J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

latenlazy

Brigadier
I think the problem isn't really lack of information of WS-15 but rather lack of information of F-119. The reason of the question is that F-119's wet thrust is "too" low at around 156kN compared to WS-15's 185kN (or 180?) with almost equal dry thrust. However, 160kN is likely the thrust under super-sonic regime. I have seen 168kN of F-119 quoted by Lin Zuoming in 2000. That is a big difference between 156 adn 168. It could be that 156 is the thrust attainable in supersonic regime, while 168kN is the static thrust on the ground from P&W.

Here is the paper "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, see the right most column. It is 113 vs 168. 113 is very close to 116 in wikipedia. It is reasonable since intermediat thrust is less affected by incoming airspeed. So WS-15 gained some 10% wet thrust by lower BPR (83%) and higher in-let temperature (>4%, based on early paper >2000K, could be higher according to recent rumor). That is very reasonable IMO.
View attachment 115480
I operate under the assumption that the F-22 has a wet thrust of around 170-175 kN because that’s the figure I’ve heard from people adjacent to the F-22 program. It may be listed as 150 kN because of thrust lost from the TVC nozzles or because of initial operational limits placed on the engine for maintenance purposes.

Lower BPR should *decrease*, not *increase* wet thrust no matter which flight regime you are in. If your wet thrust at supersonic speeds is at 180 kN that would necessitate your dry thrust at those same speeds being *very* high if you’ve lost the extra thrust contribution from your fan. What you’re proposing would essentially necessitate that either dry thrust at supersonic speeds is *greater* than 110 kN *or* that at supersonic speeds the ratio of additional thrust from AB *increases*. Neither sound very tenable or in line with the physics of how these machines work.

On TIT afiak the only figure we have for the WS-15 is 1841 K. At least at face value these numbers just don’t add up.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
EF-111 and EA6B are both absolutely relevant as they are excellent examples of past dedicated EW aircraft whose capabilities can now be done with less aircrew in the cockpit, as a result of advancements in technology and automation.
F-15EX has the same crew as EF-111; will be probably (relatively) less capable as an external stores only solution, but still a massive step up: fit the pods, add a person who understands what's going on and what those glasses guys even say(interesting who that will be).
EA-6B did significant part of jamming that is usually done by larger planes. Growler can't do that - one operator is part of the problem.
Now, PLAAF right now is in a somewhat superior position, since in Westpac it can do both (turboprop dedicated EW to the rescue)
In context of the original discussion for how "EW certainly requires more than one crew" the best way to view the trend of EW capabilities being distributed to more tactical aircraft is that more aircraft have EW capabilities and can take on the EW role than the past.
I'd argue against that, since practical scope of jamming did not go up - it's in fact still the opposite for most stealth planes (jamming types, spectrum and aspect) compared to that was/is normal before(gripen, rafale, typhoon, sukhois).
Modern planes, however, thanks to first LO and then offensive jamming through main array, manage to keep ever improving radars at bay.
I disagree, I think the single seat J-20 can absolutely function well as a dedicated EW aircraft, second only to the J-16D and that's only because J-16D has dedicated EW pods. But in terms of the in built ESM capabilities of each aircraft and the EW capabilities of their primary radar, I would be surprised if J-20 was inferior.
J-20 even has some tactical advantages due to being stealthy and better able to maintain higher speeds than J-16D which are absolutely consequential to the tactical dedicated EW role.
J-20 can only jam forward(i.e. - with a rate of closure to the target; closer we're to the optimal dead on course, the higher the rate), and only in normal fire control band.
Just for geometry reasons alone it's bad. It can't keep distance and jam - in fact, it can't jam non-stop at all.
It can't jam most of the spectrum, doing that's truly expected of jamming effects.
It can't effectively jam targets distributed spatially(diagram be damned).
It can't ensure safe extraction during escort, even against the target itself, because it just doesn't jam to the rear.

That's before all that specialist v pilot point, which was actually primary.
When you ask someone to do EW, ideally you want that person to understand what he's doing, and keep attention to doing that.
Normal fighter pilot won't be that person.

J-16D will have that specialist (that's a whole degree); and with a help of a personal driver (probably also more understanding what's going on here compared to a normal pilot) and a whole airframe, dedicated to the mission(at least 13(!) large directional jamming arrays instead of 1, for example).
Not that old, too - J-16D electronic suite is not just all-new, it's in fact newer than J-20 one...

Going back to the original point, which is my contesting of the "EW certainly requires more than one crew" statement (which I note for some reason you chose not to quote in your reply despite it making up about half of my word count in my last reply)
I struggle to keep the whole post on phone screen, with shortened quotations it's far more convenient. Smaller quotes don't mean i am cherry picking, the reply is still meant for the whole post. Sorry for this misunderstanding.

The above applies to J-20 single seater variants and the twin seater variant if the PLA should go for the latter.
(for the whole last paragraph)
My interpretation is that EW attack is just a new aspect of engagement capability of 5 gen fighter, unachievable in the past; it isn't a true dedicated EW.
Specialist platforms with specialist crews on board don't just do it better, they do whole spectrum fighting thing.
Fighters in it are ultimately bypassers here, serving their own needs - 5th gen or no.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
F-15EX has the same crew as EF-111; will be probably (relatively) less capable as an external stores only solution, but still a massive step up: fit the pods, add a person who understands what's going on and what those glasses guys even say(interesting who that will be).
EA-6B did significant part of jamming that is usually done by larger planes. Growler can't do that - one operator is part of the problem.
Now, PLAAF right now is in a somewhat superior position, since in Westpac it can do both (turboprop dedicated EW to the rescue)

I'd argue against that, since practical scope of jamming did not go up - it's in fact still the opposite for most stealth planes (jamming types, spectrum and aspect) compared to that was/is normal before(gripen, rafale, typhoon, sukhois).
Modern planes, however, thanks to first LO and then offensive jamming through main array, manage to keep ever improving radars at bay.

J-20 can only jam forward(i.e. - with a rate of closure to the target; closer we're to the optimal dead on course, the higher the rate), and only in normal fire control band.
Just for geometry reasons alone it's bad. It can't keep distance and jam - in fact, it can't jam non-stop at all.
It can't jam most of the spectrum, doing that's truly expected of jamming effects.
It can't effectively jam targets distributed spatially(diagram be damned).
It can't ensure safe extraction during escort, even against the target itself, because it just doesn't jam to the rear.

That's before all that specialist v pilot point, which was actually primary.
When you ask someone to do EW, ideally you want that person to understand what he's doing, and keep attention to doing that.
Normal fighter pilot won't be that person.

J-16D will have that specialist (that's a whole degree); and with a help of a personal driver (probably also more understanding what's going on here compared to a normal pilot) and a whole airframe, dedicated to the mission(at least 13(!) large directional jamming arrays instead of 1, for example).
Not that old, too - J-16D electronic suite is not just all-new, it's in fact newer than J-20 one...


I struggle to keep the whole post on phone screen, with shortened quotations it's far more convenient. Smaller quotes don't mean i am cherry picking, the reply is still meant for the whole post. Sorry for this misunderstanding.


(for the whole last paragraph)
My interpretation is that EW attack is just a new aspect of engagement capability of 5 gen fighter, unachievable in the past; it isn't a true dedicated EW.
Specialist platforms with specialist crews on board don't just do it better, they do whole spectrum fighting thing.
Fighters in it are ultimately bypassers here, serving their own needs - 5th gen or no.

Okay, much of this discussion has gone beyond the scope of J-20 single/twin seater and EW discussions, so I'm going to turn it back and focus on the original question.

The question asked first was:
"So if two person J-20 was not an order from PLAAF and kinda experimental aircraft, we will see it developed to the real model? Or the technology progressed so fast that most of the things are now in J-20A, besides the second pilot?"
The answer then given was:
"At present level, EW certainly needs more than one crew per aircraft. So, if the PLAAF wants an EW platform on a 5th-gen fighter platform, yeah."


My answer is that for the dedicated EW role, a single seat J-20 (as well as other contemporary single seat 5th gens like F-35) can still do that mission, albeit they would be unable to focus on the other multirole capabilities that the aircraft offers, thus it would be dependent on mission profile.

You are arguing that dedicated specialist EW still benefits from having two crew members rather than one, which I've written multiple times that I agree with, but it also does not relate to the original question and answer (italicized) given above.

Dedicated EW today does not "need" more than one crew per aircraft.
Dedicated EW today however does significantly "benefit" from more than one crew per aircraft.
Unless you can demonstrate that for the dedicated EW role it is impossible or impractical or no viable mission profile could be done with only one crew member onboard, then this is something very specific which I cannot see how you can prove.
After all I've already agreed with you on the vast majority of the EW aspect which is that for all EW missions, 2 crew >> 1 crew. But if you want to be specific that for the dedicated EW mission 1 crew can under no circumstance be viable, then that's gonna have to be on you to argue for.


As for J-16D's mission suite; the J-20 sensor suite and subsystems overall have been improved between batches. J-20s of today should absolutely be at least non-inferior to J-16D's primary integrated avionics suite.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
J-20 can only jam forward(i.e. - with a rate of closure to the target; closer we're to the optimal dead on course, the higher the rate), and only in normal fire control band.
Just for geometry reasons alone it's bad. It can't keep distance and jam - in fact, it can't jam non-stop at all.
It can't jam most of the spectrum, doing that's truly expected of jamming effects.
It can't effectively jam targets distributed spatially(diagram be damned).
It can't ensure safe extraction during escort, even against the target itself, because it just doesn't jam to the rear.
Without knowing all the different EW equipment loaded on the J-20 (there seems to be antennas installed all around the J-20's body) and the power of whichever emitters it has, it's hard to know whether the claim you're making about the J-20 only being able to jam the frontal sector is true.

That's before all that specialist v pilot point, which was actually primary.
When you ask someone to do EW, ideally you want that person to understand what he's doing, and keep attention to doing that.
Normal fighter pilot won't be that person.
Increasing computation power and task automation for EW functions will impact the assumptions behind this claim here. Lots of task specializations from earlier EW platforms become increasingly redundant as systems become more computationally sophisticated and intelligent. This is even more so the case once you get into networked cross platform coordination of capabilities. It can still help to have a second person as an operational decision maker but the idea that you need someone in the cockpit dedicated to directly manage the EW functions themselves is an increasingly deprecated scenario. It's certainly a nice to have, but I'm not sure that alone deterministically dictates whether a single manned 5th+ gen fighter can perform EW capabilities competently.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Without knowing all the different EW equipment loaded on the J-20 (there seems to be antennas installed all around the J-20's body) and the power of whichever emitters it has, it's hard to know whether the claim you're making about the J-20 only being able to jam the frontal sector is true.
There are no visible antennae (or fairings) large enough to have any serious power on target at any range - and there is not much placing options for rear ones in the first place.
Numerous communications/ELINT/SATCOM arrays, on the other hand, are clearly visible.

Given that F-35 is absolutely the same, I personally don't see much need to wait here. (though f-16.net gang still waits for a miracle to happen) It's just a generational norm. That's me, of course.
It can still help to have a second person as an operational decision maker but the idea that you need someone in the cockpit dedicated to directly manage the EW functions themselves is an increasingly deprecated presumption.
Both you and Blitzo, IMHO, view EW as a feature of sorts. Which to a degree is right, for non-dedicated planes(they had it
autonomous right since their appearance on tactical planes anyways).

The problem is that EW is a battle in a battle, and is taught to be treated as such.
Analyst(s) and decision maker(s) is what matters.
Autonomous systems on kinetic combat planes here are more of a background than actors.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
There are no visible antennae (or fairings) large enough to have any serious power on target at any range - and there is not much placing options for rear ones in the first place.
Numerous communications/ELINT/SATCOM arrays, on the other hand, are clearly visible.
Antenna physical dimension is not a primary determinant of emissions power, least of all in this day and age with fractal antenna designs.

Both you and Blitzo, IMHO, view EW as a feature of sorts. Which to a degree is right, for non-dedicated planes(they had it
autonomous right since their appearance on tactical planes anyways).

The problem is that EW is a battle in a battle, and is taught to be treated as such.
Analyst(s) and decision maker(s) is what matters.
Autonomous systems here are more of a background than actors.
I don't think anyone is saying that a non EW dedicated plane can conduct full blown EW vs EW systems level contests on their own. That does not mean you can't do quite a lot with modern EW systems in a single manned fighter today. The overall direction of EW tech itself is moving toward greater automated intelligence.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Antenna physical dimension is not a primary determinant of emissions power, least of all in this day and age with fractal antenna designs.
It's against basic equations...and J-15/16D, among others, show it quite well.

Basic premise of 5th gen EW capability always was that combination of new integrated computer architecture coupled with AESA made the huge main array - something this powerful was only available for big dedicated jammers before - available for jamming, on your rank and file plane.

If physical dimension doesn't matter - why even bother...
I don't think anyone is saying that a non EW dedicated plane can conduct full blown EW vs EW systems level contests on their own. That does not mean you can't do quite a lot with modern EW systems in a single manned fighter today. The overall direction of EW tech itself is moving toward greater automated intelligence.
No disagreement here.
But automatation doesn't make this battle easier for participants; probably the opposite is true.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
It's against basic equations...and J-15/16D, among others, show it quite well.

Basic premise of 5th gen EW capability always was that combination of new integrated computer architecture coupled with AESA made the huge main array - something this powerful was only available for big dedicated jammers before - available for jamming, on your rank and file plane.

If physical dimension doesn't matter - why even bother...
The "basic equation" is textbook stuff. If everything was limited to the physics learned in an intro textbook you wouldn't have smartphones and 5G radio. Physical dimensions do matter but size is not a hard constraint. No one is arguing that you won't get *more* capability with *more* dedicated design and equipment.

No disagreement here.
But automatation doesn't make this battle easier for participants; probably the opposite is true.
Automation vs automation doesn't necessarily avail the necessity of a second person either. Once you get into automated intelligence vs automated intelligence contests increasingly what will matter is the quality of your AI since you start to get into territory where humans can't keep up beyond maybe some higher level monitoring and decision making.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
The "basic equation" is textbook stuff. If everything was limited to the physics learned in an intro textbook you wouldn't have smartphones and 5G radio. Physical dimensions do matter but size is not a hard constraint. No one is arguing that you won't get *more* capability with *more* dedicated design and equipment.
Smartphones and 5g do follow basic equations, though. That's how we get to them.

BTW, that's especially the case for J-20 specifically, since claim to having the most powerful Multifunctional AESA (large array, capable back end, lots of power on board) is one of its key (assumed) distinguishing features.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Smartphones and 5g do follow basic equations, though. That's how we get to them.
Eh, they *start* with basic equations but also require special techniques to expand their terms (Fractal antenna designs being a primary example). The point here is once you get to the advanced stuff whatever your textbook says are hard constraints aren't actually.

BTW, that's especially the case for J-20 specifically, since claim to having the most powerful Multifunctional AESA (large array, capable back end, lots of power on board) is one of its key (assumed) distinguishing features.
Upper range capabilities don't determine lower range floors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top