What's new

F-22 or F-35 Killer?: Could China’s ‘Heavy’ J-20 Stealth Fighter Become the Ultimate Dogfighter?

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
RTS24O7Y_0.jpg



"While the J-20 would likely remain outclassed by the F-22, it could potentially prove a dangerous adversary to the F-35..."

by Sebastien Roblin
In January 2011, the maiden flight of a large, dagger-like grey jet announced that China had developed its first stealth aircraft—the Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon.” Six years later, after several substantial revisions, J-20s entered operational service with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force.

As radar-guided missiles from fighters and ground-based launchers threaten aircraft from dozens, or even hundreds of miles away, stealth capabilities are increasingly perceived as necessary for keeping fighter pilots alive on the modern battlefield.

But just how good is the J-20? And what is its intended role? After all, America’s first stealth fighter, the F-117 Nighthawk , was not even really a fighter and lacked any air-to-air capability whatsoever.

The PLA has, true to custom, kept its cards close to the chest, and has not shared performance specifications to the public. Thus, there are broad estimates of the J-20’s top speed (around Mach 2), and considerable-seeming range (1,200 to 2,000 miles), but those remain just that—estimates. For years, analysts even over-estimated the aircraft’s length by two meters. It’s broad but relatively shallow weapons bay can accommodate four to six long-range missiles or bombs, though not munitions with especially heavy warheads.

International observers generally concluded the large twin-engine jet possessed high speed and long operational range, but that the Mighty Dragon lacked the maneuverability necessary to prevail in close engagements with enemy fighters. Relatively modest aerobatic displays in the Zhuhai 2016 and 2018 airshows (you can see some of the latter here) reinforced the narrative in certain quarters that the J-20 isn’t optimized for gut-wrenching air combat maneuvers.

Given the above premises, observers mostly speculate the J-20 would either serve as long-range supersonic strike plane, or a hit-and-run interceptor used to slip past fighter screens and take out vulnerable supporting tanker and AWACS planes.

However, Rick Joe of The Diplomat argues these theories of the J-20’s supposedly specialized role might be a case of group-think, ignoring both design features and statements by Chinese sources suggesting the J-20 was intended as a multi-role fighter with “competitive” dogfighting capability.

For example, a brochure distributed at Zhuhai 2018 explicitly stated the J-20 was capable of “seizing & maintain air superiority, medium & long range interception, escort and deep strike.” In other words, a multi-role fighter.

“A commonly insinuated premise is that the Chinese aerospace industry was not capable of producing a fifth generation air superiority fighter, and would have to “settle” for a less technically challenging interceptor or striker instead,” Joe argues.

He points out that the lengthy J-20 is still shorter than the Russian Su-35 Flanker-E , one of the most maneuverable jet fighters ever designed. He further cites a 2001 study by Song Wecong, mentor of the J-20 designer Yang Wei, which you can read translated here . Wecong wrote that stealth aircraft “must have the capability to supercruise and perform unconventional maneuvers such as post-stall maneuvers.”

Song concluded the ideal stealth fighter would incorporate canards (a second, small set of wings close to the nose of the plane), leading-edge root extensions (or “strakes,” a thin surface extending where the wing emerges from the fuselages), and S-shaped belly intakes, in order to balance stealth, speed and maneuverability. These are all design characteristics evident in the J-20.

While details on the J-20’s radar remains elusive (presumably a low-probability of intercept AESA radar), it also mounts arrays of electro-optical and infrared sensors with 360-degree coverage, reportedly designed to fuse sensor data to form a common “picture” and even share it with friendly forces via a datalink—technology seemingly modeled on the advanced sensors found on the American F-35. Such sensors could be particularly useful for detecting radar-eluding stealth aircraft.

J-20 pilots also are equipped with helmet-mounted sights that allow them to target high-off-boresight PL-10E heat-seeking missiles within a 90-degree angle of the plane’s nose simply by looking at the target. The short-range missiles are stored in small side-bays but can be cunningly rotated outside prior to launch, as depicted here.

These by no means unprecedented capabilities nonetheless suggest that the J-20 may be designed to hold its own in a close-range encounter, not just sling long-range hypersonic PL-15 missiles from its fuselage bay from dozens of miles away. Particularly when engaging agile fighters, short-range missiles (which might still threaten targets over a dozen miles away) have a much higher probability of a kill—by some estimates, up to 80 percent.

Chinese designers have also expressed interest in incorporating vector-thrust engines in the J-20. These have moving exhaust nozzles to assist in pulling off tight maneuvers. The PLAAF recently acquired Su-35 fighters from Russia with vector-thrust engines, and also reportedly tested domestic vector-thrust turbofans on a J-10B two-seat fighter.

Despite the awesome maneuvers enabled by vector-thrust engines, they are far from being automatically included in modern fighters. This is because they significantly add to weight, cost, and difficulty in minimizing radar cross section (RCS). Moreover, when vector-thrust engines are over-used in combat, they can bleed off energy rapidly, leaving the aircraft sluggish and vulnerable to enemy fighters (as occurred in one exercise in Nevada pitting U.S. F-15s against Indian Air Force Flankers). For this reason, few Western fighters incorporate vector-thrust technology, the F-22 being a notable exception. China’s interest in thrust-vectoring again suggests it sees relevance in agility.

The J-20’s short-range capabilities naturally lead to the question—what exactly happens when two stealth fighters clash? If their stealth qualities are robust, both aircraft may only be able to detect each other within 50 miles or less—at which point air combat maneuvers could prove important. As U.S. stealth aircraft are one of the chief military threats to China, it seems reasonable to assume the J-20 would be designed to have a fighting chance against them.

While the J-20 would likely remain outclassed by the F-22, it could potentially prove a dangerous adversary to the F-35, which is not as optimized for within-visual-range engagements. However, both the F-22 and F-35 are believed to have a significantly lower all-around RCS than the J-20, though the Chinese fighter still appears to be significantly stealthier than the Russian Su-57.

A 2011 analysis by Australian aviation expert Carlo Kopp concluded that J-20 probably had strong stealth from a frontal aspect, but a larger radar cross section (RCS) when scanned from the side or rear—a limitation also found in the Russian Su-57 stealth fighter.

But as the extent and type of the radar-absorbent materials used affect RCS, visual analysis alone cannot determine how stealthy an aircraft is. This has not dissuaded the U.S. Marine Corps from a building a full-scale mock-up of a J-20 in Georgia for study and training purposes. The Indian Air Force has boasted its Su-30 Flankers have tracked J-20s on radar, but as stealth fighters often employ emitters called “Luneburg Lens” to enlarge their RCS on routine flights, and thus conceal their true capabilities, it’s difficult to infer much from this either.

Another issue confusing analysis of the J-20 is that it doesn’t yet have the high-thrust WS-15 turbofans the PLAAF envisioned for them, and are making do with Russian AL-31F engines instead. Even China’s fourth-generation jets have been frustrated by deficient jet engines. The WS-15 generates 23 percent more thrust than the AL-31FN, and would enable the J-20 to super-cruise, or sustain supersonic speeds without resorting to fuel-gulping afterburners. Thus, certain more aggressive projections of J-20 performance, such as a top speed of Mach 2.5, may be premised on engines that have yet to be fully developed.

As long as the PLAAF has only a few dozen J-20s in service, it may make sense to reserve them for hit-and-run tactics and special deep strikes. But as the article in the Diplomat points out, there’s ample evidence the J-20 may be intended to grow into a capable all-rounder that can hold its own in a dogfight.

Sébastien Roblin holds a master’s degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring .

Image: Reuters,

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...h-fighter-become-ultimate-dogfighter?page=0,1
 
. .
J-20 is F-15 size. F-35 is F-16 size. Like F-16, F-35 was never built for air superiority. F-16 didn't even have AIM-7 initially. J-20 is far more capable than F-35 in air to air combat.
 
.
J-20 is F-15 size. F-35 is F-16 size. Like F-16, F-35 was never built for air superiority. F-16 didn't even have AIM-7 initially. J-20 is far more capable than F-35 in air to air combat.
I suppose they allowed you to test each aircraft, to figure out how they perform in comparison to each other. :rolleyes:

Size is irrelevant when it comes to which aircraft will defeat the other in actual combat. Why don't you concentrate on the testimonials of actual pilots before issuing blanket statements?
 
Last edited:
.
The design specifications of J-20 is to hold its own against F-22 and easily defeat F-35.

When J-20 gets 3D TVC WS-15, it will be like putting wings on a tiger.
 
.
I suppose they allowed you to test each aircraft, to figure out how they perform in comparison to each other. :rolleyes:

Size is irrelevant when it comes to which aircraft will defeat the other in actual combat. Why don't you concentrate on the testimonials of actual pilots before issuing blanket statements?

Of course it matters. F6F beat A6M because bigger planes are faster. In air to air combat speed is vital. That's why planes built for air to air combat like F-15, F-22, J-20, Su-35, Su-57 are all big planes. F-35 replaces F-16. It ain't built for air to air combat.
 
.
I thought dog fight and stealth are opposition of each other and stealth jets r meant to USS stealth and censor fusion to avoid dog fight and destroy bvr targets if they get into DPG fight then pilot has failed
 
.
I thought dog fight and stealth are opposition of each other and stealth jets r meant to USS stealth and censor fusion to avoid dog fight and destroy bvr targets if they get into DPG fight then pilot has failed

Bigger fighter has better radar range to radar signature ratio. Everything else being equal, bigger fighter always detects and tracks smaller fighter first. F-15 and F-16 is example. F-15 is much better than F-16 at air to air combat because it's bigger.
 
Last edited:
.
The design specifications of J-20 is to hold its own against F-22 and easily defeat F-35.

When J-20 gets 3D TVC WS-15, it will be like putting wings on a tiger.
Their is no such thing as easily defeating F-35 variants because internal components (avionics + sensor systems) affect combat situations on a much greater scale then in the past.

F-35 variants feature incredibly sophisticated EODAS capability to give it significant advantage in WVR combat situations:-


"In the realm of air combat, a pilot flying an aircraft with DAS installed should almost always know where the enemy and friendlies are during a dogfight. The system really works as a smart optical search and tracker at longer ranges, notifying the pilot of interesting things it sees, both in the air and on the ground, and as a virtual "back-seater" born with x-ray vision during close-range combat." - Tyler Rogoway

&

"As a mature F-35 and an enemy fighter merge during a theoretical dogfight, DAS will keep that enemy aircraft locked up without pointing the nose of the aircraft anywhere near them, and the pilot can fire a network-enabled AIM-9X Block II advanced Sidewinder at it. DAS would transmit the enemy aircraft's telemetry to the highly maneuverable missile in-flight, which has a high probability of destroying the enemy aircraft as it bleeds energy in a hard turn. Meanwhile, the F-35 has accelerated out of the fight or pressed the fight further, taking advantage of the fact that the enemy aircraft is now on the defensive (if not destroyed), and at a low energy state." - Tyler Rogoway

The enemy aircraft might have 3D TVC but once it penetrate EODAS bubble, it would be visible to the pilot of an F-35 variant from any angle of approach, and the pilot just need to press the button; AIM-9X will do the talking afterwards. AIM-9X is much faster and agile than any combat aircraft in existence, optimized for WVR combat situations.

NOTE: EODAS is electronically fused with additional set of sensors including the AN/APG-81 AESA radar system, and the entire sensor suite can work in tandem to do the needful.

Of course it matters. F6F beat A6M because bigger planes are faster. In air to air combat speed is vital. That's why planes built for air to air combat like F-15, F-22, J-20, Su-35, Su-57 are all big planes. F-35 replaces F-16. It ain't built for air to air combat.
Your worldview is restricted to LEGACY fighting measures, and therefore erroneous.
 
Last edited:
.
The enemy aircraft might have 3D TVC but once it penetrate EODAS bubble, it would be visible to the pilot of F-35 (any variant) in any angle of approach, and the pilot just need to press the button; AIM-9X will do the talking afterwards. AIM-9X is much faster and agile than any combat aircraft in existence.

The same AIM-9X that failed to shoot down a 1970s Su-22 in Syria. Not gonna rely on it or any other fancy tech.

https://combataircraft.keypublishin...d-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/

What works on paper does not necessarily work in reality. Me 262 was said to dominate the world for Nazis. Me 262 ended up defeated by prop powered fighters.
 
.
SHIT HAPPENS, Mr. genius. You might think that every shot is successful in combat situations, but combat statistics suggest otherwise.

That is why each combat aircraft is armed with multiple A2A purpose missiles for every sortie.

FYI:

"What's also worth discussing is the conjecture surrounding the AIM-9X's failure in this engagement. By the panel's account it sounded as if the AIM-9X just went stupid/malfunctioned on its own. There was no talk of the Su-22 launching flares, and even if it had, the fact that many military pundits are definitively claiming that the unique infrared signature of Russian-built low-end decoy flares threw the AIM-9X off course is just silly. Missiles fail, especially air-to-air ones. They are complex devices that get battered around under high gravitational forces and slammed down onto carrier decks and runways throughout their lifetime. And yes, it's possible that under certain parameters weaknesses could exist when it comes to the AIM-9X's ability to track certain targets that use certain decoys under certain conditions. Then again maybe they don't. Regardless, that doesn't mean that is what happened in this instance or that the AIM-9X is somehow a lousy missile because of it.

The amount of research and development that has gone into the Sidewinder family of air-to-air missiles is unrivaled. And testing goes far beyond live fire shoots or lab-like settings. Entire soundstage like testing facilities are built for refining American air-to-air missile seekers' abilities to prosecute a successful kill. Additionally, they are tested against all types of decoys, including non-traditional expendables like BOL IR decoys as well as various types of flares. So while anything is possible, there is no evidence that supports this theory that old Russian "dirty flares" defeat the AIM-9X's highly sensitive imaging infrared seeker and programming logic."
- Tyler Rogoway

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...n-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves

Kindly show me how successful Russian assets are when up against American assets in combat situations since the 1980s. I would rather take my chances with American technologies than Russian.
 
.
SHIT HAPPENS, Mr. genius. You might think that every shot is successful in combat situations, but combat statistics suggest otherwise.

That is why each combat aircraft is armed with multiple A2A purpose missiles for every sortie.

FYI:

"What's also worth discussing is the conjecture surrounding the AIM-9X's failure in this engagement. By the panel's account it sounded as if the AIM-9X just went stupid/malfunctioned on its own. There was no talk of the Su-22 launching flares, and even if it had, the fact that many military pundits are definitively claiming that the unique infrared signature of Russian-built low-end decoy flares threw the AIM-9X off course is just silly. Missiles fail, especially air-to-air ones. They are complex devices that get battered around under high gravitational forces and slammed down onto carrier decks and runways throughout their lifetime. And yes, it's possible that under certain parameters weaknesses could exist when it comes to the AIM-9X's ability to track certain targets that use certain decoys under certain conditions. Then again maybe they don't. Regardless, that doesn't mean that is what happened in this instance or that the AIM-9X is somehow a lousy missile because of it.

The amount of research and development that has gone into the Sidewinder family of air-to-air missiles is unrivaled. And testing goes far beyond live fire shoots or lab-like settings. Entire soundstage like testing facilities are built for refining American air-to-air missile seekers' abilities to prosecute a successful kill. Additionally, they are tested against all types of decoys, including non-traditional expendables like BOL IR decoys as well as various types of flares. So while anything is possible, there is no evidence that supports this theory that old Russian "dirty flares" defeat the AIM-9X's highly sensitive imaging infrared seeker and programming logic."
- Tyler Rogoway

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...n-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves

Kindly show me how successful Russian assets are when up against American assets in combat situations since the 1980s. I would rather take my chances with American technologies than Russian.

You also understand J-20 has far better countermeasure than Su-22. The probability of AIM-9X hitting J-20 is less than 10%.
 
.
You also understand J-20 has far better countermeasure than Su-22. The probability of AIM-9X hitting J-20 is less than 10%.
Silly assumption. Su-22 can be equipped with the very best of Russian flares at any point in time; when Su-22 was first rolled out is completely irrelevant.

AIM-9X is designed to defeat LATEST threats, and is an excellent A2A purpose missile by any measure:


You are taking a single instance of failure (malfunction), way too seriously. Actual pilots will not.
 
Last edited:
.
Stupid assumption. Su-22 can be equipped with the very best of Russian flares.

AIM-9X is designed to defeat LATEST threats, and is an excellent A2A purpose missile by any measure:


You are taking a single instance of failure (malfunction), way too seriously. Actual pilots will not.

F-35 is not proven in battle against MiG-21 let alone against J-20. J-20 is more advanced than F-35.
 
.
F-35 is not proven in battle against MiG-21 let alone against J-20. J-20 is more advanced than F-35.
Fantastic logic. Mashallah.

So J-20 is proven against what exactly? And how would you know that J-20 is more advanced than F-35? Were you allowed to sit in both, and test both, to find out?

Contrary to your blanket statements, F-35 variants proved their mettle in the RED FLAG events where real-time combat situations are SIMULATED, and all manner of combat assets are involved.

[1] https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/...nce-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...t-of-the-f-35-fighter-story-you-havent-heard/
 
.
Back
Top Bottom