J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Bltizo said:

J-20 is primarily an air to air platform, but there is no reason it cannot conduct strike missions and also SEAD.

Considering the number of J-20s that the PLA is likely to procure into the future and the capability offered by its stealth, range, and sensors, it makes sense to develop anti surface and anti radiation weapons to enable it to be a more multirole aircraft.

Obviously J-20 will not be a dedicated strike aircraft or dedicated SEAD/DEAD aircraft, but even as is, the aircraft would be quite formidable in both roles just by virtue of its capabilities by being a 5th gen fighter. It makes no sense not to develop weapons for the aircraft in those roles

Click to expand...

Some years ago there was a China Daily report quoting the head of an air force test centre who said that J-20 would form a family of aircraft performing a range of missions.

"We are not complacent about what we have achieved,” Yang is quoted as saying. “We will develop the J-20 into a large family and keep strengthening its information-processing and intelligent capacities. At the same time, we will think about our next-generation combat plane to meet the nation's future requirements," Yang added that the J-20 is “the best fighter in China, so it would be used in the most crucial moments during a war.”

There is a precedent in Panavia Tornado jet where they develop two variants. One (ADV) for air superiority, and one (IDS) for strike role, and we also have example of F-15C Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle.

It would be most cost effective if J20 is capable of both roles without downgrade either of one, otherwise a dedicated strike version of J20 is a viable option, just like above Tornado and F-15E.

Having a common airframe and engine benefits logistic handling.

I think the dedicated strike version makes sense, but with the J-16 introduction still being so recent, I doubt it will happen soon. The H-20 will also take some of the heat out of the bombing requirement. They will likely wait for the WS-15 to be ready first as well since this will allow them to increase the payload of any strike aircraft they design if they do it.

The J-20 is however meant to be a multi-role aircraft, from what I understand, so it will have some kind of air-to-ground capability.

J-20 is inherently in a much better place to perform strike missions, compared to an F-22.
It can carry wider and longer weapons in its bays. (lets not go into details of the exact volume)
It already has spot for optical targeting and laser measurements under the nose. So only internal hardware and software needs to be changed, without rearranging existing subsystems and without testing aerodynamics after changing the outer lines as the outer lines would not be changed.
It likely carries more fuel and has greater range.

In fact, I don't think a J-20 configured for strike missions would fall behind the F-35 in strike missions either.

Level of stealth may be an area where J-20 is lagging behind but we don't have reliable info to make precise assessments there so it's best not mentioned.

lcloo said:

There is a precedent in Panavia Tornado jet where they develop two variants. One (ADV) for air superiority, and one (IDS) for strike role, and we also have example of F-15C Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle.

It would be most cost effective if J20 is capable of both roles without downgrade either of one, otherwise a dedicated strike version of J20 is a viable option, just like above Tornado and F-15E.

Having a common airframe and engine benefits logistic handling.

Click to expand...

Discussions about a dedicated strike variant of J-20 cannot be made in the same way as dedicated strike variants of 4th generation fighters are made.

Dedicated strike variants of 4th generation fighters basically entailed equipping the aircraft with requisite sensors and avionics to engage ground targets and structural strengthening to carry heavier and/or larger volume payloads and to extend range.

5th generation fighters carry their payloads internally, so any sort of "strike variant" of any given 5th generation that you seek to have similarly significantly improved strike capacity would require the "strike variant" to have a significantly larger weapons bay and in turn require substantial changes to the overall airframe and likely the overall dimensions of the aircraft as well.
That is to say, a "strike variant" of a 5th generation aircraft would likely require substantial redesign in the aircraft's physical characteristics and dimensions and there will be likely end up being little to no "common airframe" benefits to speak of.

I think if China was going to make a dedicated strike version of the J-20 they might as well just build the JH-XX.

Maybe JH-XX *will* be a modified J-20. The degree of modification can be argued, of course.

Totoro said:

Maybe JH-XX *will* be a modified J-20. The degree of modification can be argued, of course.

Click to expand...

Given that we know a dedicated JH-XX design was already explored to some meaningful capacity, and given what that design likely tells us about requirements the PLAAF might be looking at, I’m doubtful they would go in the direction of a reworked J-20. For the PLAAF’s particular strike needs I think something with greater range and payload would make more sense than a reworked J-20. Besides, you wouldn’t be saving much on development time, since the aerodynamics and structural mechanics of a reworked striker design would require testing everything from scratch anyways.

Well, I was playing the devil's advocate there. I too think PLAAF (and PLANAF) would be better served by a completely new plane - even if it meant a few dozen billion dollars to develop it. Something stealthy to slip in between H-20 and regular J-20/J-16/J-10 doing strike missions.

However, IF there isn't enough political will around to sink such money into JH-XX, then the likelihood of a re-worked J-20 raises substantially.

Totoro said:

Well, I was playing the devil's advocate there. I too think PLAAF (and PLANAF) would be better served by a completely new plane - even if it meant a few dozen billion dollars to develop it. Something stealthy to slip in between H-20 and regular J-20/J-16/J-10 doing strike missions.

However, IF there isn't enough political will around to sink such money into JH-XX, then the likelihood of a re-worked J-20 raises substantially.

Click to expand...

I agree on the if, but I get the feeling that if isn’t very likely in today’s climate lol.