J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

siegecrossbow said:

My guess is that it makes it easier for ground based radars to track the J-20, at least during the initial takeoff phase. They need to jettison that lens during the exercise so that they are stealth. The problem with this is that the ground based radars won't be able to track them for the return flight.

Click to expand...

China's airspace is very congested especially along the coasts and population centers, its imperative that the J-20 is separated from civilian traffic primarily and other military traffic incidentally.... nobody wants a mid-air, and Wolfies suggestion that it is to hide the true efficacy of J-20 stealth also has some merit... for a number of reasons.

Serious doubts about twin seat J-20. We'll see how accurate this "leak" becomes. The FB-22 concepts never included a twin seat proposal at least in artist illustrations. This is 90s early 00s software as well. If improvements in sensor fusion allows strike bombers to be effective with one pilot, the only real purpose for a twin seat is training. Do J-11S and Su-30 have trainer ability? If not, only the J-10 seems to have this requirement. If PLAAF pilots can be effective on Su-35s why do they need a second seat for training on J-20?

Controlling drones theory I find strange. Can you imagine how disorienting it would be to effectively pilot a combat drone in the back seat of a 12G pulling J-20? I'm getting dizzy just imagining it. Drones will be controlled from ground stations or Y-8/Y-9 type aircrafts if range and delay is an issue. That's when they are not operating autonomously.

ougoah said:

Serious doubts about twin seat J-20. We'll see how accurate this "leak" becomes. The FB-22 concepts never included a twin seat proposal at least in artist illustrations. This is 90s early 00s software as well. If improvements in sensor fusion allows strike bombers to be effective with one pilot, the only real purpose for a twin seat is training. Do J-11S and Su-30 have trainer ability? If not, only the J-10 seems to have this requirement. If PLAAF pilots can be effective on Su-35s why do they need a second seat for training on J-20?

Controlling drones theory I find strange. Can you imagine how disorienting it would be to effectively pilot a combat drone in the back seat of a 12G pulling J-20? I'm getting dizzy just imagining it. Drones will be controlled from ground stations or Y-8/Y-9 type aircrafts if range and delay is an issue. That's when they are not operating autonomously.

Click to expand...

The drones wouldn't be piloted directly by the back seater.

So I imagine it would be like a mini-AWACs.
Directing many GJ-11 bomber/recon drones and smaller Fighter drones.

ougoah said:

Serious doubts about twin seat J-20. We'll see how accurate this "leak" becomes. The FB-22 concepts never included a twin seat proposal at least in artist illustrations. This is 90s early 00s software as well. If improvements in sensor fusion allows strike bombers to be effective with one pilot, the only real purpose for a twin seat is training. Do J-11S and Su-30 have trainer ability? If not, only the J-10 seems to have this requirement. If PLAAF pilots can be effective on Su-35s why do they need a second seat for training on J-20?

Controlling drones theory I find strange. Can you imagine how disorienting it would be to effectively pilot a combat drone in the back seat of a 12G pulling J-20? I'm getting dizzy just imagining it. Drones will be controlled from ground stations or Y-8/Y-9 type aircrafts if range and delay is an issue. That's when they are not operating autonomously.

Click to expand...

Nobody is pulling 12G"s my friend, not J-20 anyway, its a solid 9G airplane officially, same as F-35A,, 12G's is well beyond reality, LOL. I'm afraid 99.9% of humanity would be long gone unconscious...

Yall making it sound like the future would be a commander in a super stealth plane commanding a bunch of drones that carry the loadout.

Air Force Brat said:

Nobody is pulling 12G"s my friend, not J-20 anyway, its a solid 9G airplane officially, same as F-35A,, 12G's is well beyond reality, LOL. I'm afraid 99.9% of humanity would be long gone unconscious...

Click to expand...

LOL, solid 9G for sure, but it's hard to tell nowadays for these modern jets, not long ago, Rafale was reported an instant 11G pulled (with the expense of structural integrity and life of course), so we don't know...

stannislas said:

LOL, solid 9G for sure, but it's hard to tell nowadays for these modern jets, not long ago, Rafale was reported an instant 11G pulled (with the expense of structural integrity and life of course), so we don't know...

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between sustained and instantaneous G-force. A pilot could briefly endure instantaneous 11 G but if you sustain it for 20 seconds, he’d probably black out.

Air Force Brat said:

Yep, on the issue of a 2 seat J-20 I have two words, "NYET KOMRAD!".

No one has flown a 2 seat 5Gen, the Indian's wanted one, but the Russians would not/could not deliver on their promise to build one.....

The J-20 should be as easy to fly as the F-22/F-35, so you really don't need a two seater for flight instruction, and tactically the USAF and others have found the Student/Instructor in a "two ship" seems to work very well....

Click to expand...

I agree.

There are good reasons why there are currently no 2 seat 5th Gen fighter platforms It is counter intuitive given what differentiates 5th gen from 4th gen. It is the avionics, sensor fusion, advanced electronic warfare suite and their integration. These are the features that make a WSO role redundant. Modern warfare dictates the removal of such a man in the loop when it comes to situation awareness and electronic warfare. If J-20 goes for a 2nd seat, I would posit that while it may have 5th gen shaping its electronics would still be 4th gen and that would be the reason why it still needs a second seat.

localizer said:

Yall making it sound like the future would be a commander in a super stealth plane commanding a bunch of drones that carry the loadout.

Click to expand...

The future does look like drone swarms carrying the weapons loads

Example below

---
XQ-58A Valkyrie drone
Target Cost: $2M
Range: 4000km
Payload: 2000kg
Launch Method: Rocket-assist from a Container
Recovery Method: Parachute
---

If the future is in simple, low-cost unmanned combat drones like this, that suits the Chinese military just fine for the following reasons.

1. This does count as a *revolution* in airborne operations, and makes existing investments in manned aircraft a lot less worthwhile.
For example, if each manned fighter controls 10+ drones in the future, and it is drones doing the fighting, you don't need 2000 manned fighter jets like the F-35.

2. From a manufacturing perspective, producing large numbers of *low-cost* *good-enough* drones plays to the strengths of Chinese industry.

3. If we have large numbers of airborne drones fighting, it becomes a war of attrition.
And from a budget perspective, the Chinese military should be able to outbuild their competitors, given a larger military budget circa 2030-2035.

4. Geographically, fighter-sized jets struggle to project air power past 800km.

But large numbers of reusable unmanned drones with a combat radius of up to 2000km would allow the Chinese Air Force to project a lot more airpower over Japan (which is a maximum of 1300km from Chinese territory).

China has a lot more in the way of safe rear-area airbases and overall land area to work with, than the 1st Island Chain has available.

It's also easier to project drone airpower to Guam and the Marianas islands.

AndrewS said:

The future does look like drone swarms carrying the weapons loads

Example below

---
XQ-58A Valkyrie drone
Target Cost: $2M
Range: 4000km
Payload: 2000kg
Launch Method: Rocket-assist from a Container
Recovery Method: Parachute
---

If the future is in simple, low-cost unmanned combat drones like this, that suits the Chinese military just fine for the following reasons.

1. This does count as a *revolution* in airborne operations, and makes existing investments in manned aircraft a lot less worthwhile.
For example, if each manned fighter controls 10+ drones in the future, and it is drones doing the fighting, you don't need 2000 manned fighter jets like the F-35.

2. From a manufacturing perspective, producing large numbers of *low-cost* *good-enough* drones plays to the strengths of Chinese industry.

3. If we have large numbers of airborne drones fighting, it becomes a war of attrition.
And from a budget perspective, the Chinese military should be able to outbuild their competitors, given a larger military budget circa 2030-2035.

4. Geographically, fighter-sized jets struggle to project air power past 800km.

But large numbers of reusable unmanned drones with a combat radius of up to 2000km would allow the Chinese Air Force to project a lot more airpower over Japan (which is a maximum of 1300km from Chinese territory).

China has a lot more in the way of safe rear-area airbases and overall land area to work with, than the 1st Island Chain has available.

It's also easier to project drone airpower to Guam and the Marianas islands.

Click to expand...

I think you are making it sound easier than it is.
A dedicated anti drone defense system could make the use of drones unfeasible.