Guys ... the topic is the J-20, not the J-16
lol it feels so weird hearing both sides (US and China) constantly speak of a theoretical conventional naval/air war like nukes don't exist anymore. But I'm digressing here so ignore me.I think that given geography plays against the US in the Asia Pacific theater, especially closer to China’s periphery, near parity is basically enough to deter war. Parity and supremacy are what would be necessary to totally push out the US from the region entirely. If China can take war off the table for the US, depending on how the US reacts to those conditions, supremacy may not be a necessary objective, though China might arrive at that by sheer inertia of its growing economic capacity alone...
I thought CMO was as good as it gets? Results wouldn't be taken as reality but pretty OK representation.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.
They can store six next generation AA missiles in the main bay as per Yankeesama.I think the main issue with the J-20 is that while it is a lot more complex than the F-35 because of the internal weapons carriage it can only store the same amount of 4x long range air to air missiles. It does have the advantage of the short range missile side bays but do you even want to get to short range with the J-20? Compare this with the F-15 or the F-14 or MiG-31 which could carry a lot more missiles externally.
I think they need to figure out some way to store at least 50% more missiles internally. i.e. 6x long range air to air missiles.
The J-20 should be faster and more maneuverable when it gets the latest generation engines. But I think unless they increase its payload, sensors, and multiple-target engagement enough, it will be hard to counter the F-35's numbers in Asia.
There is always the chance that China will develop their own single engine stealth aircraft to counter the F-35 and replace the J-10 but so far we haven't heard anything about it. And no, a twin-engine aircraft like the FC-31 is not a proper counter because it will cost a lot more in man-hours to build than a single engine aircraft. Just look at the Russians experience with the MiG-29 and the Su-27. For like 20% less cost you get a vastly worse aircraft with like half the payload and much less range. It makes no sense except for naval air arm.