J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
View attachment 64019

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TL-20 air-to-surface missile, range 60-100km (most commonly quoted as 85km), Beidou and inertial guided, length 1.8m. It's apparently smart enough to be able to tell between wheeled and tracked vehicles. The article says it's uniquely suitable for decapitation strikes.

J-20 can carry 12 in it's main weapon bay, J-16 can carry 20.

Given the news we've seen recently on J-20 being based close to Taiwan the emphasis on decapitation strike certainly seems interesting...
There are a number of small diameter type weapons like TL-20 that have been shown and tested by the Chinese aerospace industry.

But we have yet to see any of them be in service with PLA aircraft, and certainly we have yet to see J-20 be equipped with one. That isn't to say J-20 isn't or won't be equipped with one -- I very much do expect it.


However I don't take the claims from your source that seriously. Consider being a bit more discriminatory in future.
 

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
There are a number of small diameter type weapons like TL-20 that have been shown and tested by the Chinese aerospace industry.

But we have yet to see any of them be in service with PLA aircraft, and certainly we have yet to see J-20 be equipped with one. That isn't to say J-20 isn't or won't be equipped with one -- I very much do expect it.


However I don't take the claims from your source that seriously. Consider being a bit more discriminatory in future.
Some aviation experts claim that one of the drawbacks of any stealth fighter design is the enclosed weapons bay which limits the type of weapons being carried. This limitation is common to the F-35, F-22 snd Su-57 as well. Only stand off or drop off weapons can be used. The weapons bay cannot be improved to accommodate new types of weapons. Targetting pods are good example since the weapons bay limits the field of vision of the cameras.
As an alternative the upgraded J-11 with radar absorption material, composite material replacement of some key "radar reflecting " panels has developed some stealth
capability while retaining its versatility with weapons suites.
Would this mean that the J-11 model would be the bulk of air force's fighter strength?
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Some aviation experts claim that one of the drawbacks of any stealth fighter design is the enclosed weapons bay which limits the type of weapons being carried. This limitation is common to the F-35, F-22 snd Su-57 as well. Only stand off or drop off weapons can be used. The weapons bay cannot be improved to accommodate new types of weapons. Targetting pods are good example since the weapons bay limits the field of vision of the cameras.
As an alternative the upgraded J-11 with radar absorption material, composite material replacement of some key "radar reflecting " panels has developed some stealth
capability while retaining its versatility with weapons suites.
Would this mean that the J-11 model would be the bulk of air force's fighter strength?
That's why if you want your stealth fighter to have a significant strike role, you develop it with a sufficiently sized weapons bay to accommodate a range of large diameter weapons as practically possible.

The weapons bay doesn't limit the field of vision of the cameras; F-35's EOTS system replaces targeting pods in that role and is mounted on the chin and able to fulfill the air to ground strike role sufficiently, especially when alongside its very capable EODAS and ESM system that is used for targeting as well.

A 4th generation fighter is able to carry larger weapons externally than what a 5th generation fighter can carry internally, but at the same time a 5th generation fighter can carry large weapons externally as well.
However a 4th generation fighter will certainly not have the same level of stealth as a 5th generation fighter does, and the ability of 5th generation fighters to successfully reach well defended targets and significantly reduce its risk of being detected and targeted in comparison even to a "4+" generation fighter is very significant.


In other words no, a 5th generation fighter with internal weapon bays still possesses unique strike capabilities that a 4th generation fighter simply cannot match, especially if said 5th generation fighter has slightly larger weapons bays like F-35 and is able to carry a range of powered stand off weapons like JSM and AARGM-ER.
 

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
In other words no, a 5th generation fighter with internal weapon bays still possesses unique strike capabilities that a 4th generation fighter simply cannot match, especially if said 5th generation fighter has slightly larger weapons bays like F-35 and is able to carry a range of powered stand off weapons like JSM and AARGM-ER.
Agreed:
Another argument in favor of 5th Generation fighter aircraft is that In an air superiority role all Air to Air weapons (even the largest ones such as the PL-15) would fit in the weapons bay, and not compromise stealth by being required to be carried externally on hard points. In an air to air role especially with very long range air to air missiles a stealth fighter like the J-20 is invincible.
Ground attack role:
Not sure if the F-22 has an intended ground attack role as well but it is believed the ground attack role is reserved for the F-35.
When the first generation stealth planes were used like the F-117 Night Hawk these were not fighters in the true sense but strike aircraft. The small weapons bay limited their ability to carry out long range 400 km + stand off weapons strikes. The first use over Iraq was spectacularly successful but one F-117 was downed over Serbia.
Is a stealth fighter more vulnerable in ground attack mode when it has to come within detection range of ground radar which may be more powerful than airborne radar installed on adversary fighter jets?
There are unconfirmed reports of Israeli F-35s suffering damage from Syrian S-200 systems and crash-landing when returning from missions
over Syria. Israel explains these as "bird hits" .
China seems to following the US pattern by dedicating models of stealth fighters ( J-31, J-20) in specific roles instead of looking to an F-35 type multirole platform.
Interestingly the first likely combat debut of the J-20 is being
debated globally most notably in India. Defense analysts in India (either through ignorance or a deliberate misinformation attempt) are dismissive of J-20 capabilities as being a threat in the local theater ( specifically Ladakh and Tibet).
The argument goes that the J-20 is primarily intended to take out large targets such as tankers, AWAC abd EW aircraft, heavy transports, ships, or basically large targets. This is ideal for coastal defense over flat open ocean devastating an attacking naval force from a distance. In the Western Theater Command environment there are limitations on the J-20s capabilities. Taking on AESA equipped thrust vector capabilities, MAW and EW suite equipped 4++ aircraft (basically Rafale ) in a mountainous environment with radar clutter will be difficult. The Rafale's would be making use of the terrain. with tactics such as "nap of the earth " flying which makes it difficult for PL-15s to hold the radar lock and maneuver in a twisting turning dog fight. Additionally the J-20s maybe at risk from being detected by improved ground radar in a short range environment. A within visual range confrontation is of course impossible.A BVR engagement over a flat plateau (such as Tibet) would end badly for any 4th generation aircraft trying to take on the J-20.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
View attachment 64019

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TL-20 air-to-surface missile, range 60-100km (most commonly quoted as 85km), Beidou and inertial guided, length 1.8m. It's apparently smart enough to be able to tell between wheeled and tracked vehicles. The article says it's uniquely suitable for decapitation strikes.

J-20 can carry 12 in it's main weapon bay, J-16 can carry 20.

Given the news we've seen recently on J-20 being based close to Taiwan the emphasis on decapitation strike certainly seems interesting...
J20 can carry 12 ?! How small are these glide bombs?
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
Interestingly the first likely combat debut of the J-20 is being
debated globally most notably in India. Defense analysts in India (either through ignorance or a deliberate misinformation attempt) are dismissive of J-20 capabilities as being a threat in the local theater ( specifically Ladakh and Tibet).
The argument goes that the J-20 is primarily intended to take out large targets such as tankers, AWAC abd EW aircraft, heavy transports, ships, or basically large targets. This is ideal for coastal defense over flat open ocean devastating an attacking naval force from a distance. In the Western Theater Command environment there are limitations on the J-20s capabilities. Taking on AESA equipped thrust vector capabilities, MAW and EW suite equipped 4++ aircraft (basically Rafale ) in a mountainous environment with radar clutter will be difficult. The Rafale's would be making use of the terrain. with tactics such as "nap of the earth " flying which makes it difficult for PL-15s to hold the radar lock and maneuver in a twisting turning dog fight. Additionally the J-20s maybe at risk from being detected by improved ground radar in a short range environment. A within visual range confrontation is of course impossible.A BVR engagement over a flat plateau (such as Tibet) would end badly for any 4th generation aircraft trying to take on the J-20.
Who is saying this? Bold lettering is mine.

These analysts are decades late. There is something called Look Down Shoot Down or LDSD in Pulse Doopler mode that is meant to track targets flying low. In addition there is something called MTI or Moving Target Indicator that discriminates moving target from ground, sea or surface clutter. The fact that the Rafale is a flying object and moving very fast with an altitude that separates it from the ground, aids in the way these modes operate, in contrast to something that is only moving 30 kph an hour on the ground or sea and sticking on it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

no_name

Major
Some aviation experts claim that one of the drawbacks of any stealth fighter design is the enclosed weapons bay which limits the type of weapons being carried. This limitation is common to the F-35, F-22 snd Su-57 as well. Only stand off or drop off weapons can be used. The weapons bay cannot be improved to accommodate new types of weapons. Targetting pods are good example since the weapons bay limits the field of vision of the cameras.
As an alternative the upgraded J-11 with radar absorption material, composite material replacement of some key "radar reflecting " panels has developed some stealth
capability while retaining its versatility with weapons suites.
Would this mean that the J-11 model would be the bulk of air force's fighter strength?
If you really need a bigger weapons bay, what you need is a stealth bomber.
 

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
Who is saying this? Bold lettering is mine.

These analysts are decades late. There is something called Look Down Shoot Down or LDSD in Pulse Doopler mode that is meant to track targets flying low. In addition there is something called MTI or Moving Target Indicator that discriminates moving target from ground, sea or surface clutter. The fact that the Rafale is a flying object and moving very fast with an altitude that separates it from the ground, aids in the way these modes operate, in contrast to something that is only moving 30 kph an hour on the ground or sea and sticking on it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Thanks !
Absolutely agree. With LDSD and MTI capabilities the J-20 can take on adversaries in a mountainous radar clutter environment. Which is what was said in the previous post by the moderator. A 4++ fighter has very little chance of escaping a 5th Generation Stealth fighter whatever the conditions.
Answer to your question as to who is saying the adversary 4++ fighters have an advantage over J-20 in WTC :
This is being widely discussed by panelists in on hyper nationalist TV channels in India.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
If Indian Rafales think flying low will help them avoid J20s, they are:

a) being very naive about the capabilities of modern AESA radars. Maybe they will change their mind after they have had a few years operating Rafales and seeing how ineffective such tactics would be against the Rafale’s AESA radars.
b) already given up the initiative without J20s even needing to be airborne as flying low massively penalises you compared to opponents flying at normal altitude. Not only would your own missiles have far less KE and range, you yourself would have very very little altitude to use to try to shake enemy missiles. Dodging missiles is an endurance game, but often fighters need to dive down, trading altitude for energy to get the extra boost needed to get away once an AAM has committed to engaging you.
c) clearly going to make PLA SAM and AAA unit commanders very happy by giving him nice easy targets. Again, because the Indians don’t have a modern integrated multilayer air defence capability, they have no real experience of just how devastating that can be.
d) and potentially most critically of all, India literally just got their Rafales. If hostilities break out over Ladakh, it will be in the near future. That means they will be sending up, for all intents and purposes, virgin pilots against J10 and J11 pilots, some of whom would have been flying the type all their careers.
e) Indian doesn’t really have any worthwhile land based radars the J20 might need to be weary off. Besides, any such radars would take taken out in the opening stages of the war with cruise and ballistic missiles.

In any conflict with India, I think PLAAF J20s would act as forward scouts and rapid reaction reserves instead of rushing in to get kills.

With their stealth, J20s can push ahead of friendly conventional fighters and give them early warning/direction; or even use co-operative engagement to provide target locks for them to engage the Indians well beyond expected BVR ranges.

Once both sides have engaged en mass, the J20s could hold back and engage where they can decisively swing any engagement in favour of the PLAAF, and/or engage targets of opportunity as and when they present themselves.
 

Top