J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

gongolongo

Junior Member
Registered Member
We've mostly identified that the J-20 is anemic in terms of air-to-air missile load-out, the PL-15 will need to be modified just so the J-20 can carry 6 of them, and the modified PL-15 will be less capable.


Honestly I think it's pretty well established that the J-20 has plenty more room for missiles and that a 6 PL-15 loadout isn't out of the question.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Honestly I think it's pretty well established that the J-20 has plenty more room for missiles and that a 6 PL-15 loadout isn't out of the question.

Weight wise it is no problem, space-wise it is. PL-15 is thicker than the AIM-120D and has wider fins. Even when stacked there isn't enough space in the main bays for 6 missiles.
 

Inst

Captain
Nope, as I wrote over on a different forum...

"The problem is that her articles often have one or maybe two claims which are plausible, but is hampered down by many other inaccurate statements which are not corroborated by other sources or some of which are outright illogical.

Just off the top of my head, the J-20B article she wrote that you refer to suggests:
- the idea that J-20 "mass production" was ever limited by engine availability or waiting for WS-15 (latter of which she has a terrible track record of)
- the idea that J-20s in production will be fitted with Al-31 engines but with ??Chinese TVC nozzles?? All of this keeping in mind that all photos of new production J-20s since last year show J-20s with WS-10s??
- the very designation of J-20B is controversial as well, given if we were going to receive a new J-20 "variant" with a full on designation change, it definitely would've been noticed by the community -- not least because the J-20B designation has been floated as the name of J-20 for when it would receive its intended spec WS-15s
- the author also has a strange set of criteria what "qualifies" a jet as a "true fifth generation fighter jet"


The only "useful" thing from that article (if you want to call it that) is it does suggest a J-20 with some kind of TVC engines may be in production in some form...
But that is something we didn't need to read her utter failure of an article to know, because that same information was conveyed from the grapevine in about the same time period.

The reason why Minnie Chan's articles are almost always categorically dismissed, is because it's not worth to identify and disqualify all of the many incorrect premises she writes in her articles, just for the purpose of identifying one premise that might be plausible or half true at best.
Especially because it's so much easier to get the same information from the PLA watching community without having to hash through a mess of nonsense."


Minnie Chan's articles basically never offer anything that we didn't already know from the standard PLA watching grapevine, but her contributions are crippled by the fact that her articles always includes multiple incorrect premises or interpretations.

The fact that her articles offer no exclusive information at all, and the fact they are virtually always accompanied by multiple instances of incorrect information, means her current approach to writing does not deserve any defense or justification.
No one's judgement is "clouded" by the dismissal of Minnie Chan's articles -- her articles offer nothing that we didn't already know from the tried and true PLA watching methodology that's been practiced for over a decade now.

Basically re: Minnie Chan, the issue is that you don't dismiss things out of hand because she's said something, you just assign it the value of "Minnie Chan said it" and wait for other corroboration.

In the case of the strike variant, we have reports from other sources that Chengdu is interested in creating other variants of the J-20.

It's a natural progression as the US is providing newer technologies to change the regional balance of power (NGAD, B-21 EO AEW&C, micromissiles) and the J-20 platform needs to change in order to keep up with the times.

The idea that the J-20 is static and is married to a Su-57-style dogfight uber alles paradigm is basically asking for the PLAAF to lose.

***

The difference between us is that I constantly expect the PLAAF to adapt to fight the wars of the next generation, instead of simply seeing the USAF as a static target so that the PLAAF will try to fight Iraq and Afghanistan, when the US wants a new paradigm for enemy military planners to (hopefully not) grapple with. Having novel capabilities, paradigms, and designs is the only real way to compete with the United States.

Therefore, the J-20 platform needs to be constantly modified and improved instead of simply being "hay, we have an air superiority fighter with WS-15" and calling it a day. Doing that is asking to get slaughtered.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Basically re: Minnie Chan, the issue is that you don't dismiss things out of hand because she's said something, you just assign it the value of "Minnie Chan said it" and wait for other corroboration.

No, we dismiss what she says because she's demonstrated time and time again that she has no semblance of recognizing what is true and what is not, so even when she accidentally states a piece of information that is plausible, it is surrounded in the same article by so much disinformation that trying to draw out what may or may not be a plausible piece of information is a waste of everyone's time -- especially because what little plausible information she might write is usually already corroborated by other sources if we've been paying attention in the first place.



In the case of the strike variant, we have reports from other sources that Chengdu is interested in creating other variants of the J-20.

It's a natural progression as the US is providing newer technologies to change the regional balance of power (NGAD, B-21 EO AEW&C, micromissiles) and the J-20 platform needs to change in order to keep up with the times.

The idea that the J-20 is static and is married to a Su-57-style dogfight uber alles paradigm is basically asking for the PLAAF to lose.

***

The difference between us is that I constantly expect the PLAAF to adapt to fight the wars of the next generation, instead of simply seeing the USAF as a static target so that the PLAAF will try to fight Iraq and Afghanistan, when the US wants a new paradigm for enemy military planners to (hopefully not) grapple with. Having novel capabilities, paradigms, and designs is the only real way to compete with the United States.

Therefore, the J-20 platform needs to be constantly modified and improved instead of simply being "hay, we have an air superiority fighter with WS-15" and calling it a day. Doing that is asking to get slaughtered.

I truly respect your conviction in your own beliefs and arguments.

You are correct, there is a range of new technologies and platforms that the US is pursuing which will require a response -- NGAD, B-21, new AEW&C solutions, smaller AAMs, among others, as you mention.
And those new platforms and technologies will require the PLA to respond and pursue development and procurement of multiple new technologies and platforms of their own as well.
Fruitful endeavors in the aerospace/air domain that the PLA should pursue, include but are not limited to: H-20, sensible future variants of J-20, increased 5th generation production capacity overall (whether it's J-20s or if it also includes FC-31/J-XY in some form), pursuit of smaller diameter and small size AAMs of their own, UCAVs of increased autonomy and of loyal wingman orientation, distributed sensor networks and BM/SA solutions, more capable strike missiles and EW solutions, and their own 6th generation systems, among others.

The difference between you and I, is that you seem convinced that a dedicated strike variant J-20 is a sure thing, a guaranteed and obvious solution for the PLA, you write it with such gusto as if its development is so logical and obvious that not pursuing it would be incomprehensible. You seem unable to even consider the notion that perhaps there is some opportunity cost to developing a dedicated strike variant J-20, and that there are an array of other platforms and technologies in natural development whose procurement could be expanded which could carry out the same mission as a dedicated strike variant J-20 or better.

I on the other hand, am willing to consider the possibility of a dedicated strike variant J-20, but I state it with the caveat that I think it would have to either offer an expansion of its strike capabilities that makes the development cost+time+resources worth it -- and/or that the development cost+time+resources is relatively minor such that they can pursue a dedicated strike variant of J-20 without compromising their other pursuits. I recognize the opportunity cost of developing a dedicated strike variant J-20, and that other solutions may exist which can perform the same mission or better.

To paraphrase you -- the PLAAF overall needs to pursue a variety of new technologies and platforms to augment and improve existing platforms in service and future yet to emerge capabilities, as well as to sensibly fund projects that offer cost effective returns rather than focusing on only one specific parameter of one specific platform saying "hay, we have strike variant J-20 with a bigger missile load" and calling it a day. Doing that is asking to get slaughtered.

For the record, I do expect the J-20 to have a number of variants emerge, and to be a family of aircraft.
But at this stage I'm not convinced that a dedicated J-20 strike variant is one of them that will definitely emerge. It's possible -- i.e.: I'm not ruling it out, but I think there are other more likely variants that we may see first.

===

Also, please stop it with the straw man arguments.
I don't think I've ever suggested that J-20 is "married to a Su-57-style dogfight uber alles paradigm".

It's been five years since I published that original piece arguing that J-20 is not a dedicated striker or a dedicated interceptor, but that rather it's a general air superiority fighter with a secondary strike role.

I understand that in the years since, that piece seemed to have offended you or triggered you somehow, or perhaps it caused frustration that the positions laid out in the piece has become one of the accepted views on the topic, but that doesn't mean you need to compensate for it by misrepresenting my argument and implying that I or others believe J-20 is an "uber dogfighter" or that it is "incapable of any strike at all".

It's been five years now, let's move on.
 

by78

General
I wonder why the engine compartments are shortened. The AL-31 version has the engine fully covered except the moving flaps, while the WS-10 version has the grey part exposed. Is the grey part of WS-10 movable?

I don't believe the gray part is moveable. I think it covers up the various hydraulic and control mechanisms for the petals.
 

Inst

Captain
@Bltizo

I'm applying basic logic; if a known liar says that the sky is blue, it's not logical to conclude that the sky is green as a consequence.

Minnie Chan's low credibility doesn't mean that whatever she says is false; for instance, we can't conclude there's no J-20 because she claims there's a J-20 due to the preponderance of evidence. That a claim is made by Minnie Chan means that it should be treated as neutral or slightly better than neutral, given her track record, and we look elsewhere for corroboration of her claims.

Besides, as I've stated before, the J-20 family claim isn't based on Minnie Chan but rather based on rumors from other sources as well as statements by people working in the Chinese MIC.

===

As for a strike J-20, the most important thing to understand and focus on is that a strike J-20 isn't necessarily a strike J-20, it's more an air-to-air platform that's more robust in some ways than the current J-20 (A2A missile payload) and less robust in other ways (likely agility and cost).

Considering this, we have to look at what actual opportunity cost a strike J-20 will incur on other PLA programs. For instance, the JH-XX seems much more of a strike-optimized aircraft, technically a fighter bomber, than the J-20. It could potentially prove a potent air-to-air platform given its stealth, its speed, and its payload. But the JH-XX is a fighter-bomber, i.e, it potentially has a poor optics situation for the PLAAF and can't be considered the lynchpin of the PLA's air defense. And a strike J-20 wouldn't necessarily cannibalize a JH-XX, since the JH-XX, by virtue of being a larger plane, would likely have a far superior payload; a strike J-20 might be able to carry a Kinzhal-class missile, but a JH-XX is good enough for at least a DF-21 ballistic missile and might be qualified to carry a DF-26 ballistic missile.

Another PLA program that a strike J-20 might infringe upon would be sixth-generation fighter program. But to provide air defense, a sixth-generation fighter would have to be actual, as opposed to something that's slated to be ready by 2030-2035. A vaporware 6th generation program can't provide for Chinese air defense needs between now and its scheduled readiness.

The actual opportunity cost of a strike J-20, and the program a strike J-20 is most likely to cannibalize, would be the J-20 itself. Simply, a strike J-20 would be either comparable, as good, or better than the J-20 in an air superiority role. The J-20 seems to be slated for series production in limited batches, with the current inventory of the J-20 being about 50 units. Perhaps a total of 100 J-20As will be built, with at least 100 J-20Bs coming into production. A strike J-20, by virtue of being about as capable as a J-20B, would eventually obsolete the J-20B and drive J-20 project development in another direction. The F-15 and Su-27 families are strong examples of this situation, where an air superiority fighter was developed into a strike fighter and further iterations never quite abandoned the strike fighter's capabilities. The F-15EX, albeit an air-to-air variant, is designed to leverage the F-15E's strike design to deliver an astonishing number of air-to-air missiles. The Su-35 is not an inferior striker to the Su-30.

And if you look at say the F-16 project, when the F-16 was modified into supporting the strike role, the strike F-16 was not significantly inferior to the F-16As in the air superiority role. The F-16C/Ds, compared to the F-16A/B, had a more powerful engine to compensate for increased weight, and it also had enhanced radar increasing its BVR effectiveness compared to the basic F-16A/B.

So when we think about a strike J-20, we shouldn't think about it in terms of a Su-34, where the aircraft is significantly modified to function as a light bomber, but rather in terms of an F/A-18E compared to an F-18, where the strike capability of the F-18 is significantly enhanced, but little or no air superiority capability is lost between the Hornet and Super Hornet. A strike J-20 can simply be thought of as a natural extension to the J-20's air superiority mission; it gives up some maneuverability and speed for an increased weapons load, but overall it's roughly the equal of a J-20A/B in the air superiority role at the very least.

===

You have to remember, the biggest enemy of a J-20A/B isn't the F-35, but rather the counterstealth radar the Americans have up in the E-2D and their latest AEGIS. The J-20A/B needs to be able to, the moment the counterstealth AEW&C spots it, launch an interceptor or anti-radiation missile at the emitter. The J-20A/B can't do this fully; it has a limited range PL-15 for the interception task when what it wants to do is to launch a PL-16/PL-XX. Likewise, if a J-20A/B is being painted by an Arleigh Burke with counterstealth radar, the J-20A/B can't shut down the Arleigh Burke with a YJ-12 or YJ-91 missile. A "strike" J-20 can, and that just tremendously improves its air-to-air combat capabilities.
 
Last edited:

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
@Bltizo

I'm applying basic logic; if a known liar says that the sky is blue, it's not logical to conclude that the sky is green as a consequence.

Minnie Chan's low credibility doesn't mean that whatever she says is false; for instance, we can't conclude there's no J-20 because she claims there's a J-20 due to the preponderance of evidence. That a claim is made by Minnie Chan means that it should be treated as neutral or slightly better than neutral, given her track record, and we look elsewhere for corroboration of her claims.

Besides, as I've stated before, the J-20 family claim isn't based on Minnie Chan but rather based on rumors from other sources as well as statements by people working in the Chinese MIC.

===

As for a strike J-20, the most important thing to understand and focus on is that a strike J-20 isn't necessarily a strike J-20, it's more an air-to-air platform that's more robust in some ways than the current J-20 (A2A missile payload) and less robust in other ways (likely agility and cost).

Considering this, we have to look at what actual opportunity cost a strike J-20 will incur on other PLA programs. For instance, the JH-XX seems much more of a strike-optimized aircraft, technically a fighter bomber, than the J-20. It could potentially prove a potent air-to-air platform given its stealth, its speed, and its payload. But the JH-XX is a fighter-bomber, i.e, it potentially has a poor optics situation for the PLAAF and can't be considered the lynchpin of the PLA's air defense.

Another PLA program that a strike J-20 would infringe upon would be sixth-generation fighter program. But to provide air defense, a sixth-generation fighter would have to be actual, as opposed to something that's slated to be ready by 2030-2035. A vaporware 6th generation program can't provide for Chinese air defense needs between now and its scheduled readiness.

The actual opportunity cost of a strike J-20, and the program a strike J-20 is most likely to cannibalize, would be the J-20 itself. Simply, a strike J-20 would be either comparable, as good, or better than the J-20 in an air superiority role. The J-20 seems to be slated for series production in limited batches, with the current inventory of the J-20 being about 50 units. Perhaps a total of 100 J-20As will be built, with at least 100 J-20Bs coming into production. A strike J-20, by virtue of being about as capable as a J-20B, would eventually obsolete the J-20B and drive J-20 project development in another direction. The F-15 and Su-27 families are strong examples of this situation, where an air superiority fighter was developed into a strike fighter and further iterations never quite abandoned the strike fighter's capabilities. The F-15EX, albeit an air-to-air variant, is designed to leverage the F-15E's strike design to deliver an astonishing number of air-to-air missiles. The Su-35 is not an inferior striker to the Su-30.

I'm gonna refute this. I doubt there will be a strike or any other version of the J-20, unless China solves problems in the engine and is able to mass-produce the J-20. In the meantime every J-20 airframe is going to be used to defend against US and Japanese F-35s. China doesn't have a lot of stealth fighters and it needs every available air frame to face the F-35s.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I think if the range payload capability of j-20 normally attributed to it by western press is accurate, then a dedicated strike version would have capabilities far too attractive, and be far too valuable in the order of battle, to be ignored by the PLAAF, that is unless the rumor circulating in the west that PLAAF is developing a whole new intermediate stealthy airframe dedicated to tactical strike role proved true.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
@Bltizo

I'm applying basic logic; if a known liar says that the sky is blue, it's not logical to conclude that the sky is green as a consequence.

Minnie Chan's low credibility doesn't mean that whatever she says is false; for instance, we can't conclude there's no J-20 because she claims there's a J-20 due to the preponderance of evidence. That a claim is made by Minnie Chan means that it should be treated as neutral or slightly better than neutral, given her track record, and we look elsewhere for corroboration of her claims.

Besides, as I've stated before, the J-20 family claim isn't based on Minnie Chan but rather based on rumors from other sources as well as statements by people working in the Chinese MIC.

===

As for a strike J-20, the most important thing to understand and focus on is that a strike J-20 isn't necessarily a strike J-20, it's more an air-to-air platform that's more robust in some ways than the current J-20 (A2A missile payload) and less robust in other ways (likely agility and cost).

Considering this, we have to look at what actual opportunity cost a strike J-20 will incur on other PLA programs. For instance, the JH-XX seems much more of a strike-optimized aircraft, technically a fighter bomber, than the J-20. It could potentially prove a potent air-to-air platform given its stealth, its speed, and its payload. But the JH-XX is a fighter-bomber, i.e, it potentially has a poor optics situation for the PLAAF and can't be considered the lynchpin of the PLA's air defense. And a strike J-20 wouldn't necessarily cannibalize a JH-XX, since the JH-XX, by virtue of being a larger plane, would likely have a far superior payload; a strike J-20 might be able to carry a Kinzhal-class missile, but a JH-XX is good enough for at least a DF-21 ballistic missile and might be qualified to carry a DF-26 ballistic missile.

Another PLA program that a strike J-20 might infringe upon would be sixth-generation fighter program. But to provide air defense, a sixth-generation fighter would have to be actual, as opposed to something that's slated to be ready by 2030-2035. A vaporware 6th generation program can't provide for Chinese air defense needs between now and its scheduled readiness.

The actual opportunity cost of a strike J-20, and the program a strike J-20 is most likely to cannibalize, would be the J-20 itself. Simply, a strike J-20 would be either comparable, as good, or better than the J-20 in an air superiority role. The J-20 seems to be slated for series production in limited batches, with the current inventory of the J-20 being about 50 units. Perhaps a total of 100 J-20As will be built, with at least 100 J-20Bs coming into production. A strike J-20, by virtue of being about as capable as a J-20B, would eventually obsolete the J-20B and drive J-20 project development in another direction. The F-15 and Su-27 families are strong examples of this situation, where an air superiority fighter was developed into a strike fighter and further iterations never quite abandoned the strike fighter's capabilities. The F-15EX, albeit an air-to-air variant, is designed to leverage the F-15E's strike design to deliver an astonishing number of air-to-air missiles. The Su-35 is not an inferior striker to the Su-30.

And if you look at say the F-16 project, when the F-16 was modified into supporting the strike role, the strike F-16 was not significantly inferior to the F-16As in the air superiority role. The F-16C/Ds, compared to the F-16A/B, had a more powerful engine to compensate for increased weight, and it also had enhanced radar increasing its BVR effectiveness compared to the basic F-16A/B.

So when we think about a strike J-20, we shouldn't think about it in terms of a Su-34, where the aircraft is significantly modified to function as a light bomber, but rather in terms of an F/A-18E compared to an F-18, where the strike capability of the F-18 is significantly enhanced, but little or no air superiority capability is lost between the Hornet and Super Hornet. A strike J-20 can simply be thought of as a natural extension to the J-20's air superiority mission; it gives up some maneuverability and speed for an increased weapons load, but overall it's roughly the equal of a J-20A/B in the air superiority role at the very least.

===

You have to remember, the biggest enemy of a J-20A/B isn't the F-35, but rather the counterstealth radar the Americans have up in the E-2D and their latest AEGIS. The J-20A/B needs to be able to, the moment the counterstealth AEW&C spots it, launch an interceptor or anti-radiation missile at the emitter. The J-20A/B can't do this fully; it has a limited range PL-15 for the interception task when what it wants to do is to launch a PL-16/PL-XX. Likewise, if a J-20A/B is being painted by an Arleigh Burke with counterstealth radar, the J-20A/B can't shut down the Arleigh Burke with a YJ-12 or YJ-91 missile. A "strike" J-20 can, and that just tremendously improves its air-to-air combat capabilities.
Give me just one instance when Minnie Chan actually got something right before everyone else. I'm waiting ...
 

Inst

Captain
Give me just one instance when Minnie Chan actually got something right before everyone else. I'm waiting ...

That's a non sequitur; my argument is "if Minnie Chan says it's true, it doesn't mean it's false". The best example of this would be the claim of the J-20B fighter with TVC. Her detail that it was running off AL-31 was false, according to other corroborating information, but it doesn't mean that there's no J-20B with TVC in existence.

I think if the range payload capability of j-20 normally attributed to it by western press is accurate, then a dedicated strike version would have capabilities far too attractive, and be far too valuable in the order of battle, to be ignored by the PLAAF, that is unless the rumor circulating in the west that PLAAF is developing a whole new intermediate stealthy airframe dedicated to tactical strike role proved true.

The JH-XX is almost certainly a thing, but it's not in the same class as a hypothetical "strike" J-20. The JH-XX is rumored to be 30 meters long, meaning that it'd be completely massive and the loss of any JH-XX would be significant in the PLAAF orbat.

To emphasize and makes things clearer, a "strike" J-20 isn't a strike-optimized J-20 because of how 5th generation air combat seems to be shaping up. It could very well be just an air superiority J-20 with a bigger internal weapons carriage allowing it to carry interception missiles and anti-surface anti-radiation missiles. That naturally lends it to the strike mission, because if you can carry the preceding classes of missiles, you can carry strike weapons as well. And if you can carry strike weapons, you can carry more medium-range BVR missiles.

As free_6ix9ine argues, the big hold-up is the WS-15. If the WS-15 is ready and installed, we can now seriously consider "strike" J-20s. Until that happens, though, the most we'd be able to hope for would be insider leaks detailing proposals, not actual airframes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top