J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII


by78

Brigadier
I shared this image a long time ago in the Flankers thread, thinking that it's a J-16 simulator. We now know J-16s have dual-panel MFDs instead of the single large panels seen here. Now I wonder if this simulator might have something to do with the rumored J-20 twin-seater.

 
Last edited:

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
I shared this image a long time ago in the Flankers thread, thinking that it's a J-16 simulator. We now know J-16s have dual-panel MFDs instead of the single large panels seen here. Now I wonder if this simulator has something to do with the rumored J-20 twin-seater.

The seating arrangement angle seems to suggest a twin seat flanker. But then again it could have been done this way in a simulator just so the backseat can see the three monitors ahead. I don't think a twin seat J-20 will give backseat pilot higher vantage like the flankers do. It'll probably be more like a J-10S.
 

ChineseToTheBone

New Member
Registered Member
If that is the case the only explanation to me is J20 still has some technical difficulties to be really mass produced, so they have no choice but to settle for the next best option - J16, in order to ramp up for short term threat, although that option is much much inferior.
One more potential reason for the mass production of J-16 fighters is the stock of WS-10 jet engines produced annually need to be consumed somehow and installing them on new heavy strike fighters produced at Shenyang is not a bad choice given the bottlenecks at Chengdu.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
One more potential reason for the mass production of J-16 fighters is the stock of WS-10 jet engines produced annually need to be consumed somehow and installing them on new heavy strike fighters produced at Shenyang is not a bad choice given the bottlenecks at Chengdu.
There is no stock of WS-10 outside of the absolutely necessary spares and backups. WS-10 production isn't fast enough for J-16 and J-10. You are saying J-16 and presumably J-10's ongoing production is partly a result of needing to "use up" WS-10 when the opposite is true. If J-16 and J-10 production were to be totally stopped in favour of J-20, WS-10 will still be produced not just because J-20 currently still uses them, but also because there are still not enough WS-10 engines to support the existing fighters that use them.
 

Figaro

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is no stock of WS-10 outside of the absolutely necessary spares and backups. WS-10 production isn't fast enough for J-16 and J-10. You are saying J-16 and presumably J-10's ongoing production is partly a result of needing to "use up" WS-10 when the opposite is true. If J-16 and J-10 production were to be totally stopped in favour of J-20, WS-10 will still be produced not just because J-20 currently still uses them, but also because there are still not enough WS-10 engines to support the existing fighters that use them.
How do we know that WS-10 production is not sufficient given the current demand? It would be extremely surprising if Shenyang did not expand the production line in advance knowing that the J-10 and J-20 were going to be switching over to Taihangs. I find it difficult to believe the bottleneck is in the engine production rather than the production of the aircrafts themselves.
 

caohailiang

New Member
Registered Member
One more potential reason for the mass production of J-16 fighters is the stock of WS-10 jet engines produced annually need to be consumed somehow and installing them on new heavy strike fighters produced at Shenyang is not a bad choice given the bottlenecks at Chengdu.
I for one sure wont build a 80MUSD fighter aircraft just to consume extra engines worth 5MUSD a piece
 

caohailiang

New Member
Registered Member
Not even the USAF is going full stealth anymore, with its continued purchase of more F15s, not to mention all others. Yes, there will be a lot of hostile 5th gens, but there will also be a lot of legacy stuff flying around as well.
We need to remember that the one weakness of 5th gens is weapons load. Even heavyweights like the J20 and F22 could only carry 6 full sized BVRAAMs. There are programmes to add more, but that comes at the cost of reduced size, with corresponding reduced performance from a lack of warhead (lower KP) and range.
I would point out 2 obvious faults in your statement:
1, last time i checked, US is planning to purchase some 2500 F35 in total, yes there are some plan to keep gen4 in the force in the following decade but the majority of it is 5gen. For US armed forces, 5gen aircraft is NOT a day-1 weapon.
2, Compare to J16, I dont see why J20 has inferior capability in terms of carrying external loads when needed.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
I would point out 2 obvious faults in your statement:
1, last time i checked, US is planning to purchase some 2500 F35 in total, yes there are some plan to keep gen4 in the force in the following decade but the majority of it is 5gen. For US armed forces, 5gen aircraft is NOT a day-1 weapon.
2, Compare to J16, I dont see why J20 has inferior capability in terms of carrying external loads when needed.
US can’t and wouldn’t field all or even most of its F35 in the Asia Pacific. Furthermore, getting an equivalent amount of J-20 as F-35 would be pretty cost prohibitive, and you’d probably be underutilizing their capabilities for most missions that don’t involve stealthy strike or air superiority.
 

caohailiang

New Member
Registered Member
US can’t and wouldn’t field all or even most of its F35 in the Asia Pacific. Furthermore, getting an equivalent amount of J-20 as F-35 would be pretty cost prohibitive, and you’d probably be underutilizing their capabilities for most missions that don’t involve stealthy strike or air superiority.
i agree, they wont station everything in Asia and i surely agree PLA does not need same amount of J20 as F35.
But you mindset is still positioning 5gen as day-1 weapon. This mindset makes some sense when PLA is up against some mid level power such as India or Japan, however in high end conflict you cannot expect to crush the enemy air power in a short period of time, then move on to use non-stealth a/c to carry out strike missions. It will always be a highly contested space filled with 5th gen, where 4th gen a/c simply does not have much survivability.
Some time ago i ran some simulation with CMO - not the most authoritative war game simulator i admit.
First if you run 24*J20 against 24*F22/F35, you more or less get a 1:1 result.
Then you throw in 24*J16 on the PLA side, guess what happened? nothing. Basically those J16 are just collaterals damages. With all J16 shot down in the process, not much impact at all to the exchange rate of J20 vs F22/F35, and if you add F15 to the US side, same thing.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
i agree, they wont station everything in Asia and i surely agree PLA does not need same amount of J20 as F35.
But you mindset is still positioning 5gen as day-1 weapon. This mindset makes some sense when PLA is up against some mid level power such as India or Japan, however in high end conflict you cannot expect to crush the enemy air power in a short period of time, then move on to use non-stealth a/c to carry out strike missions. It will always be a highly contested space filled with 5th gen, where 4th gen a/c simply does not have much survivability.
Some time ago i ran some simulation with CMO - not the most authoritative war game simulator i admit.
First if you run 24*J20 against 24*F22/F35, you more or less get a 1:1 result.
Then you throw in 24*J16 on the PLA side, guess what happened? nothing. Basically those J16 are just collaterals damages. With all J16 shot down in the process, not much impact at all to the exchange rate of J20 vs F22/F35, and if you add F15 to the US side, same thing.
J-16’s wouldn’t be used in the frontline in air superiority missions in the first place. They’d be employed at standoff range to knock out opposing support assets like tankers and AWACS. Those sorts of simulations don’t account for complex network warfare tactics.

You also need some sort of strike fighter for CAP assets in support of ground forces, or for standoff strikes against naval assets. You shouldn’t be spending 2-3x what a J-16 costs on J-20s for those kinds of missions.
 

Top