures matter? So maybe US indeed will be limited to 1000 fighters at once. As it loses planes, possibly at a not-so-favorable loss ratio as the opponent may have more, further 5th gen fighters might take their place. While the opponent lacks not only 5th gen fighters to replace them but possibly also has an ever dwindling number of overall planes left. Say, the conflict starts off with 2000 chinese vs 1000 us planes. US loses 500, china loses 500. But China is left with 1500, while US replenishes their bases and is again at 1000. Rinse and repeat. Until China is down to 500, while US is at 1000 deployed and another 500-1000 in store. This is a gross simplification, but it illustrates the point.

On China only adding 200 J-20 in the next 10 years. That would be credible if China's level of military spending drops and the strategic environment becomes less challenging.

But that isn't the case.

I reckon the base scenario is 400 J-20 over the next 10 years, if China maintains military spending at 2% of GDP and the strategic environment remains ok.

But if China-US relations completely break down and a new "Cold War" starts, all bets are off. That is definitely a possibility now.
China has consistently devoted 2% of GDP to the military over the past 20+ years because China is focused on domestic development.
In comparison, the USA and Russia averaged 4% in the same timeframe.

So if China also increases military spending to 4% of GDP, military spending in 2019 jumps from 500 Billion to 1000 Billion USD.
And in 2030, the Australian Foreign Ministry projects Chinese GDP as 42 Trillion USD whilst the US economy is roughly half the size.
So China spending 4% works out as 1680 Billion USD.

So the USA should really try to avoid a cold war competition with China, despite what Vice President Pence thinks.

 

[Klon]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

One assessment suggests that although there are sufficient parking areas at Andersen
AFB, Guam, for 250 aircraft, space available to fighters would not likely exceed
four to five squadrons, or roughly one and a half wings (roughly 100–125 aircraft).
Given its size and location, Andersen would likely base a disproportionate number of
tankers and other support aircraft. A relatively larger proportion of space at bases in
Japan, which tend to be smaller, might be reserved for fighters. Assuming a single wing
at Kadena AB, one at Misawa AB, and one and a half at Andersen AFB, the United
States might base roughly 3.5 U.S. Air Force fighter wings in the area without undue
stress on basing capacity, plus an additional contingent at sea.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

On China only adding 200 J-20 in the next 10 years. That would be credible if China's level of military spending drops and the strategic environment becomes less challenging.

But that isn't the case.

I reckon the base scenario is 400 J-20 over the next 10 years, if China maintains military spending at 2% of GDP and the strategic environment remains ok.

But if China-US relations completely break down and a new "Cold War" starts, all bets are off. That is definitely a possibility now.
China has consistently devoted 2% of GDP to the military over the past 20+ years because China is focused on domestic development.
In comparison, the USA and Russia averaged 4% in the same timeframe.

So if China also increases military spending to 4% of GDP, military spending in 2019 jumps from 500 Billion to 1000 Billion USD.
And in 2030, the Australian Foreign Ministry projects Chinese GDP as 42 Trillion USD whilst the US economy is roughly half the size.
So China spending 4% works out as 1680 Billion USD.

So the USA should really try to avoid a cold war competition with China, despite what Vice President Pence thinks.

It's good to see spending given in PPP terms rather than the ridiculous $175 billion figure at market rates most often quoted or SIPRI's $220 billion. It should be appreciated in many more quarters that the bulk of China's defense spending is internal, where PPP figures are the ones that count. I think China will gradually increase military spending as a share of GDP - hopefully ending up with 3.5 - 4% of GDP by 2030 - rather than a sudden jump, which would risk losses to corruption and other inefficiencies.

 

[AndrewS]

It's good to see spending given in PPP terms rather than the ridiculous $175 billion figure at market rates most often quoted or SIPRI's $220 billion. It should be appreciated in many more quarters that the bulk of China's defense spending is internal, where PPP figures are the ones that count. I think China will gradually increase military spending as a share of GDP - hopefully ending up with 3.5 - 4% of GDP by 2030 - rather than a sudden jump, which would risk losses to corruption and other inefficiencies.

As long as a cold war doesn't develop, I would like to see Chinese military spending stay at 2% of GDP. There are lots of other things that the money could be spent on.

That will still fuel a huge increase in conventional spending and capabilities across the entire military spectrum. But the key thing is that China fields enough survivable ICBMs for Mutual Assured Destruction to apply.

Something like 60 DF-41s with 600 warheads would definitely be enough.

 

[supercat]

I think the reason (at least for the SD-10A) being larger/longer than the AIM-120 series is its speed. According to the brochure below the SD-10A speed is greater than mach 5 .

I tried to fit in 3x missiles in one compartment based on Bltizo's post, but until we get clearer images I would have to say you cannot fit 3x even with the rear fin folded. The center fins still obstruct.

View attachment 49983
View attachment 49982

This reminds me of the old argument about machine guns and cannons. Should you install machine guns, which have a higher rate of fire and can spray more bullets, or should you install cannons, which shoot farther and have a heavier punch?

 

[AndrewS]

This reminds me of the old argument about machine guns and cannons. Should you install machine guns, which have a higher rate of fire and can spray more bullets, or should you install cannons, which shoot farther and have a heavier punch?

My view is that larger calibre rounds are better.

We now have guided bullet rounds like EXACTO, so range will become more important than spraying out a huge number of rounds.
Imagine if a laser could target the cockpit of an opposing aircraft.

And if a stealth fighter even gets damaged by 1 round, I imagine that it will no longer be stealthy to X-Band radar.
That makes it an easy target in the air or results in a mission kill because you have to repair or replace a section of the aircraft.

Come to think of it, could this be the reason we don't see a gun on the J-20 yet?

Russia is supposed to be developed a smart bullet with a range of 10km