J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Perhaps the best analogy for a twin-seat J-20 would be the Su-30 (by which I mean the Soviet-era Su-27PU command version, not the later multi-role derivatives)? In a 21st century 5th generation setting, U(C)AV control is a natural extension of this concept, so that task seems a likely addition to its mission spectrum.

Modest airframe changes compared to an FB-22 or Su-34 type version, though perhaps more than a straight twin-seater derivative like the F-15D (think Su-30 raised rear seat or J-10AS avionics spine). Weight penalty would probably be 5 - 10%, Gripen deletes the gun to get below 5% - while the J-20 doesn't have one in the first place, the point is that compromises compared to the single-seater were required to limit weight gain. We're expecting it to have *more* capability and equipment than the base aircraft over and above the addition of a second seat, not less!

I doubt training figures prominently in the rationale though - if you think simulators are expensive to procure and operate, try a fully functional stealth fighter instead!
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
However, if a twin seater J-20AS was able to do all three of those tasks, then I think a twin seater J-20AS could make much, much more sense and could even be said to be a very reasonable and logical procurement.

I think the key driver is the mini-AWACs role when you have tens/hundreds of friendlies and enemies in the airspace.
That is when you really need a dedicated person looking at the overall battle picture.
And yes, a KJ-500 AWACs is too vulnerable in many situations.

Also, once you have a mini-AWACs version, you get an ECM version or training version for free.
But I think these versions are more of a side bonus.

---
Looking at the E-2D Hawkeye as a guide, there are 3 Naval Flight Officers.
But if all the sensor links are automated, and you're controlling drones on a screen rather than having to speak to everyone, then you only need 1 person, namely the "Combat Information Center Officer"

So theoretically, automation means 1 person on a J-20 mini-AWACs could do the job of an E-2D Hawkeye, as long as there are other platforms feeding sensor data.

So here are my thoughts on how it could work circa 2030.
  • 30-300 Drones. These are in front. They are expendable platforms for sensors and weapons.
  • 3x J-20 1seater. These are 100km behind. They are in reserve, and can control a smaller number of drones if required.
  • 1x J-20B 2seater mini-AWACs. This is another 100km behind in the rear. They receive sensor data from the other platforms
In addition, support could be expected from:
  • KJ-500 AWACs further to the rear
  • Divine Eagle Surveillance/anti-stealth/targeting UAVs
  • Other surveillance/bomber UAVs
  • Potentially near real-time satellite surveillance and comms

So if inexpensive unmanned fighter/bomber/sensor drones are successfully developed, I would expect a minimum of 25% of all J-20s to be a 2seater mini-AWACs version.

If there is an lifetime production run of 800 J-20s, that would mean 200 of the J-20 2seater mini-AWACs version.
And if unmanned airborne drones really work out in the future, we might see a larger proportion of J-20 2seater mini-AWACs.

EDIT: Just realised that the J-20 actually has a higher takeoff weight than an E-2D.
And that a J-20 2seater mini-AWACS could use external fuel drop tanks whilst over mainland China, if its shorter range was an issue.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think the key driver is the mini-AWACs role when you have tens/hundreds of friendlies and enemies in the airspace.
That is when you really need a dedicated person looking at the overall battle picture.
And yes, a KJ-500 AWACs is too vulnerable in many situations.

Also, once you have a mini-AWACs version, you get an ECM version or training version for free.
But I think these versions are more of a side bonus.

---
Looking at the E-2D Hawkeye as a guide, there are 3 Naval Flight Officers.
But if all the sensor links are automated, and you're controlling drones on a screen rather than having to speak to everyone, then you only need 1 person, namely the "Combat Information Center Officer"

So theoretically, automation means 1 person on a J-20 mini-AWACs could do the job of an E-2D Hawkeye, as long as there are other platforms feeding sensor data.

So here are my thoughts on how it could work circa 2030.
  • 30-300 Drones. These are in front. They are expendable platforms for sensors and weapons.
  • 3x J-20 1seater. These are 100km behind. They are in reserve, and can control a smaller number of drones if required.
  • 1x J-20B 2seater mini-AWACs. This is another 100km behind in the rear. They receive sensor data from the other platforms
In addition, support could be expected from:
  • KJ-500 AWACs further to the rear
  • Divine Eagle Surveillance/anti-stealth/targeting UAVs
  • Other surveillance/bomber UAVs
  • Potentially near real-time satellite surveillance and comms

So if inexpensive unmanned fighter/bomber/sensor drones are successfully developed, I would expect a minimum of 25% of all J-20s to be a 2seater mini-AWACs version.

If there is an lifetime production run of 800 J-20s, that would mean 200 of the J-20 2seater mini-AWACs version.
And if unmanned airborne drones really work out in the future, we might see a larger proportion of J-20 2seater mini-AWACs.

EDIT: Just realised that the J-20 actually has a higher takeoff weight than an E-2D.
And that a J-20 2seater mini-AWACS could use external fuel drop tanks whilst over mainland China, if its shorter range was an issue.


First, I think it would be more accurate to call it a "forward air commander" role or "forward battle manager" role rather than just "mini-AEW&C".

Second, I think the utility and benefit of a twin seater J-20AS for accelerating training is likely as important as the ability of the aircraft to act as a forward air commander and a drone commander. The potential ability of a combat capable trainer to accelerate the training syllabus imo is not something that can be dismissed in terms of the ability of the PLA to generate faster fleet wide combat capacity for their J-20s.



In any case, I think both of our posts have demonstrated the usefulness of a potential J-20AS in the forward air commander that is capable of frontline combat.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Perhaps the best analogy for a twin-seat J-20 would be the Su-30 (by which I mean the Soviet-era Su-27PU command version, not the later multi-role derivatives)? In a 21st century 5th generation setting, U(C)AV control is a natural extension of this concept, so that task seems a likely addition to its mission spectrum.

Modest airframe changes compared to an FB-22 or Su-34 type version, though perhaps more than a straight twin-seater derivative like the F-15D (think Su-30 raised rear seat or J-10AS avionics spine). Weight penalty would probably be 5 - 10%, Gripen deletes the gun to get below 5% - while the J-20 doesn't have one in the first place, the point is that compromises compared to the single-seater were required to limit weight gain. We're expecting it to have *more* capability and equipment than the base aircraft over and above the addition of a second seat, not less!

I doubt training figures prominently in the rationale though - if you think simulators are expensive to procure and operate, try a fully functional stealth fighter instead!

IMO it isn't about cost so much as speed.

If a twin seater combat capable trainer aircraft is able to accelerate the speed at which new J-20 pilots can be familiarized and converted to fly standard single seaters than without a twin seater combat capable trainer, then IMO it becomes a question of what the cost vs benefit (i.e.: speed) is.
I get the impression that the PLA is respecting the proliferation of F-35s to be a challenge to be confronted, and part of that process is to accelerate the rollout of J-20 capability. Apart from simply building/procuring more J-20s faster + building the infrastructure to support J-20s faster, it also requires training pilots faster. A twin seater J-20AS that is capable of acting as a combat capable trainer would fit very well to achieve that last requirement.


As I wrote previously, if a twin seater combat capable J-20AS is able to do all three jobs of "combat capable trainer" + "drone commander" + "forward air commander" then I think I think all three of those benefits may be significant enough to make development of a twin seater viable and desirable.

If a J-20AS was "only" able to do one of the above roles then IMO it wouldn't have been worth developing a whole separate twin seater variant. But a twin seater variant able to do all of those tasks would probably be a far more attractive proposition.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
IMO it isn't about cost so much as speed.

If a twin seater combat capable trainer aircraft is able to accelerate the speed at which new J-20 pilots can be familiarized and converted to fly standard single seaters than without a twin seater combat capable trainer, then IMO it becomes a question of what the cost vs benefit (i.e.: speed) is.
I get the impression that the PLA is respecting the proliferation of F-35s to be a challenge to be confronted, and part of that process is to accelerate the rollout of J-20 capability. Apart from simply building/procuring more J-20s faster + building the infrastructure to support J-20s faster, it also requires training pilots faster. A twin seater J-20AS that is capable of acting as a combat capable trainer would fit very well to achieve that last requirement.


As I wrote previously, if a twin seater combat capable J-20AS is able to do all three jobs of "combat capable trainer" + "drone commander" + "forward air commander" then I think I think all three of those benefits may be significant enough to make development of a twin seater viable and desirable.

If a J-20AS was "only" able to do one of the above roles then IMO it wouldn't have been worth developing a whole separate twin seater variant. But a twin seater variant able to do all of those tasks would probably be a far more attractive proposition.

As kool as it might look?? I don't know, I love the tandem Flanker, the F-15, F-16, and F-18, I just do not see a two seat J-20 for the same reason we never saw a two seat F-22,,, I'd love it, but I just don't think there is a valid reason to go to all that expense and redesign, and it would really be heavy and very expensive.... but we can dream..... I guess?
 

by78

General
All bays open.

(1413 × 942)
49536839196_df1538defa_h.jpg
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member

Take this as a warning - especially since we had this discussion already too often and exactly a few minutes ago in tbe J-10-thread - and stop hotlinking images! It's stupid, not necessarily since this forum has an own quite well-working upload funktion abd it is forbidden by the rules.

I don't know if it is plain ignorance, laziness or stupidity why you still stick to tbis nasty habit.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Still unconfirmed, but there are reports that assume, the PLAAF's 1st Air Brigade, based in Anshan, within the Northern Theater Command has received their first J-20. If true, this would be - following the 9th Brigade at Wuhu - the second front-line unit, and the 4th operational unit overall, to acquire this aircraft.

Via @HenriKenhmann/EastPendulum at Twitter

zzzzzzzzzzz.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top