Jump to content
COMBATSIM Forum

J-20 Stealth Fighter: BE REAL AFRAID!


Recommended Posts

The J-20 Stealth Fighter has been much in the news recently. The predictions of the west, as to how far along the Chinese are with this new technology, have been woefully inaccurate. The jet has now been airborne on it's first test flight and that is only what is known confirmed. The recon photos are quite amazing (note such things as the cantilevered vertical fins). There appear to be advanced features evolved beyond those of the F22-A model. Makes one wonder if the stealth features have been further evolved?

FLIP MODE: Perhaps the watcher is now the one being watched.

Defence Site: J-20 Photos

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! The cockpit photo shows it to be more of a copy of the F-35.

That cockpit photo does look somewhat like an F-35 simulator, however, if that's the J-20 cockpit I'm Monty Python <_<

It's kinda like the released Russian photos of their stealth fighter, the T-50, showing a canopy view which is not frameless.

We know that ain't the real canopy and we know that the photos are those of a prototype model. The surprising thing to me is that the J-20 looks to be more of a production level model at this stage.

We need one of these in TAW. :)

If you'll do the model, I'll do the textures ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've read somewhere that the plane will probably have more of a long-range strike mission capability rather than air superiority because of the huge size of it and amount of fuel it can possibly carry.

Those are just the rumors though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've read somewhere that the plane will probably have more of a long-range strike mission capability rather than air superiority because of the huge size of it and amount of fuel it can possibly carry.

Those are just the rumors though...

Now that's a frightening thought. One of the major concerns with the Chinese acquiring full use of the stealth technology is exactly who will be the prospective purchasers of this new Chinese technology, and who will those purchasers target with their newly acquired long-range strike mission capabilities? As Ramjet mentioned, the debated information does tend to make one wonder about the timing and intent of these "new" military concerns :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

J-20 Stealth Fighter: BE REAL AFRAID!

That's what the defense department hopes to convey. Any time there is talk of cutting their budget a new threat always appears. Generating fear = Fat budget.

That's what my wife used to do, bless her. But it was the fear of having something else cut off that worried me. ;)

Edit: Off topic! :spank:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's a frightening thought. One of the major concerns with the Chinese acquiring full use of the stealth technology is exactly who will be the prospective purchasers of this new Chinese technology, and who will those purchasers target with their newly acquired long-range strike mission capabilities? As Ramjet mentioned, the debated information does tend to make one wonder about the timing and intent of these "new" military concerns :o

Sorry I'll get off this, but this is so true. In all seriousness, I'm always concerned about the rise of a new second major power in the world and the "threat" it generate to the other super power(s). Enough said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been over 60 years since there has been an open conflict between "Super Powers". Most of the conflicts since then have been proxy conflicts with varying degrees of participation with a "Super Power/s". In the majority of these conflicts the technologically superior combatant initially won, but was subsequently forced to leave the conflict.

Historically, in the open conflicts between "Super Powers" usually the "winner" was not necessarily the most technologically superior, but the one that was the most technically adaptable during the conflict both militarily and in manufacturing capability. In other words, current military technology is usually not as useful as expected during the conflict so the power that can adapt usually wins.

In my opinion what we should really be afraid of is not China's military technology, but our almost total reliance on the raw materials from other countries that are needed to produce our technology e.g. rare earth materials and petroleum. Most of which are controlled by China and Middle East countries.

Regarding stealth technology, like you guys I enjoy discussing this kind of stuff, but it's a technology that has never been proven in an actual conflict against a country that had air superiority prior to the conflict. Hopefully, no one will ever have to find that out. I think that with so much reliance on satellites and computers today, the next conflict will be won by whoever can best disrupt communications.

I hope my ramblings don't offend anyone, but the title of this thread regarding be real afraid just made me smile, because when I first read about the J-20 I couldn't help but think about the timing of that announcement, and the one about N. Korea being capable of hitting Alaska with a missile, just a few weeks after the discussions about cutting the defense budget by 20%.

I think that the Supreme Commander of the last big conflict said it best in his farewell speech to the American people as president.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been over 60 years since there has been an open conflict between "Super Powers". Most of the conflicts since then have been proxy conflicts with varying degrees of participation with a "Super Power/s". * In the majority of these conflicts the technologically superior combatant initially won, but was subsequently forced to leave the conflict.

Historically, in the open conflicts between "Super Powers" usually the "winner" was not necessarily the most technologically superior, but the one that was the most technically adaptable during the conflict both militarily and in manufacturing capability. In other words, current military technology is usually not as useful as expected during the conflict so the power that can adapt usually wins.

Most informative and interesting. But about your comments reproduced above: is this position substantiated by fact or just your own personal opinion?

Further. * Certainly one could interpret the Iraq war that way, or is that just my own personal interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap on a cracker! Last I heard, which was only two weeks ago, was that the Pentagon figured this aircraft wouldn't be airborne for another year or two. Guess they were wrong. Like the forum fuhrer said, Fuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :unsure: ck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about a conventional conflict between USA and China, right now the best we could hope for is a Mexican stand-off. We have a lot of power projection capability, but the Chinese have tons of manpower to repel any sustained ground attack on their homeland. As it is right now, China's power projection capability is limited, and even if they could mount an invasion force, their Navy is more defensive than blue-water, and we would clean their clocks on the sea lanes before they got past the Philippines.

Of course, if they were to invade Taiwan, that's a different story. They don't need a long logistical trail to cross the channel, and their airpower could protect any power projection assets until they established a beachhead. 7th Fleet would have its hands full until we could get more CVBGs in the area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about a conventional conflict between USA and China, right now the best we could hope for is a Mexican stand-off. We have a lot of power projection capability, but the Chinese have tons of manpower to repel any sustained ground attack on their homeland. As it is right now, China's power projection capability is limited, and even if they could mount an invasion force, their Navy is more defensive than blue-water, and we would clean their clocks on the sea lanes before they got past the Philippines.

Of course, if they were to invade Taiwan, that's a different story. They don't need a long logistical trail to cross the channel, and their airpower could protect any power projection assets until they established a beachhead. 7th Fleet would have its hands full until we could get more CVBGs in the area.

I have some very strong views about such a scenario, hypothetical as it maybe, but I think I'll leave them 'til another time. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most informative and interesting. But about your comments reproduced above: is this position substantiated by fact or just your own personal opinion?

Further. * Certainly one could interpret the Iraq war that way, or is that just my own personal interpretation.

I'm not a history professor, so certainly it's my opinion based on what I know about the subject which is only what I have read or seen. One of the points I was trying to make was that it's almost impossible to determine what technology will carry the day in a war, so whether or not stealth technology would be effective is really unknown. The other point was to be wary of information coming from government agencies shortly after their budgets are being scrutinized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...One of the points I was trying to make was that it's almost impossible to determine what technology will carry the day in a war, so whether or not stealth technology would be effective is really unknown.

Okay, lets stir this up real good. Here are some very controversial videos about the state of the F22 "technology" :ph43r:

FACTS? on the F22

MSNBC on F22 part 2

PS: 1. Don't kill the messenger :o

2. Always check the facts ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, lets stir this up real good. Here are some very controversial videos about the state of the F22 "technology" :ph43r:

FACTS? on the F22

MSNBC on F22 part 2

PS: 1. Don't kill the messenger :o

2. Always check the facts ;)

I wonder if China pirated the design of the F22 for the J20 like they do for everything else. If so the joke's on them!!

I still think that the F22 is the sharpest looking fighter, especially the front view when it's on the ground. Great game too!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a history professor, so certainly it's my opinion based on what I know about the subject which is only what I have read or seen. One of the points I was trying to make was that it's almost impossible to determine what technology will carry the day in a war, so whether or not stealth technology would be effective is really unknown. The other point was to be wary of information coming from government agencies shortly after their budgets are being scrutinized.

I was hoping there may have been some hard evidence to substantiate what you where suggesting rather than it being your opinion. However no problem.

I'm just reading a book called "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel. It was given to me by a friend, a Born Again Christian. Being as I struggle with the concept of a Divine Creator, my friend thought it would be a good read for me. That as it may, I noted the author was making claims about this and that, but provided 244 references to substantiate his claims. Now that's what I call being careful ..... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chiming in, back from the dead...

Anyways, this bares remarkable resemblance to the MiG-42 / MiG-MFI / Project 1.42 / Project 1.44 (Yes, it has been cited with MANY names.) and there were reports and even a photograph a while back of a similar jet with Russian assitance that had done a test flight and gotten caught on camera overflying.

Anyways, further rumors stated that the MiG-42 or 1.44 had been scrapped and that China picked up on it is no surprise.

Looking at photos from the 1.44 prototype and this J-20 they look amazingly similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chiming in, back from the dead...

Anyways, this bares remarkable resemblance to the MiG-42 / MiG-MFI / Project 1.42 / Project 1.44 (Yes, it has been cited with MANY names.) and there were reports and even a photograph a while back of a similar jet with Russian assitance that had done a test flight and gotten caught on camera overflying.

Anyways, further rumors stated that the MiG-42 or 1.44 had been scrapped and that China picked up on it is no surprise.

Looking at photos from the 1.44 prototype and this J-20 they look amazingly similar.

CMDR Sweeper,

You're comments are so true to this current concern. The fairly recent hacking into US military security has been alarming.

Today the WSJ has a really good article on the issues, perhaps you will find this interesting:

Stolen Stealth Secrets

Also,

Here is a good look at the J-20 taxiing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype - A Preliminary Assessment

What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The Strategic Impact of China's J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter

--------------------

"The emergence of China's new J-XX [J-20] stealth fighter will have a profound strategic impact, for both the United States and its numerous Pacific Rim allies. There can be no doubt that it is proof positive of the absolute and complete failure of the current OSD driven plan for recapitalisation of the United States tactical fighter fleet, and the fleets of its allies. Like the Russian T-50 PAK-FA, the J-XX [J-20] is a “game changer” in the sense that the large scale deployment of operational production examples of these aircraft invalidates all of the key assumptions central to United States and allied air power and force structure planning and development, since the early 1990s"

"The J-XX/J-20 is a large fighter, similar in size to an F-111. This first-of-type aircraft presents with a large dihedral canard-delta wing configuration; with a pair of outward/rearward canted all moving combined vertical/horizontal tails; and, similarly large, outward canted ventral fins/strakes which, if all moving like the tails and retained on any production version, will make for some quite advanced capability options in the areas of controllability and manoeuvrability. There is little doubt this configuration is intended to provide good sustained supersonic cruise performance with a suitable engine type, and good manoeuvre performance in transonic and supersonic regimes. "

"The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. "

"A stealthy, supercruising, long range interceptor would provide the PLA-AF with the capability to penetrate an opposing IADS to destroy assets like E-3 AWACS, RC-135V/W Rivet Joint, other ISR systems, and importantly, Air Force and Navy tankers. This would significantly complicate if not close down air operations from Andersen AFB and fixed basing in the Ryukyu chain, Japanese main islands, and Korean peninsula, during the opening phase of any contingency.

Naval task forces structured around CVBGs and operating within the 1,000 NMI plus radius of the J-XX/J-20 would be at significant risk of rapidly losing their E-2C/D AEW&C and EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack coverage during the opening phase of any contingency.

Any notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let alone penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, would be simply absurd. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are both aerodynamically and kinematically quite inferior to the as presented J-XX/J-20 design, and even the shape based VLO capability in the J-XX/J-20, as presented, will effectively neutralise any sensor advantage either type might possess against earlier Russian and Chinese fighter designs."

"This design therefore provides the PLA-AF with an airframe which could be employed, subject to suitable avionic and weapons fit, across a range of strategically important roles:

* Long Range / Persistent Interceptor: in this role the J-XX [J-20] would be employed to deny access to the airspace within the footprint of the Second Island Chain, attacking opposing strike aircraft and their fighter escorts;

* Long Range Air Combat and Escort Fighter: in this role the J-XX [J-20] would be employed offensively, to punch holes through opposing air defences by engaging and destroying defending fighter Combat Air Patrols, AWACS/AEW&C aircraft, and supporting aerial refuelling tankers;

* Theatre Strike Fighter: in this role the J-XX [J-20] would attack surface targets, in the manner performed by the F/FB-111, F-15E and proposed FB-22, using guided conventional munitions or free fall nuclear bombs; the size of the aircraft would permit weapon bays large enough to carry 3,000 lb or larger bombs;

* Long Range Theatre Reconnaissance Aircraft: in this role the J-XX [J-20] would be employed to collect radar, imagery and electronic intelligence, emulating aircraft such as the RF-111C/D, the RA-5C, and F-14/TARPS but with the advantage of stealth absent in legacy theatre reconnaissance types;

* Electronic Attack Platform: in this role the J-XX [J-20] would be employed to suppress opposing radar and communications, using weapon bay carried support jamming equipment, in the manner of the EF-111A Raven;

* Anti-Satellite Weapon Launch Platform: in this role the J-XX [J-20] would be employed to lift and loft an ASAT missile against an LEO SV, in the manner the US Air Force employed the F-15A and the Vought ASM-135A ASAT during the mid 1980s.

"

"In strategic terms, at the most basic level, a mature production J-XX [J-20] effectively obsoletes nearly all of the IADS infrastructure and systems, air defence fighter fleets and weapons inventories deployed and operated by the United States and its Pacific Rim allies, in a fashion no different to the immediate obsolescence inflicted by the F-117A / B-2A / F-22A upon globally deployed Soviet era IADS, fighters and systems.

In any conflict involving China, a well sized fleet of mature production J-XX [J-20] would have significant freedom of action to attack and destroy aerial and surface targets throughout the geography of the Second Island Chain. Pre-emptive strikes such as those flown in previous conflicts by US Air Force B-2A and F-117A stealth aircraft, intended to cripple and thus paralyse IADS and C3I systems, would present a genuine and very serious risk in any standoff or escalated contingency.

Moreover, with a robust payload of satellite/inertial guided bombs, a multirole or strike derivative production J-XX [J-20] would have significant capability to shut down United States and allied airfields across the Second Island Chain, in a manner no different to that envisaged by the US Air Force as a prime role for the GBU-39/53 Small Diameter Bomb armed F-22A Raptor – and proposed FB-22. No differently, US Navy CVBGs are at significant risk, adding to the risks posed by the DF-21D ASBM"

"The supersonic cruise capability and large fuel capacity of the J-XX [J-20] would permit it to be based deeper inside China's territory, compared to older types, further complicating efforts to close down or destroy airfields from which the J-XX [J-20] may be operating, as significant penetration into China's increasingly dense and sophisticated IADS would be required to hit such sites. As the J-XX [J-20] will have close to twice the productivity, in sortie rates achievable compared to conventional non-supercruise types, basing the aircraft deeper inside the IADS would not impair productivity in the manner it would for subsonic cruising types.

In terms of China's ability to manufacture and deploy significant numbers of the J-XX [J-20] it is worth observing that in terms of raw “bang for buck” China's defence industry is outperforming the United States' industry by a robust margin. The oft quoted comparisons between the United States and PRC defence budgets produce a misleading picture of the relative scale of investments, especially in terms of equipment recapitalisation. Chinese aggregate defence budgets as cited reflect primarily capital equipment acquisition and support costs, while many infrastructure and personnel costs are born by regional governments. United States budgets tend to carry a significant fraction of operational costs which have been unusually high over the last decade due to the ongoing global conflict with Islamo-fascist insurgent movements.

The woeful inefficiency of many portions of the United States defence industry, and procurement bureaucracy, is best exemplified by the fact that the underperforming single engine F-35 is now more expensive than the larger and much better twin engine F-22 Raptor, in terms of Unit Procurement Costs. Many other United States programs display similar symptoms, with overpriced and frequently underperforming products. China has a much healthier manufacturing industry than the United States, and a larger pool of highly skilled personnel, in a job market where personnel costs are tightly controlled. China's ability to rapidly develop both the sophisticated J-XX [J-20] and complex KJ-2000 AWACS over the last decade, with little prior depth in the basic technologies involved, shows an efficient and effective R&D environment, and supporting manufacturing base.

The Chengdu J-XX [J-20] thus represents a techno-strategic coup by China, and if deployed in large numbers in a mature configuration, a genuine strategic coup against the United States and its Pacific Rim allies. The development of the Chengdu J-XX [J-20] represents an excellent case study of a well thought out “symmetrical techno-strategic response” to the United States' deployment of stealthy combat aircraft, which no differently to the United States' play in the late Cold War and post Cold War period, elicits a disproportionate response in materiel investment to effectively counter.

The only US design with the kinematic performance, stealth performance and sensor capability to be able to confront the J-20 [J-XX] with viable combat lethality and survivability is the F-22A Raptor, or rather, evolved and enhanced variants of the existing configuration of this aircraft.

The US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is outclassed in every respect, and would be as ineffective against a mature J-XX [J-20] as it is against the F-22A Raptor.

All variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be equally so outclassed, assuming this failed project even progresses to any kind of actual production.

All US Air Force, US Navy and allied legacy fighters are outclassed in much the same manner, and are ineffective kinematically and in sensor capability against this class of threat system.

The extant IADS technology base of the US Army and Navy and their sister services in Pacific Rim allied nations will be largely ineffective, requiring the replacement of most if not all acquisition radars with VHF-band AESA technology replacements designed to defeat S/X/Ku-band stealth capabilities.

From the perspectives of both technological strategy and military grand strategy, the J-XX [J-20] is the final nail in the coffin of the utterly failed “Gates recapitalisation plan” for United States and allied tactical fighter fleets. Apologists for the “Gates fighter recapitalisation plan” will no doubt concoct a plethora of reasons as to why the J-XX [J-20] should be ignored, as they did exactly one year ago when the Russians unveiled the T-50 PAK-FA stealth fighter.

The material reality is simple. If the United States does not reverse course in its tactical air fleet and air defence recapitalisation planning, the United States will lose the Pacific Rim to China, with all of the practical and grand strategic consequences which follow from that."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...