J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Mearex]

Here you first wrote you believed J-20 was not capable of high alpha maneuvers:

View attachment 166885

Following on from that, you followed up by saying you're not "delusional" to believe J-20 can carry out high alpha maneuvers, linking a video of a F-22 doing a "back flip" and then said you've "given up hope" on J-20 being a "true air superiority fighter" thus linking the idea that being an "air superiority fighter" is associated with high alpha maneuvers and things like doing a "back flip":

View attachment 166886


We are only able to go off what you write, and what you've written is that you've linked these performative "high alpha" maneuvers with the prerequisite of a "true air superiority fighter".

If you want to retract what you've written feel free to do so.

yeah no that's not what I meant. Doing backflips and cobras aren't what I deem to be air superiority fighter requirements. It's more so maneuverability overall, but that last remark about air superiority fighters is indeed kind of irrelevant in hindsight.

You are correct that at an operational level, J-20s and other PLA aircraft would seek to target US force multipliers like tankers and AEW&C etc, however to get through to them they would need to fight and defeat their substantial forward emplaced fighter escorts... made up of things like F-22s, F-35s, and other fighter CAP.
People have misunderstood J-20's role in targeting those force multipliers as "try to sneak in, lob a few missiles at those vulnerable slow moving tankers, and then run away" -- whereas it is better described as "blow large holes in the enemy's screening fighter escorts, then target the defenseless, escort-less slow moving tankers".

This is the key here. My actual definition of air superiority fighter involves the targets and role, which as you've said, are non fighter planes. However, I do believe that they will indeed "sneak in", or sneak past F-22 and F-35s instead of fighting them directly, because if their primary goal are the assets behind them, there's no need to waste resources fighting F-22s and F-35s. Now if it's not stealthy enough to successfully sneak past F-22s and F-35s, then yes, I do agree with you that they need to blow a hole through them if they hope to get to those high value assets at the back

 

[valysre]

yeah no that's not what I meant. Doing backflips and cobras aren't what I deem to be air superiority fighter requirements. It's more so maneuverability overall, but that last remark about air superiority fighters is indeed kind of irrelevant in hindsight.

This is the key here. My actual definition of air superiority fighter involves the targets and role, which as you've said, are non fighter planes. However, I do believe that they will indeed "sneak in", or sneak past F-22 and F-35s instead of fighting them directly, because if their primary goal are the assets behind them, there's no need to waste resources fighting F-22s and F-35s. Now if it's not stealthy enough to successfully sneak past F-22s and F-35s, then yes, I do agree with you that they need to blow a hole through them if they hope to get to those high value assets at the back

We've had a very similar conversation with you in the past... now you've dressed it up in a slightly more palatable form by at least not pretending that cobras and backflips are at all relevant to modern air combat, but you're still engaging in absurd mental gymnastics to even justify this line of conversation.

What on earth do you mean that the goal of the J-20 is to "sneak in", and "there's no need to waste resources fighting [enemy 5th gens]"? It bears reminding that combat aircraft not only target high-value enemy targets, but also must protect high-value friendly targets. How does one do any protecting without actively contesting the enemy?

 

[Blitzo]

yeah no that's not what I meant. Doing backflips and cobras aren't what I deem to be air superiority fighter requirements. It's more so maneuverability overall, but that last remark about air superiority fighters is indeed kind of irrelevant in hindsight.

If that isn't what you meant, then in future consider writing in a manner that people can adequately understand you.

This is the key here. My actual definition of air superiority fighter involves the targets and role, which as you've said, are non fighter planes. However, I do believe that they will indeed "sneak in", or sneak past F-22 and F-35s instead of fighting them directly, because if their primary goal are the assets behind them, there's no need to waste resources fighting F-22s and F-35s. Now if it's not stealthy enough to successfully sneak past F-22s and F-35s, then yes, I do agree with you that they need to blow a hole through them if they hope to get to those high value assets at the back

Well then you are simply incorrect.

If your original impression was "they need to be stealthy enough to sneak past F-22s and F-35s to get through to tankers" rather than "it needs to be capable enough to neutralize F-22s and F-35s to get through to tankers" then that is a problem for you.

I mean sure, to me "accepting the fact that I may never see it" and "not expecting to see it" are the same, but if the latter is what you want then yeah, I do not expect to see anything like it now or ever. I also agree with your view on the WS-15 that until anything is actually seen, there's no point speculating or hoping, which is why I don't fully buy the "PLA is hiding the maneuverability of the J-20" or "Trust me, it may not be maneuverable in the subsonic regime, but it's ultra maneuverable when supersonic". Sure, the PLA is likely hiding performance, and canard deltas are indeed known to be supersonic performant, but until I see it with my own eyes, I won't simply assume that the J-20 is indeed "ultra maneuverable" or anything.

Entirely different domains.
Having high expectations of evidence for aero-engine milestones is something we've learned and known about for many, many years.

The "maneuverability" of J-20 or any other aircraft, or the general capability of any other platform (aircraft, ship, missile system, etc), is generic PLA secrecy.

As for the rest of your points, I fully agree that the PLA is secretive, and that aerobatics are not relevant in modern combat. In fact I specifically said that when I say high alpha, I'm not talking about cobras and falling leaves (which I consider to be more... gaudy) and instead on something that is at least *relatively* more practical. In hindsight perhaps the F-22 backflip wasn't that good of an example. Everyone knows it's the age of BVR, but the ability to rapidly change directions will always be useful.

and just FYI I'm not new to PLA watching. Started ever since my dad took me to Beijing aerospace museum when I was young, so trust me, I support sino aviation as much as the next guy. And while I'm ecstatic at all the progress we've made, I've seen an unhealthy level of chest thumping recently, not just on this forum, but in general. I've had people look me dead in the eye and say that the J-20 is 10 years ahead of the F-22. That's why I always try to be just a tad bit more negative and cynical when talking with fellow supporters, because I know that humility is key and overconfidence kills progress. Tough love, if you will.

If you're not new to PLA watching then I can only question what you've been doing that time.
I want to make it clear, I don't care about your preferences, biases or emotions, but rather your competence.

As for chest thumping, I absolutely agree that is a problematic trend I've seen as well that's been growing over the last year (though I have not seen anyone here suggest J-20 is "10 years ahead" of F-22 unless they had specific domains to substantiate it such as in terms of avionics for example) -- but what you've been posting over the last few pages is largely nonsensical.

The problem isn't whatever values or loyalties or biases you have, but the logic and competence that goes into what you are posting.

 

[Mearex]

If your original impression was "they need to be stealthy enough to sneak past F-22s and F-35s to get through to tankers" rather than "it needs to be capable enough to neutralize F-22s and F-35s to get through to tankers" then that is a problem for you.

So theoretically if the J-20 is able to sneak past F-22s and F-35s, or launch PL-15s from far enough range where it can reach the tankers without needing to directly engage with F-22s and F-35s, why wouldn't it do so? Also, does the F-22 have the same mission profile/targets, or is it meant to directly engage enemy fighters from the very start? Because the way you've put it, you are essentially saying that while the J-20's end goal is to destroy the tankers and bombers, it must engage F-22s and F-35s out of necessity to achieve that end goal, which in my opinion is different than if a fighter's end goal is to directly target other enemy fighters from the very start

 

[Blitzo]

So theoretically if the J-20 is able to sneak past F-22s and F-35s, or launch PL-15s from far enough range where it can reach the tankers without needing to directly engage with F-22s and F-35s, why wouldn't it do so? Also, does the F-22 have the same mission profile/targets, or is it meant to directly engage enemy fighters from the very start? Because the way you've put it, you are essentially saying that while the J-20's end goal is to destroy the tankers and bombers, it must engage F-22s and F-35s out of necessity to achieve that end goal, which in my opinion is different than if a fighter's end goal is to directly target other enemy fighters from the very start

You are asking "would any military force prefer to neutralize a high value target or a low value target, if they had equal means to do so for both targets at the same risk and cost".
Obviously the answer would be to neutralize the high value target, because it would confer greater detrimental effects to the enemy's warfighting capability.

The reason why F-22 may be less able to do so against the PLA's own force multipliers in the contemporary age, relative to J-20 to the US, is a reflection of respective in-theater basing realities, respective system of system/multi-domain supporting assets (both quantitative and qualitative), and also partly because J-20 has a greater combat radius than F-22.


There are very few situations in which a J-20 or F-22 pilot would respectively prefer to shoot down an enemy 5th generation fighter as opposed to an enemy tanker or AEW&C.

 

[ougoah]

Mearex you're sort of right in saying that China is unlikely to want to get engaged in producing a turn and burn, hotrod fighter like the F-22, Su-35, Su-57. I would consider the J-20 to be more akin to Typhoon, focused on BVR maneuvering ie supersonic turning but with VLO, at least front aspect VLO.

The main reason for this is because... well not applying TVC. The J-10 TVC experiment produced an aircraft quite capable of those near stall and post stall maneuvering. Very little use in real life. F-35 is probably more effective a combat platform than F-22 even though F-22 is "nicer", "cooler", whatever.

The level of maneuverability you have been alluding to is only done by Su-35, F-22, Su-57 and to some extents, the Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM and Su-30SM2. All of these fighters use TVC.

China's fighters have emphasised maneuverability and kinematic performance too. Much like Rafale, Eurofighter, F-16 etc, are all very capable of turning well, rolling, climbing and recovering with the rest of them. Certain kinematic performance levels are important to achieve better BVR performance. WVR is pilot dependent.

Recall during the exercises with Thailand where China sent J-11A to go up against Gripen C, J-11A defeated Gripen C in WVR in almost every single exercise. We are of course assuming the rules were fair. The J-11A got dominated by Gripen C in BVR... because J-11A isn't quite BVR capable at all, at least not the modern version of it. Goes to show either Thai pilots are rubbish or PLAAF pilot training for WVR and dogfighting is pretty decent.

Anyway can we really say J-10 doesn't turn and burn like the best of them (outside the TVC fighters) and the J-20 we have seen pull some very impressive moves. PLAAF is does not allow much to be shown outside a few fly bys and turns but even so, J-20 has been filmed around 5 or 6 times to pull some insightful moves. It's indeed not one of those TVC airshow queens but that isn't the point either. It seems you are conflating airshow pre and post stall maneuverability and controllability with real world dogfighting performance. F-22 is the only departure from the usual USAF method probably because of the ATF program going up against a host of Russian super maneuverable mysteries at the time. The Americans outdid themselves with F-22 indeed, but it is a 30 year old design now with 30 year old philosophy.

 

[Mearex]

The reason why F-22 may be less able to do so against the PLA's own force multipliers in the contemporary age, relative to J-20 to the US, is a reflection of respective in-theater basing realities, respective system of system/multi-domain supporting assets (both quantitative and qualitative), and also partly because J-20 has a greater combat radius than F-22.

So in other words, the F-22's mission profile is indeed enemy fighters, and that ties back to what I said. The J-20's intent is enemy tankers and the like, and only engages enemy fighters out of *necessity*. To the J-20, engaging enemy fighters is a chore that it has to get out of the way before it can complete its primary mission. The F-22 on the other hand, (at least according to USAF promo videos and other publicly available info so I could be wrong here) is born and bred to engage and dominate enemy fighters first and foremost, while using its incredible stealth and maneuverability to survive in hostile airspace, which makes it that much more terrifying, and in my book, a true air superiority fighter unlike the J-20. You could argue that in a typical mission, the J-20 will always have to engage enemy fighters before it can get to the tankers, but in my opinion, engagement out of necessity and engagement out of intent are fundamentally different

 

[valysre]

The J-20's intent is enemy tankers and the like

Nice assertion.

at least according to USAF promo videos

Are we serious?

 

[Mearex]

Are we serious?

I've said I very well could be wrong here. I'm just a normal person without any special access privileges, but from the publicly available info that I could gather by myself on the internet, that does seem to be the F-22's design philosophy

 

[Blitzo]

So in other words, the F-22's mission profile is indeed enemy fighters, and that ties back to what I said. The J-20's intent is enemy tankers and the like, and only engages enemy fighters out of *necessity*. To the J-20, engaging enemy fighters is a chore that it has to get out of the way before it can complete its primary mission. The F-22 on the other hand, (at least according to USAF promo videos and other publicly available info so I could be wrong here) is born and bred to engage and dominate enemy fighters first and foremost, while using its incredible stealth and maneuverability to survive in hostile airspace, which makes it that much more terrifying, and in my book, a true air superiority fighter unlike the J-20. You could argue that in a typical mission, the J-20 will always have to engage enemy fighters before it can get to the tankers, but in my opinion, engagement out of necessity and engagement out of intent are fundamentally different

No.
I don't think you've understood what I've written.

You are interpreting the "mission profile" of a fighter as being reflective of its own individual capabilities primarily, rather than considering the operational and strategic context in which they exist.

It's not so much that the F-22 is designed to engage enemy fighters first and foremost, rather that a combination of its own individual characteristics and the operational and strategic context in which the US forces in the western pacific exists, means that it is not well suited to do more than engage enemy fighters.

On the other hand, the characteristics of J-20 and the PLA's operational/strategic context means J-20 has the options to both engage enemy fighters as well as target enemy force multipliers in a high end western pacific conflict scenario.


Let's put it this way:

"F-22 mission" is what you describe as "engage and dominate enemy fighters first and foremost, while using its incredible stealth and maneuverability to survive in hostile airspace"
"J-20 mission" = "F-22 mission" + "have range, and operational/strategic availability to further pursue and neutralize enemy force multipliers"