CAC J-20 vs. F-22 and other technical issues

[SME11B]

Advanced Helmet, PL-10 Missile Ensure J-20’s Killing of F-35, F-22

J-20 pilot in helmet, a magic one compared with F-35’s. Mil.huanqiu’s photo

Justin Lee in the cockpit of an F-35 image Samuel King Jr./USAF
Note: the helmet is but a common one similar to those used decades ago.

There is no official information whether J-20 has a cannon or not, but National Interest is happy at the speculation that J-20 does not have one as no bulge or opening for cannon has been found in photographs of J-20. However, its article “Problem: China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn’t Have a Gun” on January 3, 2019 does not fully reveal its happiness that US fighter jet, even the non-stealth one, can kill a J-20 in dogfight. The word “Problem” in the article must be J-20’s problem, but it reads as if it is America’s problem.
Who’s problem is it after all?
America’s problem!

The two photos at top show how backward F-35 pilot’ helmet is compared with J-20 pilot’s. The former is taken from Popular Mechanics’ article “An F-35 Pilot Explains What It’s Like to Fly the Joint Strike Fighter” dated March 5 and the latter from mil.huanqiu.com’s report “Two dragons raise heads in February! Four J-20 Mighty Dragons were showcased the same time with overbearing appearance” on March 8.

In combat between stealth fighters, J-20 can discover and attack F-35 earlier as it is heavier able to carry more powerful radar, but F-22 is able to carry a radar as powerful so that they find each other about 80 km away.

Due to their high supersonic cruise speed, they are only less than 80 seconds away when they fire long-range air-to-air missile at each other. When they find both their missiles have missed their targets, they are so close that their pilots will be able to see each other’s plane.

F-22 pilot starts to lock on J-20 to fire his short-range air-to-air missile, it takes some time but according to mil.huanqiu.com’s report, with the advanced helmet J-20 pilot can immediately fire its PL-10 dogfight missile at F-22 he looks at. As a result, J-20 can fire at the enemy early.

PL-10 is highly maneuverable and will hit the target that J-20 pilot keeps looking at through the helmet no matter how its target maneuvers. The missile is guided by photoelectric system so that electronic jamming to disturb J-20’s radar does not work. J-20 pilot will keep on looking at F-22 and ignore the decoy F-22 releases; therefore, his target will surely be hit by his PL-10 dogfight missile.

Moreover, the report says that PL-10 can be fired at target an angle away from the direction J-20 is flying. When J-20 pilot find an enemy fighter jet an angle away from his direction, he has just to turn his head to look at the enemy and fire his PL-10 dogfight missile to hit the enemy fighter jet.

As F-22 fires its missile at least a second or two late, when PL-10 come to the distance of sure hit, J-20 will have enough time for maneuver to avoid being hit by F-22’s missile. When F-22 has been destroyed by PL-10, its missile loses the guidance of its radar or photoelectric system.

National Interest’s article on the indispensable need of a cannon for a fighter jet in dogfight is based on US experience in the air combats in Vietnam War that ended in 1975. It entirely ignores the development of modern technology.

A cannon has only a range of 800 feet and is too slow to lock on and inaccurate. When the target is a stealth fighter jet with high speed maneuverability, the probability of a stealth fighter jet flying to the position within 800 feet behind an enemy stealth fighter jet is too thin to justify the space and load taken by a cannon and its ammunition.

US media Business Insider says in its article “China’s J-20 stealth fighter has no cannon — and it shows the jet can’t dogfight with the US” on January 22. 2019, “A Business Insider review found that the last time a US plane shot down an enemy aircraft with guns was most likely the Cold War-era tank buster A-10 downing an Iraqi helicopter in 1991— hardly applicable to the world of fifth-generation fighter aircraft.”

China’s invention of advanced helmet and PL-10 has greatly enhanced J-20’s dogfight capability and enable J-20 to kill whatever US fighter jet in dogfight.

As a matter of fact, as far back as in July 2014 US well-known aviation website the “Aviators” revealed in an article the capabilities of J-20 and PL-10 missile in dogfight.

According to the article, unlike the US missile carried by F-22, PL-10 has better view when carried by J-20. It does not require the F-22’s complicated move of locking on its target after launch by the pilot. The pilot’s helmet of J-20 is so advanced that when a PL-10 is launched, it will hit at the target that the pilot looks at. As it takes time for an F-22 pilot to lock on a J-20 in a fight between the two fighters, the simplicity in taking aim enables J-20 to fire its PL-10 earlier and hit an F-22 earlier.

The article revealed that some F-22 pilots’ worry that when J-20 stealth fighters have been commissioned in Chinese air force, F-22 will entirely lose its superiority.

Therefore, what I reveal here is by no means a secret about J-20. In my opinion, there is no need for a cannon on J-20.
There are lots of magic functions of the helmet. I will disclose what can be disclosed later.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on mil.huanqiu.com’s report, full text of which in Chinese can be viewed.

I'll bite. The general consensus is that j-20's stealth is inferior to f-22 and f-35 at a significant level, the only question is by how much and at what angle. J-20's best stealth as usual is from the front but it doesn't know what direction to point it's nose it can't keep it's best stealth profile and is said to be much more detectable from the sides and rear than US 5th gens. We don't know much about the performance of the AESA in j-20 but we do know they are new to the game and it's obvious that even if the j-20 is bigger and has more room in the nose cone that doesn't mean superior performance is mandated. I would guess because they are new comers and their radars have not been stellar in the past they are not as advanced once again, they should be enough to compete with 4.5 gen fighters if not solely on j-20s superior rcs but that' doesn't help against f-22/35. With superior eyes and stealth it's a sure thing f-22/35 get the first look and shot unless j-20 is entering another ongoing fight.

J-20s engines are not able to compete right now so j-20 will either be significantly slower, or will be much more detectable in IR and sacrifice some of it's range if it wants to compete in speed. Just like it isn't known if j-20 even has a gun it's not know if it has incorporated IR reduction measures that I am aware of. There isn't much evidence for j-20 being super agile either so it's best to avoid high end fights with f-22/35. It will probably try to use it's "stealthy enough" profile and superior range as well as it's home ground advantage to try to sneak attack targets that are easily detected and hope they are not intercepted.

With regards to the helmet f-22/35 both have a queuing system to direct aim-9x and also have confirmed data linking with aim-9 and aim-120. I don't see how j-20 is at anything but a disadvantage if all these things are remotely true. The only area we can be confident the j-20 is superior is range but we don't know by how much. Also those helmets are not a chinese invention I believe south africa invented them decades ago and are pretty common place by now, f-35's helmet takes it a step further with all the info it gives the pilot and not even needing a HUD.

Also not only is it known that f-35 in particular is very well networked but also could have E-2D which uses a very powerful radar that is said to work well against stealth fighters. Not sure if chinese awacs have a similar capability or if they work in the standard L band.

J-20s pl-10 can ride outside the air frame giving it a better view but that is really only important if it is not directed by data link. Aim-9x doesn't need to look before launch it can be launch then directed by datalink after so pl-10 is behind in that area. The rest of your rant is you downplaying not having the option of a gun. Guns still have uses and personally I would rather have one especially for supporting ground troops. Also it gives another option to take out planes that can be closed with and are not aware and that means you don't have to waste a missile. Missiles are in short supply in 5th gens that want to retain their best stealth profile.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

J-20's best stealth as usual is from the front but it doesn't know what direction to point it's nose it can't keep it's best stealth profile and is said to be much more detectable from the sides and rear than US 5th gens.

Said by whom? Name a single reputable source.

 

[lcloo]

Strong curry flavour in the air. I love roti prata, just the plain one, with dhal, curry and sambal.

 

[Figaro]

Said by whom? Name a single reputable source.

He is correct regarding the rear of the J-20. The J-20's current engine nozzles are basically uncovered at this point ... so from the back it doesn't look good. The side you really can't tell until you do a comprehensive RCS test. Obviously from the front, the stealth is the best, as with all 5th generation jets. But the rear is going to expose the J-20 unless it adopts the WS-10X jagged nozzles.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I'll bite. The general consensus is that j-20's stealth is inferior to f-22 and f-35 at a significant level, the only question is by how much and at what angle. J-20's best stealth as usual is from the front but it doesn't know what direction to point it's nose it can't keep it's best stealth profile and is said to be much more detectable from the sides and rear than US 5th gens. We don't know much about the performance of the AESA in j-20 but we do know they are new to the game and it's obvious that even if the j-20 is bigger and has more room in the nose cone that doesn't mean superior performance is mandated. I would guess because they are new comers and their radars have not been stellar in the past they are not as advanced once again, they should be enough to compete with 4.5 gen fighters if not solely on j-20s superior rcs but that' doesn't help against f-22/35. With superior eyes and stealth it's a sure thing f-22/35 get the first look and shot unless j-20 is entering another ongoing fight.

J-20s engines are not able to compete right now so j-20 will either be significantly slower, or will be much more detectable in IR and sacrifice some of it's range if it wants to compete in speed. Just like it isn't known if j-20 even has a gun it's not know if it has incorporated IR reduction measures that I am aware of. There isn't much evidence for j-20 being super agile either so it's best to avoid high end fights with f-22/35. It will probably try to use it's "stealthy enough" profile and superior range as well as it's home ground advantage to try to sneak attack targets that are easily detected and hope they are not intercepted.

With regards to the helmet f-22/35 both have a queuing system to direct aim-9x and also have confirmed data linking with aim-9 and aim-120. I don't see how j-20 is at anything but a disadvantage if all these things are remotely true. The only area we can be confident the j-20 is superior is range but we don't know by how much. Also those helmets are not a chinese invention I believe south africa invented them decades ago and are pretty common place by now, f-35's helmet takes it a step further with all the info it gives the pilot and not even needing a HUD.

Also not only is it known that f-35 in particular is very well networked but also could have E-2D which uses a very powerful radar that is said to work well against stealth fighters. Not sure if chinese awacs have a similar capability or if they work in the standard L band.

J-20s pl-10 can ride outside the air frame giving it a better view but that is really only important if it is not directed by data link. Aim-9x doesn't need to look before launch it can be launch then directed by datalink after so pl-10 is behind in that area. The rest of your rant is you downplaying not having the option of a gun. Guns still have uses and personally I would rather have one especially for supporting ground troops. Also it gives another option to take out planes that can be closed with and are not aware and that means you don't have to waste a missile. Missiles are in short supply in 5th gens that want to retain their best stealth profile.

every 5th gen has lowest RCS to the front (Head on), from sides every 5th gen jet has relatively large RCS but i agree with you because of 2 ventral fins J-20 has slightly large RCS from side as compare to F-22/F-35, main theme behind all 5th gen jets is to go BVR fight (beyond visual range combat) rather than a dogfight (close air combat), and J-20 has different philosophy as compare to F-22/F-35/Su-57, shoot and scoot ( shoot BVR and retreat), so maneuverability/agility is a secondary consideration, the biggest weakness is for J-20 is engine so they working on WS-15 and will ready in 2021-2023 time-frame, rest of your post is just baseless assumptions and rants, in the term of military tech China almost on par of USA, in fact in few fields China ahead of USA,, they have testing long range UAV having L-band radars but L-band radars has low resolution to guide BVR to Stealth enabled target they can only detect/track stealth enabled targets not able to engage it @SME11B

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

He is correct regarding the rear of the J-20. The J-20's current engine nozzles are basically uncovered at this point ... so from the back it doesn't look good. The side you really can't tell until you do a comprehensive RCS test. Obviously from the front, the stealth is the best, as with all 5th generation jets. But the rear is going to expose the J-20 unless it adopts the WS-10X jagged nozzles.

That's a known issue ever since we first saw the J-20 flying with interim engines, not a structural flaw. There's no indication the side stealth is compromised, and rear stealth will at least be at the level of the F-35 once the WS-15 is introduced. I see no indication that the WS-10B will be adopted - it seems to have been a backup in case there was a problem with Russian supply. I think it will be AL-31 -> WS-15.

I'm willing to grant that the F-22 has better rear stealth since it uses rectangular nozzles, but it's a small advantage in the final calculation. I'll go out on a limb and say that if a radar could detect the F-22 at 100 km, then the same radar under the same conditions would detect the finalized J-20 at 105 km.

 

[SME11B]

Said by whom? Name a single reputable source.

Every source other than chinese state run media.

every 5th gen has lowest RCS to the front (Head on), from sides every 5th gen jet has relatively large RCS but i agree with you because of 2 ventral fins J-20 has slightly large RCS from side as compare to F-22/F-35, main theme behind all 5th gen jets is to go BVR fight (beyond visual range combat) rather than a dogfight (close air combat), and J-20 has different philosophy as compare to F-22/F-35/Su-57, shoot and scoot ( shoot BVR and retreat), so maneuverability/agility is a secondary consideration, the biggest weakness is for J-20 is engine so they working on WS-15 and will ready in 2021-2023 time-frame, rest of your post is just baseless assumptions and rants, in the term of military tech China almost on par of USA, in fact in few fields China ahead of USA,, they have testing long range UAV having L-band radars but L-band radars has low resolution to guide BVR to Stealth enabled target they can only detect/track stealth enabled targets not able to engage it @SME11B

You have some sort of insider information? Not all is known about western systems and far less about chinese ones. So give your assessment and why you think they are on par and no I won't call it a rant for no reason.

 

[gambit]

I'm willing to grant that the F-22 has better rear stealth since it uses rectangular nozzles, but it's a small advantage in the final calculation. I'll go out on a limb and say that if a radar could detect the F-22 at 100 km, then the same radar under the same conditions would detect the finalized J-20 at 105 km.

This is how any radar of any design of any operating freq 'sees' an aircraft...

...A cluster of voltage spikes.

You are telling the world -- or at least this forum -- that based upon your visualization from photographs that you can distinguish out individual voltage spikes from the various structures on the F-22 and J-20 to be that precise in detection range at highly specific angles.

Truly amazing...

 

[SME11B]

That's a known issue ever since we first saw the J-20 flying with interim engines, not a structural flaw. There's no indication the side stealth is compromised, and rear stealth will at least be at the level of the F-35 once the WS-15 is introduced. I see no indication that the WS-10B will be adopted - it seems to have been a backup in case there was a problem with Russian supply. I think it will be AL-31 -> WS-15.

I'm willing to grant that the F-22 has better rear stealth since it uses rectangular nozzles, but it's a small advantage in the final calculation. I'll go out on a limb and say that if a radar could detect the F-22 at 100 km, then the same radar under the same conditions would detect the finalized J-20 at 105 km.

You can't just eyeball a jet and know it's exact rcs, I am repeating what experts and insiders have hinted at. I like how 70% of this forum are experts in this niche field lol. I have done tons of reading and much from those who would know something but I don't claim so surly as many do. You defiantly can't know how well the RAM or RAS works or LPI characteristics of the radar and comms, so many details can't be known so your figures probably don't carry much weight. The opinion I would listen to the most are those who built stealth jets who opine. I think I gave the gist of what they believe. You could be right but to me it sounds like a stretch. China would have to have covered a lot of ground that has not been confirmed yet and usually they shout from the roof tops if they have made progress, especially since j-20 is supposed to be operational now. The main problem with ws-15 has been thrust but IR signature has not been mentioned at all let alone said to be in the works and done. I don't just mean not using afterburner either I mean actual IR suppression measures.

Reported for trolling @SME11B @Deino please banned @SME11B at least from J-20 thread he always troll here ,thanks


i am saying almost on par you troll reported again @Deino please ban this troll

Can't take the heat? Sorry not everybody just wants to be told things that make them happy all the time regardless if they are grounded in reality. Is this a serious forum or a pep really? You are the one hurling insults so maybe you should be banned if anything.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Truly amazing...

Far more amazing is that reasoning even less rigorous than that is published by the likes of The National Interest and Business Insider and accepted by people like you as Gospel. You can throw out whatever word salad of quasi-technical terms you like, the simple fact is the legions of highly qualified engineers working on the J-20 with the benefit the most capable supercomputers in the world have designed an aircraft at least as capable as the F-22 from the 1990's, full stop. That I gave the F-22 a slight advantage is just arguing a fortiori.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Can't take the heat? Sorry not everybody just wants to be told things that make them happy all the time regardless if they are grounded in reality. Is this a serious forum or a pep really? You are the one hurling insults so maybe you should be banned if anything.

you're not putting any ground realities on the section but blabber and troll baseless, i have to ask one question if you knows nothing about military tech/tactics then why you always troll against J-20 and most of J-20 tech is classified, reported again for trolling @SME11B

 

[gambit]

Far more amazing is that reasoning even less rigorous than that is published by the likes of The National Interest and Business Insider and accepted by people like you as Gospel.

You can use 'like me' all you want, but I do not use them as technical sources, so save that for others, namely the Chinese members of this forum, who do uses those sources.

You can throw out whatever word salad of quasi-technical terms you like,...

The problem for that reply is that since '09, no one, including the Chinese members of this forum, have managed to prove me wrong. So it looks like my salad is more intellectually nutritious than yours.

...the simple fact is the legions of highly qualified engineers working on the J-20 with the benefit the most capable supercomputers in the world have designed an aircraft at least as capable as the F-22 from the 1990's, full stop. That I gave the F-22 a slight advantage is just arguing a fortiori.

There is no such 'fact'. I have always maintained, since the J-20 debuted, that the only way to know definitively is to pit the two against each other. A scenario that we know will never occur except in combat. But for now, the best we have are speculations and each must be based on known facts -- real facts. Current speculations that are independent of state media -- read China -- are that the newer J-20 is 'less than capable', to use that polite phrasing, than the older F-22. Sorry, but year of development does not make something inherently better.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

There is no such 'fact'.

I'm afraid there is, and there's nothing you've said since 2009, 1999, or whenever else, and nothing you ever will say that can refute it because it's irrefutable.

Current speculations that are independent of state media -- read China -- are that the newer J-20 is 'less than capable', to use that polite phrasing, than the older F-22.

What makes their speculations any better than my speculations? And your "free" media is trash - it doesn't matter who owns it, trash is trash. Your own president calls it fake news. Props to him for exposing the Western media's lies to the world; it's a breath of fresh air.

 

[gambit]

I'm afraid there is, and there's nothing you've said since 2009, 1999, or whenever else, and nothing you ever will say that can refute it because it's irrefutable.

Good. Then show hard data.

What makes their speculations any better than my speculations?

Our speculations are based upon established data and logical inferrences, like the graph on my post 11586. Do YOU had any technical dispute on it? Not about 'stealth', but simply on how a radar 'sees' an aircraft?

 

[Figaro]

The main problem with ws-15 has been thrust but IR signature has not been mentioned at all let alone said to be in the works and done. I don't just mean not using afterburner either I mean actual IR suppression measures.

Please fact-check your sources before telling others they're wrong