J-20... The New Generation Fighter

Re: New Generation Fighter

ztz99g said:

I'll grant that the J-20 can perform SEAD under certain circumstances. In situations where a static target is being defended and the SAM batteries are immobile, SEAD can be performed without being lit up by enemy radars. In this case you just go over there and bomb a fixed location. This type of attack actually blurs the line between SEAD and Strike. Classic SEAD as performed by tag-teaming wild weasel and jammer aircraft is done versus mobile SAM units where you don't know their location and thus cannot fly under stealth to a specific location and take it out with a JDAM. The wild weasel serves as bait while trolling around in enemy airspace, when an enemy radar lights it up, the EA-6B trailing behind blasts noise, the weasel destroys the radar with a HARM or JSOW, next target.

Click to expand...

Yes, all correct and all very basic stuff, but none of it addresses my question of why do you think stealth aircraft cannot engage in SEAD missions in its entirety (with the right weapons load of course).

Do you even understand how stealth fighters work? Doesn't seem like if from your post. 'Fly under stealth to a specific location'? What is that supposed to mean? This is not Star Trek where you say 'its a good day to die' and actually have to switch on a cloaking device you know. Your fighter is stealthy no matter where you fly it.

Also, do you understand why current SEAD/DEAD aircraft NEED support from dedicated jamming aircraft support now, and how that requirement for dedicated jamming aircraft could easily be completely eliminated with stealth?

Re: New Generation Fighter

Roger604 said:

Interesting analysis, but I wonder why the J-20 can't be used for anti-ship as you say.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it can't, I just don't think it will be any use against any decent modern fleet defense even if it could carry a pair of AShMs internally, and thats wildly optimistic of how many AShMs it could potentially carry internally.

The small but advanced ASM uses ramjet and travels at high supersonic speeds. In 1 to 2 minutes it impacts the carrier. The small size is compensated by a tactical nuclear warhead. Point defenses like SeaRAM can't handle too many of these incoming at once.

Click to expand...

That's just plain wishful thinking. The USN's bread and butter defensive mission has been all about defeating exactly this kind of high-speed, low volume AShM attack.

Your assumption that the CGB will be operating under complete emission silence when the J20 attack is also unrealistically advantageous to the J20. Your 'logic' about the J20 being able to find the carrier first is also hopelessly flawed.

The only way you are going to ever likely get the scenario where a J20 would happen across an USN CBG running under complete emission black out is if the J20 stumbled across the carrier and IDed it visually.

For that to happen, we are talking about the low tens of kms. When you consider how much ocean there is to search, the chances of that happening are fairly remote.

So if we disregard such a remote possibility, the most likely way a J20 would get close to an USN carrier is if other sensor platforms, such as UAVs or AWASC spotted it first, as you already mentioned, and the J20s were then vectored in.

I would strongly advise you to read up now even modern day fighter based passive sensors, and bare in mind ship-borne versions are going to be an order of magnitude more powerful.

Capable modern fighter borne passive defensive suits can pick up things as discrete as datalink and secure radio transmissions. The most obvious implication from that is that it will be like child's play for a well trained USN signals specialist to work out whether enough radar energy has hit the fleet to make it likely that they have been discovered. If they decide it is probable that an active sensor has found them, there would be absolutely no reason for the CBG to remain silent any more. At that point, they would got fully active and scanned for potential incoming hostiles while organizing a CAP or escort to go and shoot down whatever has found them.

So in any realistic engagement scenario, you would be facing a fully active and battle ready CBG, and you won't get anywhere near enough J20s near it to have any chance of saturating its and its escorts' defenses, even with that mach 5 imaginary AShM you suggested.

To achieve that speed and range and still be about the size of the C701 would require a feat and engineering beyond modern science. Hell, even if you hit a carrier with a C701 sized chuck of HE, the damage you will inflict is nowhere near enough to even slow it down, never mind hope to kill it. USN carriers are designed to take multiple hits from full blooded AShMs and still be able to operate. You are going to need a ridiculous number of hits from such small missiles to have any realistic hope to even mission filling a carrier.

If you even ran the most basic numbers, you will see how hopelessly ineffective such an attack would be even if every missile hit home, which won't be the case.

J-20 is optimized for S-band stealth (among others) and SM-2 will not be able to lock onto it. EP-3 can't track it effectively either. Nor can F/A-18 deal with it.

Click to expand...

That's just plain baseless wishful thinking.

Re: New Generation Fighter

plawolf said:

I have always wondered why the designed the J20 to be so very long.

One explanation would be for better range. I'm not yet entirely convinced on the arguments about better trans and supersonic performance. Maybe if someone who supports that view could better explain how being longer helps, I might change my mind.

Click to expand...

Well, all missiles have long narrow bodies which don't seem to limit its speed.

Overall, based on the aircraft design alone, like its long straight body, small wing and lifting areas, I tend to believe the J-20 design would generally fare better in the speed department than the departments of maneuverbility and payload. It sort of like the stealth version of J-8 which is known more for its speed than anything else. It remains to be seen how it'll perform compared with its contemporary stealth counterpart, but my take is, generally, J-20 should fare better in the speed department, followed by maneuverbility and then payload in the order of performance.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Out of the pics seen so far, does anyone observe anything similar to retractable in-flight refueling probe?

Re: New Generation Fighter

Quickie said:

Well, all missiles have long narrow bodies which don't seem to limit its speed.

Overall, based on the aircraft design alone, like its long straight body, small wing and lifting areas, I tend to believe the J-20 design would generally fare better in the speed department than the departments of maneuverbility and payload. It sort of like the stealth version of J-8 which is known more for its speed than anything else. It remains to be seen how it'll perform compared with its contemporary stealth counterpart, but my take is, generally, J-20 should fare better in the speed department, followed by maneuverbility and then payload in the order of performance.

Click to expand...

In trans and supersonic performance, I was referring to maneuverability. AFAIK, super maneuverability is as much (if not more so) about supersonic agility as it is about questionable low speed post-stall ability.

I fail to see how being longer would help the J20 in that department compared to, say, a similar design but made 10-25% shorter.

I actually don't think the J20 would have any chance of setting any fifth gen speed records unless it really does have a 'variable DSI'. One of the main disadvantages of DSI is the lower fixed max speed compared to traditional variable intakes.

I would say the the J20's range and sustained supercruise performance should be pretty awesome given its huge size. I would also it to have a very respectable internal payload, again due to its size allowing for potentially bigger and/or more weapons bays.

Its stealth and electronics are completely unknown factors are present.

Its agility is what I am most concerned about given how long it is, and the underpowered engines for now.

Its canard design should help, but that weakness may not even be fully addressed with the WS15 even if it meets its thrust requirement and also have TVC. But that is just a fear, it may turn out to be over stated. But we will have to wait and see.

Re: New Generation Fighter

MwRYum said:

Out of the pics seen so far, does anyone observe anything similar to retractable in-flight refueling probe?

Click to expand...

I would expect it to be the area on the right 'cheek' with the yellow panel.



Another shot showing how that would be optimally placed for an IFR probe, and also ruling out the possibility of it being a gun port as placing the gun there would likely blind the pilot with the muzzle flash.

I wonder where the cannon would go.

Re: New Generation Fighter

plawolf said:

In trans and supersonic performance, I was referring to maneuverability. AFAIK, super maneuverability is as much (if not more so) about supersonic agility as it is about questionable low speed post-stall ability.

I fail to see how being longer would help the J20 in that department compared to, say, a similar design but made 10-25% shorter.

I actually don't think the J20 would have any chance of setting any fifth gen speed records unless it really does have a 'variable DSI'. One of the main disadvantages of DSI is the lower fixed max speed compared to traditional variable intakes.

I would say the the J20's range and sustained supercruise performance should be pretty awesome given its huge size. I would also it to have a very respectable internal payload, again due to its size allowing for potentially bigger and/or more weapons bays.

Its stealth and electronics are completely unknown factors are present.

Its agility is what I am most concerned about given how long it is, and the underpowered engines for now.

Its canard design should help, but that weakness may not even be fully addressed with the WS15 even if it meets its thrust requirement and also have TVC. But that is just a fear, it may turn out to be over stated. But we will have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

The F-22 also has a max speed cap due to its fixed inlets. In terms of speed, I'm only worried about the WS-15's performance. The fixed inlet of the J-20 isn't much of a biggy -- as long as it can sustain supercruise in excess of mach 1 it's all goods.

On manouverability -- without having a full look of the actual wing size it'll be a bit hard to make even a cr*ppy, amateur assessment. But based on frontal pictures the length (or width?) of the wings seem proportional to the main fuselage. From my amatuer eyes they don't seem to be like the proportions of an interceptor at least.

I don't know enough to comment confidently on the J-20's manouverability -- but if the WS-15 meets its thrust benchmark and has TVC it shouldnt' be too bad.

One of the "S" in the "4S" which the general said last year was "supermanouverability". All I can say with confidence is that I'm sure CAC won't have thrown that into the bin -- and with their experience of the J-10's manouverability I'm sure J-20 won't dissapoint. Without numbers to crunch or a picture of it in flight I can't say much more.

Re: New Generation Fighter

plawolf said:

The only way you are going to ever likely get the scenario where a J20 would happen across an USN CBG running under complete emission black out is if the J20 stumbled across the carrier and IDed it visually.

For that to happen, we are talking about the low tens of kms. When you consider how much ocean there is to search, the chances of that happening are fairly remote.

Click to expand...

There are points in your post we can agree to disagree on but this point the J-20 wouldn't have to ID it visually. The J-20 should have IRST (just like J-11B) and it would be able to fly at a decent altitude and be able to scan the horizon for IR signature. Ships would show up and unless there's commercial shipping during hostilities there's your CVBG.

Re: New Generation Fighter

[video=youtube;uOOHTthSo3E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOOHTthSo3E[/video]
@0:23
Are we looking at the simulator with cockpit layout of the J-20?

Re: New Generation Fighter



Gaoshan is known for leaking mysteriously accurate CGI. Although the actual J-20 did not look like his old 2004-ish CGI (may be original CAC proposal), I expect these will be proven accurate soon.

Looks to me like the canards, wings and vertical stabilizers are slightly trapezoidal, not straight or slightly swept. The second picture is interesting. The way the tail part goes apart from the engines suggests 3D TVC!!!