J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
In terms of system vs system, there's nothing stopping the J-20 from exceeding the F-35 when it reaches maturity. It has the datalinks, or at least we can assume so, and its radar is more powerful. As a system, the J-20 vs the F-35 is simply a software problem of who has the better coders.
As I wrote in my previous reply, I fully expect J-20 to be superior to F-35 on a one to one basis when both reach an equal level of maturity and when both are facing each other in equal numbers.
But more F-35s will likely be produced and available, and even if J-20 is twice as effective as F-35, if there are three times as many F-35s that can sortie in a conflict as J-20s, then it will be the F-35 which can win an air war if they have more available.
This of course is ignoring other multi domain capabilities that can help to patch up each side's own weaknesses and so on.
You can't consider numbers as part of system, first. When you said system, I was more thinking about the F-35's integration with the E-2D AEW&C, which is superior to anything China has right now.
Another factor is that the US is planning to have around 2000 F-35. If 60% of the F-35 fleet is deployed to the Asia-Pacific theatre, that's about 1200. If we assume the goal of the J-20 is to achieve a 2:1 k/l ratio to F-35s, then 600 J-20s could suffice to neutralize the F-35 fleet, and another 400 to neutralize the F-22s.
China's current military budget is about 40% of the United States', so an equal expenditure into J-20 numbers would give China about 400 J-20s, about 33% less than needed to counter the F-35 presence in the region. This assumes a cost of $80 million per unit for the F-35 and $150 million per unit for the J-20, reasonable considering that early J-10s cost about as much as comparable F-16s without AESA.
Another factor is that the US is planning to have around 2000 F-35. If 60% of the F-35 fleet is deployed to the Asia-Pacific theatre, that's about 1200. If we assume the goal of the J-20 is to achieve a 2:1 k/l ratio to F-35s, then 600 J-20s could suffice to neutralize the F-35 fleet, and another 400 to neutralize the F-22s.
China's current military budget is about 40% of the United States', so an equal expenditure into J-20 numbers would give China about 400 J-20s, about 33% less than needed to counter the F-35 presence in the region. This assumes a cost of $80 million per unit for the F-35 and $150 million per unit for the J-20, reasonable considering that early J-10s cost about as much as comparable F-16s without AESA.
The biggest problem for China in the Asia-Pacific theatre is the USN, not the USAF. Traditionally the United States has counted on its air force to provide air cover and has been somewhat weak against air assault, but the latest Standard Missiles are far superior to anything anyone else has in terms of fleet protection. The current inventory of the PLAAF is insufficient to counter the USN, and it's mainly the PLARF that poses the biggest risk to the USN.
By far the biggest threat/problem would be US aircraft, be they from ground bases or aircraft carriers. Carriers on their own aren't THAT big of an issue, as there can be perhaps 6-8 of them deployed in surge mode and perhaps 3 of them in sustained mode, and with travel time to first island chain that's perhaps 4-6 in surge mode and 2-3 sustained over a year or more.
But various airbases on Japanese soil are much bigger issue, with potentially being home to several times bigger number of planes within strike distance to China.
USN's biggest contribution to the battle would its submarine fleet and its ballistic missile protection, not so much against antiship ballistic missiles but against missiles raining down on fixed airbases around Japan.
But various airbases on Japanese soil are much bigger issue, with potentially being home to several times bigger number of planes within strike distance to China.
USN's biggest contribution to the battle would its submarine fleet and its ballistic missile protection, not so much against antiship ballistic missiles but against missiles raining down on fixed airbases around Japan.
Is it credible? With assumptions of 12000 kg additional weight from fuel and payload, we get 1.07 T/W and variable wing loading from 346 kg/m^2 to 288 kg/m^2 at 50% fuel / payload, assuming 142 kn engines. The problem is, what we've seen from the J-20's maneuverability is that given high AOA capability, it does not seem to be a low wing-loading aircraft.
One interesting possibility is that if high maneuverability videos are real, the initial videos were based off a lack of afterburner, resulting in a 20% reduction in return rate. I'm not sure if we've seen 24 degree / sec turns, but that translates into 23 degree / sec turns with afterburners, implying that the J-20 is better than Flankers in sustained turns, and puts us at 26 degree per second peak STR going from 142 kn to 180 kn engines.
One interesting possibility is that if high maneuverability videos are real, the initial videos were based off a lack of afterburner, resulting in a 20% reduction in return rate. I'm not sure if we've seen 24 degree / sec turns, but that translates into 23 degree / sec turns with afterburners, implying that the J-20 is better than Flankers in sustained turns, and puts us at 26 degree per second peak STR going from 142 kn to 180 kn engines.
Or, the videos tell you nothing because you don't know *anything* about the particular flight settings and parameters in them. If the plane looks sluggish, maybe they just weren't pushing it that hard? If I recall, a pilot even said as much during an interview for the show they put up during last year's Zhuhai appearance. Or maybe you can't get *any* good measurements because you don't have a fixed point of reference since these videos are pointed at the sky and are moving with the plane all the time?
Last edited:
- Status