J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Bltizo said:

In other words, you are saying that F-22 faces the same degree of "disadvantage" in terms of WVR missiles that J-20 does, because both aircraft are only capable of carrying two WVR missiles?
After all, you would have to be internally consistent with that logic.

I would also like to again add that F-35 does not have the ability to carry AIM-9Xs internally.

Click to expand...

Yes, in terms of kill ratio capabilities. Every missile has the potential to jam, misfire or fail. So taking into account Murphy's law, a J-20 and F-35 would have at best an optimistic 50% chance of down a enemy WVR in an engagement. I am always of the opinion that making 5th gen fighters carry a minimum number of WVR missiles ignores the real life issues of mechanical reliability and countermeasures.

And yes, I do know that the F-35 atm is not designed to carry AIM-9X internally. But that is not my main focus, my focus is one the number of missile and the type carried per plane.

Viktor Jav said:

Yes, in terms of kill ratio capabilities. Every missile has the potential to jam, misfire or fail. So taking into account Murphy's law, a J-20 and F-35 would have at best an optimistic 50% chance of down a enemy WVR in an engagement. I am always of the opinion that making 5th gen fighters carry a minimum number of WVR missiles ignores the real life issues of mechanical reliability and countermeasures.

And yes, I do know that the F-35 atm is not designed to carry AIM-9X internally. But that is not my main focus, my focus is one the number of missile and the type carried per plane.

Click to expand...

Well, going by that logic fifth gen fighters have a disadvantage at BVR range as well since the most BVR missiles any fifth gen fighter could carry internally is six (F-22).

siegecrossbow said:

Well, going by that logic fifth gen fighters have a disadvantage at BVR range as well since the most BVR missiles any fifth gen fighter could carry internally is six (F-22).

Click to expand...

6 is still a better number than 2, plus it is not so far from Cold War style arrangements. A F-15's standard load of BVR missiles would be 8, which compared to the F-22's 6 is a still a reasonable ratio of 4:3. Reducing the number of WVR missiles from 4 to 2 represents a drastic cut of 50% of a plane's fire power.

Viktor Jav said:

Yes, in terms of kill ratio capabilities. Every missile has the potential to jam, misfire or fail. So taking into account Murphy's law, a J-20 and F-35 would have at best an optimistic 50% chance of down a enemy WVR in an engagement. I am always of the opinion that making 5th gen fighters carry a minimum number of WVR missiles ignores the real life issues of mechanical reliability and countermeasures.

And yes, I do know that the F-35 atm is not designed to carry AIM-9X internally. But that is not my main focus, my focus is one the number of missile and the type carried per plane.

Click to expand...

Well, I think we can leave F-35 out of the discussion because it is unable to carry WVR missiles internally, meaning its BVR to WVR engagement profile is very different to J-20 or F-22.


Whether J-20 or F-22's two WVR missiles each is sufficient for the kind of missions they may perform is an interesting debate. A larger magazine is always good but it must also always be balanced against other domains of performance, whether it is RF stealth or overall size/weight or kinematic performance.


The main reason I decided to interject in this case was to make clear that J-20 most certainly is able to carry two WVR missiles and whatever "deficiency" it faces in terms of WVR AAM quantity, it is no inferior to that of F-22 (and both are of course superior to F-35)

Viktor Jav said:

6 is still a better number than 2, plus it is not so far from Cold War style arrangements. A F-15's standard load of BVR missiles would be 8, which compared to the F-22's 6 is a still a reasonable ratio of 4:3. Reducing the number of WVR missiles from 4 to 2 represents a drastic cut of 50% of a plane's fire power.

Click to expand...

Comparisons with cold war missiles aren't really valid.

During the cold war, WVR missiles used simple infrared seekers which were easy to distract with flares or to jam.
Now they have Imaging Infrared Seekers, which actually produce a picture of the target, so the missile can recognise an aircraft and aim at a specific part.

And on BVR missiles, we now have frequency hopping AESA radars which should be difficulty/impossible to jam effectively.

Plus there have been improvements in the manoeuvrability of the missiles in the terminal phase

Li Guang In a Press Conferencec Said J-20 Designed For Air Superiority,Well, A Simple Question, Where is the J-20 Cannon?

Ariana said:

Li Guang In a Press Conferencec Said J-20 Designed For Air Superiority,Well, A Simple Question, Where is the J-20 Cannon?

Click to expand...

Are you referring to this press conference?



I don't think he explicitly mentioned that J-20 is designed for air superiority in that interview. What he did state are that the J-20 has excellent agility and handling characteristics on par with those of the J-10 and that the J-20 employs a side controller stick so that the pilot could operate better under high-G conditions. What he said contradicts the western assumption that the J-20 is incapable of close-range knife fights due to its length, mass, and/or underpowered engines.

Yankee revealed that although there isn't a gun on J-20, there is a location reserved for it. The current assumption is that the weight penalty (half metric ton) is not worth it considering the fact that interim engines are still in use.

siegecrossbow said:

Are you referring to this press conference?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't think he explicitly mentioned that J-20 is designed for air superiority in that interview. What he did state are that the J-20 has excellent agility and handling characteristics on par with those of the J-10 and that the J-20 employs a side controller stick so that the pilot could operate better under high-G conditions. What he said contradicts the western assumption that the J-20 is incapable of close-range knife fights due to its length, mass, and/or underpowered engines.

Yankee revealed that although there isn't a gun on J-20, there is a location reserved for it. The current assumption is that the weight penalty (half metric ton) is not worth it considering the fact that interim engines are still in use.

Click to expand...

There was an AVIC pamphlet however that listed "seizing and maintaining air superiority" as one of J-20's missions, and is listed first.

siegecrossbow said:

The main problem with the F-35 is that it couldn't fire the AIM-9X from its internal weapons bay

Click to expand...

Well because of the small internal bays it generally might ditch the IT guided weapons if in "Stealth" load out.

Viktor Jav said:

Yes, in terms of kill ratio capabilities. Every missile has the potential to jam, misfire or fail. So taking into account Murphy's law, a J-20 and F-35 would have at best an optimistic 50% chance of down a enemy WVR in an engagement.

Click to expand...

Bogus. Modern air to air missiles are far better then they were in the cold war.

I am always of the opinion that making 5th gen fighters carry a minimum number of WVR missiles ignores the real life issues of mechanical reliability and countermeasures.

Click to expand...

they carry no less then the standard air to air loads of late model 4th gens.

And yes, I do know that the F-35 atm is not designed to carry AIM-9X internally. But that is not my main focus, my focus is one the number of missile and the type carried per plane.

Click to expand...

Modern radar guided air to air missiles don't have a minimum range. In essence every missile in the load can be used for WVR combat. No matter guidance. J20 with the load out we saw flying in the air show doesn't have just 2 close range missiles it has 6.

siegecrossbow said:

that the J-20 employs a side controller stick so that the pilot could operate better under high-G conditions

Click to expand...

That's a very common feature for any number of fighters it's not just for G forces it's also for comfort. But not all modern fighters have it for example well F35 has it FA18 doesn't F22 has it but SU35 doesn't. F16 Does yet F15 doesn't eurofighter doesn't Rafael does.
The choice for HOTAS is not dedicated by mission aim of the fighter as it is air craft designer and manufacturers. I mean Boeing Dreamliner is one of the most advanced airliners in the world it has a traditional yoke well Airbus all use joysticks, Why? The designers.

siegecrossbow said:

the western assumption that the J-20 is incapable of close-range knife fights due to its length, mass, and/or underpowered engines.

Click to expand...

I would add the word "some" in there.

siegecrossbow said:

Yankee revealed that although there isn't a gun on J-20, there is a location reserved for it. The current assumption is that the weight penalty (half metric ton) is not worth it considering the fact that interim engines are still in use.

Click to expand...

That makes more and more sense. But still it does mean there is a penalty from the engines.

Bltizo said:

There was an AVIC pamphlet however that listed "seizing and maintaining air superiority" as one of J-20's missions, and is listed first.

Click to expand...

That's still a major mission for all air to air capable fighters.