What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

kungfugymnast

BANNED
Sep 19, 2015
694
-11
349
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
The J-20 should be called "The Terminator"
Su-37 already taken this nickname given by the west.

damn son! even the retired F-111 had a low band jammer - ask @gambit he flew one...

Even you know this, if he is still in tactical air command today, he would probably fly the F-15E or F-15EX. After Desert Storm and Kosovo campaign, USAF would arm their strike fighters with precision guided missiles and bombs engaging ground targets without getting into visual range. @gambit won't have to fly supersonic at low altitude like he did in F-111 anymore avoid getting spiked flying into deadly new generation enemy SAM threat.

What's your thought on J-20 air to ground capability?

I have been pointing out these 'solutions' and their weaknesses since '09. The problem for these people is that they do not bother to do basic research. Someone fed them one bit of information and they think that is the total, voila, 'stealth' is defeated. One guy even said Russia stopped developing the Su-57 because the Kolchuga system worked.
It's just another Russian lame excuse to hide their shame of not having cash to build more Su-57. If Kolchuga system land based passive radar really works, their military would have easily detect and track all the enemy drones monitoring Russian forces movement and designate target for Ukraine Army artillery and anti-tank units ambush. The best radar is always up in the air that could see the most. Your thoughts on J-20 air to ground capability?
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
5,468
13
6,009
Country
France
Location
United States
Even you know this, if he is still in tactical air command today, he would probably fly the F-15E or F-15EX. After Desert Storm and Kosovo campaign, USAF would arm their strike fighters with precision guided missiles and bombs engaging ground targets without getting into visual range. @gambit won't have to fly supersonic at low altitude like he did in F-111 anymore avoid getting spiked flying into deadly new generation enemy SAM threat.

What's your thought on J-20 air to ground capability?
low altitude penetration is still a niche served by the B1-B Lancer in the USAF. Penetration cannot occur at stand off range using stand off munitions sometimes you have to kick the door down and see what pops up before you can kill it.

I think low altitude ingress will over time be the sole preserve of unmanned platforms. Today, we have loitering munitions like the Tomahawk for pop up threats. This new Tomahawk capability was tested very effectively in Libya, fly in low below 50 or 100 ft hug the terrain and you are practically invisible. Use your conformal interferometer arrays to geolocate and evade or destroy threats.

What are my thoughts on J-20's ATG capabilities? Not a clue, when I saw a picture of the J-20 for the first time, I thought it was purpose built for defensive counter air, I think the Pentagon came to the same conclusion and have since then introduced platforms and tactics to mitigate the risk to slow air in or near the theatre. I don't think the J-20 was designed for SAM hunting or close air support. Strategic deep strikes sure - but, I'm not convinced the J-20 has long legs.
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,500
3
14,988
Country
China
Location
United States
low altitude penetration is still a niche served by the B1-B Lancer in the USAF. Penetration cannot occur at stand off range using stand off munitions sometimes you have to kick the door down and see what pops up before you can kill it.

I think low altitude ingress will over time be the sole preserve of unmanned platforms. Today, we have loitering munitions like the Tomahawk for pop up threats. This new Tomahawk capability was tested very effectively in Libya, fly in low below 50 or 100 ft hug the terrain and you are practically invisible. Use your conformal interferometer arrays to geolocate and evade or destroy threats.

What are my thoughts on J-20's ATG capabilities? Not a clue, when I saw a picture of the J-20 for the first time, I thought it was purpose built for defensive counter air, I think the Pentagon came to the same conclusion and have since then introduced platforms and tactics to mitigate the risk to slow air in or near the theatre. I don't think the J-20 was designed for SAM hunting or close air support. Strategic deep strikes sure - but, I'm not convinced the J-20 has long legs.
Base on reliable source, J-20 has higher lift coefficient than F-22, quite a big margin.

Canard wing design usually has higher lift coefficient than F-22 clipped delta wing configuration. Even Dafale has better lift coefficient, J-20 is even superior.

Not sure what's the standard of long leg, but definitely much longer leg than F-22.
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
5,468
13
6,009
Country
France
Location
United States
Base on reliable source, J-20 has higher lift coefficient than F-22, quite a big margin.

Canard wing design usually has higher lift coefficient than F-22 clipped delta wing configuration. Even Dafale has better lift coefficient, J-20 is even superior.

Not sure what's the standard of long leg, but definitely much longer leg than F-22.

I believe you. But did you know the StarFighter had a lousy lift coefficient and less than half the thrust of an F-16 but could easily sustain Mach 2. Yes the F-104 has a small stubby wing, the consequence of higher lift is higher drag. Also, every time you deflect a control surface you increase drag.When you bank, pitch up or down and turn. On a delta canard, in level flight; the control surfaces on the aircraft is constantly trimming the nose incurring more drag as a result. The J-20 was deliberately designed to carry a lot of fuel. I can't make any comments about it's engine fuel efficiency but I speculate Chinese engines have not hit the sweet spot of engine performance in terms of fuel efficiency ,reliability and thrust. And the J-20 engineers did not expect to fully resolve these issues during the design phase of the project.
 

kungfugymnast

BANNED
Sep 19, 2015
694
-11
349
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
low altitude penetration is still a niche served by the B1-B Lancer in the USAF. Penetration cannot occur at stand off range using stand off munitions sometimes you have to kick the door down and see what pops up before you can kill it.

I think low altitude ingress will over time be the sole preserve of unmanned platforms. Today, we have loitering munitions like the Tomahawk for pop up threats. This new Tomahawk capability was tested very effectively in Libya, fly in low below 50 or 100 ft hug the terrain and you are practically invisible. Use your conformal interferometer arrays to geolocate and evade or destroy threats.

What are my thoughts on J-20's ATG capabilities? Not a clue, when I saw a picture of the J-20 for the first time, I thought it was purpose built for defensive counter air, I think the Pentagon came to the same conclusion and have since then introduced platforms and tactics to mitigate the risk to slow air in or near the theatre. I don't think the J-20 was designed for SAM hunting or close air support. Strategic deep strikes sure - but, I'm not convinced the J-20 has long legs.

The B-1B seems to be 1 huge target to fly in and out of danger zone safely at such low terrain masking altitude today given the deadly new generation SAM system that has ability to detect, track, acquire lock and shoot in short time? Better deploy numbers of smaller lower cost fighters such as F-16 for search and destroy sorties while F-15E on second line clearing the path out of enemy SAMs and AAAs paving way for fighters and bombers on strike package for enemy structures. Over Afghanistan, the US fighters didn't really fly low to release JDAM, Paveways as newer FLIR targeting pods such as SNIPER, ATFLIR, Litening are superior than the old LANTIRN.

Russian Air Force Su-30SM and Russian Navy Su-34 shot down over Ukraine clearly tells the deadly effective SAM system as even MANPADS such as Starstreak could accelerate to Mach 4 splashing the Mi-28 before it could even react for defensive countermeasures and maneuver at range of less than 2Nm. Most of Russian air to ground missiles Kh-25, Kh-31, Kh-59 seekers relying on active radar guidance that can't distinguish friendly and enemy targets if enemies are hiding in populated cities. Their laser guided missiles and bombs have shorter effective range than US counterpart due to poorer targeting system requiring fighters to fly closer in order to designate target on the blurry TV on MFD or through HUD. Looking at big heavy Kh-29T/L vs AGM-65E/F/D/G, the Mavericks have longer effective range and accuracy whereas Kh-29T/L relying on huge warhead to blast anything within that radius if it didn't land exactly on target. Unguided rockets and bombs are totally obsolete to be carried on fighters nowadays looking at how hopeless the 4th generations Russian fighter bombers are over Ukraine.

PLAAF fighters been relying mostly on similar air to ground ordnance until after they managed to reverse engineer LANTIRN and come up with more laser guided missiles and bombs for their newer fighters such as J-16, J-10B/C and J-11D. Guess they should be able to fit FLIR targeting pod for J-20 later as some expert in forum said that the angular spade glass beneath the J-20 fore bottom fuselage just after radome (that looks like F-35 built in EOTS FLIR + IRST pod ) is only IRST without the FLIR pod. Everyone including me thought the J-20 has EOTS FLIR + IRST like F-35 until few guys in this forum told me that is just IRST, not for designating ground targets. If J-20A/B aren't equipped with FLIR, then its air to ground capability is just limited to launching radar guided missiles or passive guided missiles or GPS guided missiles/bombs. Apart from Blue Arrow series laser guided air to ground missiles and LS series laser guided bombs, I don't see any other tactical air to ground missiles that don't need to turn radar.
 

Attachments

  • F-35 EOTS vs J-20 IRST.jpg
    F-35 EOTS vs J-20 IRST.jpg
    154.4 KB · Views: 53

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
5,468
13
6,009
Country
France
Location
United States
The B-1B seems to be 1 huge target to fly in and out of danger zone safely at such low terrain masking altitude today given the deadly new generation SAM system that has ability to detect, track, acquire lock and shoot in short time?
True, but these platforms can fly in low and detect emitters and skirt around the enemy SAMs where possible. Star Streak or similar is not an issue since the B1-B flies in low, fast and releases its pay load in a single pass. Typically, the B1-B will be too fast for the Star Streak operator to laser track and launch a missile. Star Streak is effective against fighters that churn over their target and drop munitions. The greatest threat to the B1-B is quick reaction IR SAMs operating 'uncaged' over the target area.

The B1-B is one of the many options at the commanders disposal, against a near peer adversary it may require sustained effort using multiple platforms (LO / autonomous / loitering munitions/ decoys/ ECM/ sabotage..and so on) and tactics to systematically degrade the integrated air defence over the target, this may take several days.
 
Last edited:

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
5,468
13
6,009
Country
France
Location
United States
the angular spade glass beneath the J-20 fore bottom fuselage just after radome (that looks like F-35 built in EOTS FLIR + IRST pod ) is only IRST without the FLIR pod.
Yes, I was aware from Hi resolution photos of the J20. EOTS on the J20 is still work in progress.
 

kungfugymnast

BANNED
Sep 19, 2015
694
-11
349
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Yes, I was aware from Hi resolution photos of the J20. EOTS on the J20 is still work in progress.

Thanks for the info on B-1B, the goose is still deadly against numbers of countries military today. Which is the best MANPADS today according to your opinion? For manportable anti-tank missile is still the Javelin as per performance in Ukraine while NLAW and panzerfaust failed to destroy Russian MBT in single hit.

As for J-20, without EOTS, it could only carry radar guided, GPS guided and passive guided air to ground missiles. The war in Ukraine shows how important FLIR targeting pod and IR/Laser guided missiles and glide bombs are as no advanced aircraft is safe being less than 2nm from enemy AAA/SAM today.
 

luciferdd

FULL MEMBER
Sep 25, 2013
326
0
746
Thanks for the info on B-1B, the goose is still deadly against numbers of countries military today. Which is the best MANPADS today according to your opinion? For manportable anti-tank missile is still the Javelin as per performance in Ukraine while NLAW and panzerfaust failed to destroy Russian MBT in single hit.

As for J-20, without EOTS, it could only carry radar guided, GPS guided and passive guided air to ground missiles. The war in Ukraine shows how important FLIR targeting pod and IR/Laser guided missiles and glide bombs are as no advanced aircraft is safe being less than 2nm from enemy AAA/SAM today.
In fact there is such EOTS named EOTS-86,but j-20 didn't choised it because J-20 will not opera A2G mission in most case in short tern.
8f719ea1cd11728bba038844dffcc3cec3fd2c1f.jpg
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,500
3
14,988
Country
China
Location
United States
I believe you. But did you know the StarFighter had a lousy lift coefficient and less than half the thrust of an F-16 but could easily sustain Mach 2. Yes the F-104 has a small stubby wing, the consequence of higher lift is higher drag. Also, every time you deflect a control surface you increase drag.When you bank, pitch up or down and turn. On a delta canard, in level flight; the control surfaces on the aircraft is constantly trimming the nose incurring more drag as a result. The J-20 was deliberately designed to carry a lot of fuel. I can't make any comments about it's engine fuel efficiency but I speculate Chinese engines have not hit the sweet spot of engine performance in terms of fuel efficiency ,reliability and thrust. And the J-20 engineers did not expect to fully resolve these issues during the design phase of the project.
U.S. always has better engine, better reliability, efficiency, as well as trust. During Cold War, Soviet never had any better engine neither. I think China at least need 10-20 years to catch up.

China J-20 is specially designed for West Pacific theater:
  1. First island chain depth is 500km (Okinawa, Japan), 1200 km (Yokosuka, Japan), and 2000 km (Singapore).
  2. Width is around 5000 km, from north (Yokosuka, Japan) to Singapore.

West pacific theater is much larger both in width and depth than Central Europe theater during the Cold War:
  1. Width is 700 km from Baltic to the Adriatic Sea.
  2. Depth is zero, the border is frontline.
  3. There are tens of military airfields and hundreds of civilian airports in West Europe available for F-22.

  • F-22 is designed for Central Europe theater during Cold War, short leg is no problem.
  • J-20 is designed for West Pacific theater, long leg is a priority.
 

Ali_Baba

SENIOR MEMBER
May 27, 2018
3,998
-1
5,613
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
U.S. always has better engine, better reliability, efficiency, as well as trust. During Cold War, Soviet never had any better engine neither. I think China at least need 10-20 years to catch up.

China J-20 is specially designed for West Pacific theater:
  1. First island chain depth is 500km (Okinawa, Japan), 1200 km (Yokosuka, Japan), and 2000 km (Singapore).
  2. Width is around 5000 km, from north (Yokosuka, Japan) to Singapore.

West pacific theater is much larger both in width and depth than Central Europe theater during the Cold War:
  1. Width is 700 km from Baltic to the Adriatic Sea.
  2. Depth is zero, the border is frontline.
  3. There are tens of military airfields and hundreds of civilian airports in West Europe available for F-22.

  • F-22 is designed for Central Europe theater during Cold War, short leg is no problem.
  • J-20 is designed for West Pacific theater, long leg is a priority.

There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.

So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
7,041
7
14,311
Country
China
Location
United States
There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.

So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.

Ah, the great doritos war!
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,500
3
14,988
Country
China
Location
United States
There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.

So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.
Agree, and it will be manned/unmanned mixed.
 

S10

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 13, 2009
5,102
-16
8,515
Country
China
Location
Canada
There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.

So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.

I am unconvinced that we will see any 6th generation fighter from US in significant numbers until after 2035.
 

kungfugymnast

BANNED
Sep 19, 2015
694
-11
349
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
In fact there is such EOTS named EOTS-86,but j-20 didn't choised it because J-20 will not opera A2G mission in most case in short tern.
View attachment 846085

Thanks for the info, China focus now is more towards anti-ship rather than air to ground as they expect enemies to come from sea to shore rather than from land. There are dozen types of anti-ship missiles but not many air to ground laser & IR guided missiles with over 9nm range meant for search & destroy.

The importance of J-20 having EOTS is to sneak & designate targets for friendly fighters to launch preemptive missiles and accurately hit all designated targets. Not sure if China EOTS works the same as F-35 where it could designate targets for friendlies via datalink allowing use of laser guided & GPS guided missiles/gliding bombs.

Radar guided air to ground missiles only work if it's group of enemy tanks on the field or assault on enemy military base where there's no discriminate fire required. Radar switched to ground search mode on MFD shows dots, can't really tell whether you're tracking high asset value target, high threat target, low priority target, irrelevant target or civilian target. That is why Russian fighters and attack aircraft in Ukraine didn't carry radar guided Kh-25 at all against Zelensky forces massing in cities because the MFD can't tell whether the pilot is tracking a civilian car or enemy vehicle.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom