J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

[Inst]

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm highlighting limitations of the J-20 as a drone controller, etc. The idea is quite novel and attractive, but its drawbacks need to be emphasized.

On the other hand, while this is an older news article, I think it does highlight another direction of where the J-20 might be going with the twin-seat variant.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The point is that once you have a twin-seat J-20 set up, you can begin to build variants of it optimized for different roles.

The EW role, a la J-15D, basically runs into your drone controller / AEW&C role given its substantial overlaps. Likewise, if Chengdu wants to develop a strike fighter out of the J-20, a la Su-30 vs Su-27, a twin-seat J-20 is a sufficient core.

 

[Blitzo]

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm highlighting limitations of the J-20 as a drone controller, etc. The idea is quite novel and attractive, but its drawbacks need to be emphasized.

I'm not putting any words into your mouth -- you literally wrote:

But the J-20 also has drawbacks compared to a Y-8. The Y-8 is not a stealth platform, meaning that it would be considerably cheaper. The Y-8 can carry more electronics and crew, as well as providing a more comfortable working environment for command staff working in the Y-8.

There are considerable advantages of a Y-8 compared to a J-20, that means that putting the J-20 as a twin-seater simply to provide a command position makes no sense.

It's the combination of the training and command and control capabilities that justify a twin-seat J-20; i.e, its primary role would be as a trainer, but I wouldn't be surprised if command and control capabilities came up to add more capability to the jet.

My counter argument was that it is irrelevant to bring up Y-8/9 platforms when trying to illustrate "drawbacks," because a twin seater J-20 doing the battle management or drone controller role won't be replacing Y-8/9 platforms but rather supplementing them.

On the other hand, while this is an older news article, I think it does highlight another direction of where the J-20 might be going with the twin-seat variant.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The point is that once you have a twin-seat J-20 set up, you can begin to build variants of it optimized for different roles.

The EW role, a la J-15D, basically runs into your drone controller / AEW&C role given its substantial overlaps. Likewise, if Chengdu wants to develop a strike fighter out of the J-20, a la Su-30 vs Su-27, a twin-seat J-20 is a sufficient core.

I'm not sure what if any consistent "point" you've been trying to make at all over these posts, your arguments jump from one premise to another.


Yes, twin seater can obviously be adapted to other roles, including EW in future.


However the reason I emphasize the roles of "combat capable trainer + command/control" is because those are the ones that yankee described in his article for the twin seater J-20.
Unless there's a good reason to question the logic behind his suggested roles as drivers for why the PLA may seek a twin seater J-20, I don't really see what there is under dispute.

 

[Inst]

Drawbacks aren't "drawbacks". You have to look at things synthetically. There are always drawbacks to any course of action, but that might not mean it's the correct one.

Re: Yankee: I think that the command and control that Trident suggested is wrong, simply because the Su-27PU was built for the Soviet doctrine, which emphasized ground-control interception and would require a command Su-27 to help transition the Soviet Air Force's doctrine.

===

Before I comment further, let me put out some basic facts.

-A J-20 is never going to be as capable as a KJ-200 if we ignore its speed and stealth advantages. A KJ-200, not to mention a KJ-3000, is carrying a larger AESA system that is at least L-band. The J-20 can also go L-band, but it will be limited by its aperture size. On a KJ-3000, you can have a VHF or UHF-band AESA with counterstealth capability that can detect a stealth aircraft at relatively long ranges.

-A J-20 dedicated to command roles is going to be compromised compared to a normal J-20 due to its twin-seat nature. It will have a longer effective range for enemy missiles due to its inferior kinematics, and will likely sacrifice some of its stealth. Moreover, since it is a force multiplier, it is going to be a priority target, and since its survivability has been reduced, it makes it easier for its opponents to neutralize it quickly, making it as though it was never here at all.

====

In the PLAAF's case, a command J-20 leading J-20s would be a step backwards. The only realistic implementation of a command J-20 would be a command J-20 supporting J-11s, J-10s, and JH-7s. The command J-20 would have tremendously increased survivability compared to the aircraft escorting it, making it nonsensical to shoot down the command J-20 before the escort fighters are knocked out. On the other hand, the J-20 would complement the 4th generation fighters it escorts by having greatly superior sensors as well as obfuscating the exact strength of the fighter group. An attacking force could expect a group of 4th generation aircraft to be easy prey, destroyable by its own 4th generation fighters, only to be surprised by a hidden 5th generation supporting element with situational awareness superiority.

For twin-seater J-20s in J-20 formations, on the other hand, the best approach would instead be an EW J-20 as opposed to a "command" J-20. An EW J-20 can compromise its offensive role and go further into its supporting role by emphasizing its ability to jam enemy sensors and missiles. Likewise, since the EW J-20 is not a command J-20, with the flight / squadron leader flying a conventional J-20, the loss of the EW J-20 degrades the ability of the J-20 flight / squadron, but not to the same degree as if the command J-20 were knocked out instead. The EW J-20 could even serve as "vice flight/squadron leader" and lead as a back-up should the J-20 flight leader be knocked out, increasing the robustness and resilience of the flight. And since an EW plane is always an attractive target, it protects the command-and-control system of the J-20 flight by taking hits before the actual flight / squadron leader gets knocked out.

====

For the twin-seater approach, the best model for comparison would be the Su-27. The Su-27 is not an aircraft, but a family of aircraft whose capabilities diverged and evolved radically. The Su-27 is a basic air superiority fighter. The Su-30 is a variant with enhanced strike capability as well as twin seats. The Su-33 is an adaptation of the Su-27 for carriers. The Su-34 is an adaptation of the Su-34 to light bombing roles. The Su-35 is the final evolution of the Su-27 line, taking up capabilities of the Su-27, Su-30, but not the Su-33 and Su-34 in a highly modernized and maneuverable package.

By going twin-seater, the point isn't that the J-20 is going to be doing ALL of these roles. That's essentially the mistake the Americans made with the F-35, that the variants are for different branches, but are intended as all-in-ones. By going twin-seater, the J-20 is extending its development path. Off a twin-seater J-20, you now have an easier time developing a strike variant of the J-20 (main problem is the bay length, not the depth, as I've mentioned. Changing the weapons bay configurations to something more similar to the F-35, with longer side bays, repositioned rear wheels, and smaller main bay might suffice for longer strike missiles) as well as a light bomber version. More importantly, it also enables the development of dedicated EW variants.

====

To summarize:

-If a J-20 twin seater ends up being a command aircraft, its best place is with 4th gens, not 5th gens, because it'll be compromised and a target with 5th gens.
-The J-20 twin seater is more interesting as a transitional aircraft to dedicated variants a la the Su-27 that perform a specific role.

 

[Inst]

Lastly, if we're talking about command J-20s for J-11 squadrons, that's sort of the point, isn't it? They're also trainers. If, say, the squadron leader thinks so and so J-11 driver has potential, he can train the pilot in-squadron before the J-11 driver is transferred to an existing J-20 unit or a newly-formed J-20 unit. He might not even have to do it himself, he could just have his front driver do the training for him.

If we're talking about drone control and all this kind of stuff, you don't need, and you specifically don't want, a command J-20 to do it. It'll just get the command J-20 shot down first. You are better off making the drone control system redundant; i.e, you might have an EW J-20 that focuses on drone control, especially if the supporting role lets the front driver put the J-20 on autopilot, but if the EW J-20 is shot down, command of the drones transfers to the flight leader or someone else. That means the drones keep fighting at reasonable efficiency until they're shot down or all the humans are dead.

Stuff like situational awareness, we have datalinks for that and the EW J-20 can do the work for him monitoring the situation / alerting him to threats, as well as being bait to keep the squadron leader alive.

 

[Blitzo]

Drawbacks aren't "drawbacks". You have to look at things synthetically. There are always drawbacks to any course of action, but that might not mean it's the correct one.



Before I comment further, let me put out some basic facts.

-A J-20 is never going to be as capable as a KJ-200 if we ignore its speed and stealth advantages. A KJ-200, not to mention a KJ-3000, is carrying a larger AESA system that is at least L-band. The J-20 can also go L-band, but it will be limited by its aperture size. On a KJ-3000, you can have a VHF or UHF-band AESA with counterstealth capability that can detect a stealth aircraft at relatively long ranges.

-A J-20 dedicated to command roles is going to be compromised compared to a normal J-20 due to its twin-seat nature. It will have a longer effective range for enemy missiles due to its inferior kinematics, and will likely sacrifice some of its stealth. Moreover, since it is a force multiplier, it is going to be a priority target, and since its survivability has been reduced, it makes it easier for its opponents to neutralize it quickly, making it as though it was never here at all.

Point 1; no one has suggested that a J-20 will be as capable as a true AEW&C aircraft. That is a straw man.

Point 2; as repeatedly stated, the aircraft described by Yankee is a twin seater J-20 that is a combat capable trainer as well as having enhanced command capabilities compared to a single seater.
A twin seater J-20 will not have 100% of the A2A capability or pedigree of a single seat J-20, but it's not intended to. When acting in a forward command role, it needs to be able to defend itself and survive in a hostile environment while also doing the command role. That doesn't require a twin seater J-20 to be just as capable as a single seater J-20, but rather to be capable enough to survive and defend itself.

In the PLAAF's case, a command J-20 leading J-20s would be a step backwards. The only realistic implementation of a command J-20 would be a command J-20 supporting J-11s, J-10s, and JH-7s. The command J-20 would have tremendously increased survivability compared to the aircraft escorting it, making it nonsensical to shoot down the command J-20 before the escort fighters are knocked out. On the other hand, the J-20 would complement the 4th generation fighters it escorts by having greatly superior sensors as well as obfuscating the exact strength of the fighter group. An attacking force could expect a group of 4th generation aircraft to be easy prey, destroyable by its own 4th generation fighters, only to be surprised by a hidden 5th generation supporting element with situational awareness superiority.

For twin-seater J-20s in J-20 formations, on the other hand, the best approach would instead be an EW J-20 as opposed to a "command" J-20. An EW J-20 can compromise its offensive role and go further into its supporting role by emphasizing its ability to jam enemy sensors and missiles. Likewise, since the EW J-20 is not a command J-20, with the flight / squadron leader flying a conventional J-20, the loss of the EW J-20 degrades the ability of the J-20 flight / squadron, but not to the same degree as if the command J-20 were knocked out instead. The EW J-20 could even serve as "vice flight/squadron leader" and lead as a back-up should the J-20 flight leader be knocked out, increasing the robustness and resilience of the flight. And since an EW plane is always an attractive target, it protects the command-and-control system of the J-20 flight by taking hits before the actual flight / squadron leader gets knocked out.

A twin seater J-20 can absolutely complement and command 4th generation aircraft, but it can also complement and command other 5th generation aircraft.

I think you are also getting far too hung up about the tactical "consequence" of calling a twin seater J-20 a "command J-20".
Instead of calling it a "command" J-20, it is perhaps more instructive to call it an "enhanced command J-20".
Single seater J-20s should already have significant command and control capabilities by virtue of its sensors and datalinks, however the aircraft itself will have missions where it is forced to be mixed into the fray against opposing fighters, where the pilot's focus is on that side of the workload rather than helping out friendly aircraft and assets.
A twin seater J-20 will basically have the exact same sensors and datalinks as a single seater J-20, however the addition of a second human enhances the ability of the aircraft to multitask.

It isn't like a single seater J-20 has zero capability to perform the command/control role and that a twin seater J-20 has zero capability to defend itself or perform A2A.
Instead, if we view a twin seater J-20's command/control potential and its A2A potential as a percentage of a single seater J-20's potential in those same domains, I think we get a more accurate picture.
Some back of the napkin and non-scientific hypotheticals; if a twin seater J-20's command/control potential is 3 times that of a single seater J-20 (by virtue of having a second pilot dedicated to the task), but has 90% of its air to air and VLO attributes (due to the additional weight of a second cockpit), that would make for a very viable exchange of capabilities.

For the twin-seater approach, the best model for comparison would be the Su-27. The Su-27 is not an aircraft, but a family of aircraft whose capabilities diverged and evolved radically. The Su-27 is a basic air superiority fighter. The Su-30 is a variant with enhanced strike capability as well as twin seats. The Su-33 is an adaptation of the Su-27 for carriers. The Su-34 is an adaptation of the Su-34 to light bombing roles. The Su-35 is the final evolution of the Su-27 line, taking up capabilities of the Su-27, Su-30, but not the Su-33 and Su-34 in a highly modernized and maneuverable package.

By going twin-seater, the point isn't that the J-20 is going to be doing ALL of these roles. That's essentially the mistake the Americans made with the F-35, that the variants are for different branches, but are intended as all-in-ones. By going twin-seater, the J-20 is extending its development path. Off a twin-seater J-20, you now have an easier time developing a strike variant of the J-20 (main problem is the bay length, not the depth, as I've mentioned. Changing the weapons bay configurations to something more similar to the F-35, with longer side bays, repositioned rear wheels, and smaller main bay might suffice for longer strike missiles) as well as a light bomber version. More importantly, it also enables the development of dedicated EW variants.

====

To summarize:

-If a J-20 twin seater ends up being a command aircraft, its best place is with 4th gens, not 5th gens, because it'll be compromised and a target with 5th gens.
-The J-20 twin seater is more interesting as a transitional aircraft to dedicated variants a la the Su-27 that perform a specific role.

My counterpoints:

A twin seater J-20 operating in the command role can operate to enhance with 4th gen aircraft, where by virtue of its generational VLO compared to friendly 4th gens obviously it will be much more survivable.
However a twin seater J-20 operating in the command role with friendly 5th gens is also survivable because such an aircraft will be able to retain the vast majority of the single seater's VLO and A2A attributes, while by nature of the aircraft's role it won't be going forward into the fray alongside single seater J-20s but can afford to stay back dozens of km behind the frontline.


Whether we see future J-20 variants with more significant structural changes like the Flanker family is yet to be determined and at this stage without any meaningful rumours to suggest such variants are being pursued, it is too early to get in depth.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The electric scooter bros are mad that they didn't make the cut for the promotional video.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Inst]

Point 2; as repeatedly stated, the aircraft described by Yankee is a twin seater J-20 that is a combat capable trainer as well as having enhanced command capabilities compared to a single seater.
A twin seater J-20 will not have 100% of the A2A capability or pedigree of a single seat J-20, but it's not intended to. When acting in a forward command role, it needs to be able to defend itself and survive in a hostile environment while also doing the command role. That doesn't require a twin seater J-20 to be just as capable as a single seater J-20, but rather to be capable enough to survive and defend itself.

The problem with a forward command post is that, #1, no one does that.

The only command fighter that's ever been designed was done by the Soviets, because the Soviets started from GCI doctrine and wanted to move away from it.

If you say, look at an F-22 flight, of course you have a flight commander, but he's flying in a standard F-22, perhaps better maintained, but not a dedicated command F-22.

====

Now, if you had careful reading comprehension, my entire point is that if the Chinese developed a forward command J-20, the point of a forward command J-20 would not to be to forward command J-20s, but to forward command J-11s and other 4th generation aircraft.

As mentioned before, you are creating a VULNERABILITY in having a command J-20. In a conventional flight, you have no idea who the hell is the flight commander. You strike whatever you can, but if you could wipe out the leader quickly, you would, because it'd wipe out the command and control and thus leave the enemy flight leaderless. But since you don't know who the commander is, you don't try to prioritize the commander.

However, if you create a distinct command J-20 type, the moment the command J-20 comes out on sensors, the entire opfor will be trying to knock him down. It's like putting shiny badge insignia in an infantry environment with way too many snipers.

====

When you are saying that Yankee is purporting a command J-20, what I am saying instead is that he's talking about a command J-20 for J-11 units. When you put a J-20 in a J-11 unit, first, the Chinese are doing mixed unit training right now and are experimenting with pairing J-20s with J-11s. If the J-11 is tasked for light air superiority missions alongside strike missions, having a J-20 alongside means that the J-11s are much more capable when facing 4th gens because the J-20 is giving them overwhelming sensor superiority, alongside the fact that the J-20 is a hidden asset (the J-11s will be spotted way earlier). If the J-11 is handling strike, the J-11 flight might look vulnerable to a cursory look on radar, but as they are hiding a J-20, they are less vulnerable. It is the doctrine of Q-ships used by British merchant marines in WW2.

A twin seater J-20 can absolutely complement and command 4th generation aircraft, but it can also complement and command other 5th generation aircraft.

I think you are also getting far too hung up about the tactical "consequence" of calling a twin seater J-20 a "command J-20".
Instead of calling it a "command" J-20, it is perhaps more instructive to call it an "enhanced command J-20".
Single seater J-20s should already have significant command and control capabilities by virtue of its sensors and datalinks, however the aircraft itself will have missions where it is forced to be mixed into the fray against opposing fighters, where the pilot's focus is on that side of the workload rather than helping out friendly aircraft and assets.
A twin seater J-20 will basically have the exact same sensors and datalinks as a single seater J-20, however the addition of a second human enhances the ability of the aircraft to multitask.

It isn't like a single seater J-20 has zero capability to perform the command/control role and that a twin seater J-20 has zero capability to defend itself or perform A2A.
Instead, if we view a twin seater J-20's command/control potential and its A2A potential as a percentage of a single seater J-20's potential in those same domains, I think we get a more accurate picture.
Some back of the napkin and non-scientific hypotheticals; if a twin seater J-20's command/control potential is 3 times that of a single seater J-20 (by virtue of having a second pilot dedicated to the task), but has 90% of its air to air and VLO attributes (due to the additional weight of a second cockpit), that would make for a very viable exchange of capabilities.

As I've stated before, a dedicated EW AEW&C J-20 does the job better than a "command" J-20. As I've also stated, you are in an era with datalinks and autopilots where command data does not have to be processed where it's generated. Likewise, by separating the eyes from the brain (a slug, for instance), you lower the level of vulnerability. Instead of having a single force multiplier that's going to attract enemy fire like crazy, you now have two force multipliers that are partially redundant.

 

[Deino]

@Inst ... please!! "A dedicated EW AEW&C J-20" is ridiculous.

On the one side you say the main issue for "a forward command post (J-20) is that, #1, no one does that" and a few sentences below you suggest a "dedicated EW AEW&C J-20", which also no-one does.

 

[Inst]

@Inst ... please!! "A dedicated EW AEW&C J-20" is ridiculous.

On the one side you say the main issue for "a forward command post (J-20) is that, #1, no one does that" and a few sentences below you suggest a "dedicated EW AEW&C J-20", which also no-one does.

EA-18 Growler. EA versions of the F-111 Aardvark.

And on the claim of a twin-seat J-20, like I said, it's suited to development potentials.

IIRC, the difference between an EA-18 and F-18 or F/A-18E is that the EA-18 can both jam as well as triangulate enemy emitters. The other F-18s can detect emitters but not triangulate. So it's already an AEW&C of sorts.

 

[latenlazy]

EA-18 Growler. EA versions of the F-111 Aardvark.

And on the claim of a twin-seat J-20, like I said, it's suited to development potentials.

IIRC, the difference between an EA-18 and F-18 or F/A-18E is that the EA-18 can both jam as well as triangulate enemy emitters. The other F-18s can detect emitters but not triangulate. So it's already an AEW&C of sorts.

Converting a stealth plane to an EA platform defeats the point of stealth. It’s an excessively wasteful and expensive way to accomplish the same roles as a non-stealth plane. Furthermore, a two seater J-20, if part of its intended capabilities is to control drones, could perform the same roles with EA drones while still preserving its own stealth attributes.