J20 Stealth Fighter

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,670
Country flag
View attachment 53082

We immediately need a Stealth aircraft , J20 started mass production with TVC . If they are able to churn out 10 in a year in the next two years Number of J20 will be more than 40 . And we are waiting for Rafale😊.

Ghatak , AMCA MK1 /MK2 , F35 or Su 57 no matter what we need a Stealth aircraft . The Chinese aggression will continue and they won't hesitate to attack India.

A light stealth aircraft like Tejas RV will be very helpful . More importantly I won't think AMC A MK1 will come in near future, may be only in 2035. I m praying for an early induction. And J 31 in PAF will be the last nail on IAF air superiority.

We can develop ORCA as an antistealth Aircraft with advanced Avionics and long range Weapons. The airframe will be much simpler we don't need to worry about the stealth , and we don't need to put our time in Stealth profiling . ORCA with Stealthy Unmanned Wingman which can act as a EW support , Weapon carrier and as a sensor can protect ORCA from Stealthy adversaries. And using Unmanned Wingman in suitable formation and triangulation techniques , ORCA and its AI Wingman can give a tough time to intruders .

MWF can also do the same but a single engine MWF has limitations , Twin Engine ORCA with a superior Payload can do much better . We need to develop atleast MWF within 2025 , one or two Squadrons of F35 or Su 57 can hold our Airforce until AMCA arrive
What does TVC changes in regards to j20 stealth. It's still underpowered , still without stealth engine , still has huge canards moving all over.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
What does TVC changes in regards to j20 stealth. It's still underpowered , still without stealth engine , still has huge canards moving all over.

Many people many times argued countless times about the same . I won't think these two won't affect much. Canards slightly increases RCS but it's negligible . Other control surfaces also move's . J20 Canard is controlled by Software to reduce deflection . Imagine a Squadron of J20 took off , and moving towards enemy installations for an attack , J20 just need to stay in level flight with minimum control surface defections . Whats the point of Canard deflection here , if they somehave caught on ground based Radar then only be we able to know . Detection through AWCS and Other aircrafts are very much unlikely . We will only able to see them when they are too close , we may detect the presence by finding faded contacts but still we may not be able to shoot down . We need to concentrate Radar waves to find a firing solution and need a minimum deflection back to our Radar . At the meantime our Unstealthy aircrafts will fall into firing range of J20 .

We don't know J20 is underpowered or not there are report's but still a slightly underpowered engine doesn't make a huge difference , a slight difference don't make the situation in our favour . Our entire Jaguar Darain 3 fleet is underpowered , our pilots are trained to overcome slightly underpowered engine through other measures , Chinese pilots also can do the same . We need solutions just downplaying our enemies wikk only make us vulnerable
 

Super lca

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
170
Likes
321
Country flag
Many people many times argued countless times about the same . I won't think these two won't affect much. Canards slightly increases RCS but it's negligible . Other control surfaces also move's . J20 Canard is controlled by Software to reduce deflection . Imagine a Squadron of J20 took off , and moving towards enemy installations for an attack , J20 just need to stay in level flight with minimum control surface defections . Whats the point of Canard deflection here , if they somehave caught on ground based Radar then only be we able to know . Detection through AWCS and Other aircrafts are very much unlikely . We will only able to see them when they are too close , we may detect the presence by finding faded contacts but still we may not be able to shoot down . We need to concentrate Radar waves to find a firing solution and need a minimum deflection back to our Radar . At the meantime our Unstealthy aircrafts will fall into firing range of J20 .

We don't know J20 is underpowered or not there are report's but still a slightly underpowered engine doesn't make a huge difference , a slight difference don't make the situation in our favour . Our entire Jaguar Darain 3 fleet is underpowered , our pilots are trained to overcome slightly underpowered engine through other measures , Chinese pilots also can do the same . We need solutions just downplaying our enemies wikk only make us vulnerable
Rafales and sukhois will be more than enough for j20
 

ARVION

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
2,735
Likes
5,772
Country flag
Many people many times argued countless times about the same . I won't think these two won't affect much. Canards slightly increases RCS but it's negligible . Other control surfaces also move's . J20 Canard is controlled by Software to reduce deflection . Imagine a Squadron of J20 took off , and moving towards enemy installations for an attack , J20 just need to stay in level flight with minimum control surface defections . Whats the point of Canard deflection here , if they somehave caught on ground based Radar then only be we able to know . Detection through AWCS and Other aircrafts are very much unlikely . We will only able to see them when they are too close , we may detect the presence by finding faded contacts but still we may not be able to shoot down . We need to concentrate Radar waves to find a firing solution and need a minimum deflection back to our Radar . At the meantime our Unstealthy aircrafts will fall into firing range of J20 .

We don't know J20 is underpowered or not there are report's but still a slightly underpowered engine doesn't make a huge difference , a slight difference don't make the situation in our favour . Our entire Jaguar Darain 3 fleet is underpowered , our pilots are trained to overcome slightly underpowered engine through other measures , Chinese pilots also can do the same . We need solutions just downplaying our enemies wikk only make us vulnerable
It is literally under powered, but they are using 2.5 TVC's to compesanat the limited KN's, buy even with the 2.5 TVC's they cant concentrate even thrust in one direction even with the TVV's I have to say they are useless even now, and has to unable to perform low speed stealth maneuver's like the F 35 to come near the Rafale's. Please read my post on the Rafale Verses J 20's on Sino border conflict to understand what I meant by it's, it could help you to understand the working if the j 20's in the BVRAAM's scaenario's.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
It is literally under powered, but they are using 2.5 TVC's to compesanat the limited KN's, buy even with the 2.5 TVC's they cant concentrate even thrust in one direction even with the TVV's I have to say they are useless even now, and has to unable to perform low speed stealth maneuver's like the F 35 to come near the Rafale's. Please read my post on the Rafale Verses J 20's on Sino border conflict to understand what I meant by it's, it could help you to understand the working if the j 20's in the BVRAAM's scaenario's.

Please post it here . J20 may be Inferior to F35 but superior to Rafale and MKIs . Within years they will induct 100s if J20s hiw Wil we counter them with 36 Rafale and 200 MKIs. Actually Canards improve the low speed characteristics
 

ARVION

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
2,735
Likes
5,772
Country flag
Please post it here . J20 may be Inferior to F35 but superior to Rafale and MKIs . Within years they will induct 100s if J20s hiw Wil we counter them with 36 Rafale and 200 MKIs
I will post it on the J 20's page again see it there.
 

ARVION

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
2,735
Likes
5,772
Country flag
The possible scenario's of Rafale's Vs J 20'S in BVRAAM's Secnario's

The Meteor uses a seeker of the same family as the MICA and ASTER missiles and is a known and proven technology. Also no aircraft is gonna fly straight into a missile while hoping it can jam it successfully - we will gonna see F-pole engagements which the ramjet will create a no-escape zone way larger than the Chinese PL-12 and PL-15 capacities. As for Meteor vs PL-12, that's a no-brainer, the PL-12 is roughly lower to an AIM-120B. The PL-15, on the other hand, features an AESA seeker and a dual-pulse rocket motor, sufficient to scare the USAF into the LREW .

And? It's still a slotted array or pre-PESA radar. Its ECCM advantage is that it has a two-way data-link that can keep it guided by the Rafael. We're uncertain, basically, as to what the exact capabilities of the PL-15 are. The comparable Russian system, the K-77M, has a stated 197 km aerodynamic range, but is roughly the same meters to the PL-15. The minimum expected aerodynamic range of the PL-15 would be 200 km, likewise, but the extended length could result in significantly increased ranges; the MICA missile, for instance, is extremely long range missile's, but sports a 33% longer range (km vs 60km implied aerodynamic range) because of only a 7 kg difference (PL-10E has a listed 105 kg weight, the MICA has a 112 kg weight) and a 5G max maneuverability difference (55G vs 50G).

A further factor is that the standard NEZ of an AAM is about 1/3rd the aerodynamic range. But since the PL-15 is a dual pulse rocket motor, it can fire off its rocket motor in stages and further extend its NEZ over a conventional AAM. At 200 km range with 50% aerodynamic range, you get 100 km. At 250 km range with 50% aerodynamic range, you get 125 km. At 300 km range with the standard 33% aerodynamic range, you get 100 km. The difference between standard AAMs, dual pulse AAMs, and ramjets is that with standard AAMs you get one shot, with dual pulse AAMs you get two shots, and ramjets can continuously vary their thrust as long as they're within ramjet speed.

The problem with the J 20's is that it can't go on a low speed to come near the rafale's due to it current engine is incapable and the air intake's are ruined by the so called DSI's. So even with a new engine they have to redesign the whole aircraft from the engine exhaust the air intake's. So the J 20's even produced in large numbers are incapable of going against the rafale's, due to some silly mistakes in the design's.
 

ARVION

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
2,735
Likes
5,772
Country flag
Please post it here . J20 may be Inferior to F35 but superior to Rafale and MKIs . Within years they will induct 100s if J20s hiw Wil we counter them with 36 Rafale and 200 MKIs. Actually Canards improve the low speed characteristics
even with canards they have problem of controlling and enough air is not gone from air inlate's to engine due to the DSI fiasco's.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Why the J 20 is not the true Frontline's aircraft's.

Chengdu's made clear they want the J-20 to evolve into a family of aircraft. The biggest problem for the J-20 to be further upgraded is the lateness of the WS-15. We've heard nothing out of the rumor mill of late, and we have so-and-so aircraft engine manufacturer declaring they'll build around 5 WS-15 in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, which is way too slow.

One big issue is the sizing of the J-20's current inlets. The airflow under the present DSI system is adequate for an Al-31 / WS-10X classed engine, but the airflow is insufficient for a F135 / WS-15 class engine. The easy solution is simply to adjust the DSI; i.e, reduce the size of the bumps (and possibly increase their length) to accommodate the greater airflow needed, but an alternative solution would be to enlarge the inlets, creating greater body space and potential for the engines to be shifted to enlarge the weapons bay.

The measurements of the J-20 inlets are roughly the same, perhaps a bit larger, than on the Su-27 series for the Al-31 engines. It's a bit of a pity, to an extent, since larger inlets would have guaranteed better high-altitude / high-speed airflow, sufficient to allow the J-20 to have at least sustainment (requires afterburners to break Mach barrier, but can supercruise around Mach 1.3 without afterburners) supercruise. But that'd compromise low-altitude maneuverability as you'd end up with spillage drag from overflowing the inlets. Consider how much the Su-27 has evolved. The Su-30 modification added canards, necessitating new actuators, and the Su-34 platform converted the Su-27 into a light bomber.

Biggest impediment, of course, is time. The Su-27 emerged and evolved at a time when the Russian armaments industry was wheeling from the collapse of the Soviet Union, meaning that there was limited funding for completely new designs. The Chinese plan to get a sixth-generation fighter up by 2035, and we're already at 2020 with the WS-15 very very late. Then again, as suggested, the J-20B might be significantly different from the J-20A given the 25-37% increase in thrust, allowing the aircraft to carry much more munitions and payload without sacrificing maneuverability. And the TVC expected of the WS-15 could allow the aircraft to conduct a substantial redesign as the tailfins are no longer needed for yaw control.

My basic issue is that the J-20 as a design is rather compromised to deal with the PLA's conflicting requirements and the limitations of Chinese engine technology. It's not as pure a stealth design as the F-22. The weapons payload, while better than the F-22, is roughly the same as on the F-35 so is inferior for a heavyweight stealth fighter. It's not designed for extreme maneuverability like the Su-57 is. And while the aspect ratio would imply that the aircraft is designed for and optimized for extreme speed, the J-20 is limited by the need to protect its stealth coating as well as the DSI inlets on the J-20. The only unique aspect the J-20 has going for it would be its lerx long-coupled canard lerx delta wing set-up, and even that has already been presaged by Rafale.

In other words, the J-20 is good against 4th generation fighters and in numbers adequate to 5th generation fighters, but it seems to lack its own advantages against competing 5th generation fighters. Where its advantages do lie are in the respective weaknesses of specific airframes (F-22 is only just getting upgraded with IRST, does not have EODAS, has an anemic weapons bay capacity, the Su-57 does not focus that much on stealth, the F-35 has poor agility), but it doesn't have anything world-beating. On the other hand, the J-20 has strong developmental potential from the basic design of the airframe. The limitation to the J-20 is constantly the engine, and if that limitation were lifted, the design could be modified to make it not simply a par aircraft, but something that could have a decisive advantage in one area or another.

Put another way, the J-10 is arguably better than a Block 50 F-16 or even a Block 60. The J-16 is arguably more capable than the F-15E. But all of these are last generation fighters. When it comes to 5th generation equipment, the Americans can tout their stealth and sensors on the F-35, the Russians can tout their kinematics on the Su-57, but what does China have? I mean, what do you want to talk about? I have the Song Weicong documents explaining why the J-20 layout was chosen. We have my discussion on how the J-20's weapons bay is crap.

The fact of the matter is, we can compare the J-20 to an F-22 and an F-35. The J-20 isn't an LO aircraft as China-bashers want to claim, but neither is it likely to have a stealth advantage over American warplanes unless China metamaterials design matures and the J-20 is refitted with metamaterials. Then American aircraft can also be refitted with metamaterials, and the advantage disappears. We can also compare it in terms of maneuverability. It has a 75 m^2 wing area for an empty weight range in 18000-22000 kg, I prefer the lower figures given known Chinese advances in 3D materials. This roughly puts it at a wing loading comparable to the F-22, but it doesn't give it advantages over the Su-57. We are aware that the lerx long-coupled canard lerx body lift delta planeform is superior to canard deltas (in the J-10-style configuration) by 20% in terms of lift, but this doesn't necessarily give it an advantage over lerx long-coupled canard lerx planeforms like the Rafale and Eurofighter, which have far superior wing loading compared to the J-20.

In terms of thrust-to-weight, it's competitive with 4th gens at 60% fuel and with missiles, but without the WS-15 it doesn't have a decisive advantage. In terms of weapons bay capacity and strike capability, it's better than the F-22, about the same as a Su-57, but significantly worse than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter given that its loadout has no decisive advantage over the F-35 despite greater size. In terms of supercruise, while I've tried to argue that the air intake on the J-20 permit's very limited's supercruise, it's apparent from the volume of the intake that the J-20 intakes are comparable to Su-27 intakes and no further mass can be obtained. The Vtech drag diagrams say that total drag build-up for the J-20 at Mach 1 is 9 kt (metric), at Mach 1.1 this drops to 6.8 kt, assuming 35kft or 10.68 km. The Al-31 engine outputs about 2.65 kt of force at Mach 1.0 at 10km and about 2.85 kt at Mach 1.1. The dry thrust of the Al-31 is 7.6 kN at sea level, implying a 65% thrust reduction at altitude. At Mach 1.1, you'd need about 3.4 kt per engine and to break Mach 1 you'd need 4.5 kt per engine, or roughly you'd need a 20% increase in dry thrust to achieve pseudo-supercruise and a 70% increase in dry thrust to achieve true supercruise. Even the Al-41F-1S on the Su-57 can't achieve pseudo-supercruise on a J-20 platform without tweaking to high altitude dry thrust.

In terms of max speed, the DSI and stealth coatings on the J-20 prohibit it from having a strong max speed due to the let-off in engine thrust at high speeds and the need to preserve the engines. In terms of cost, the F-22 is out of production, the F-35 has seen massive cost reduction since its LRIP versions (around 80 million a pop these days), and the Russians are claiming they've gotten the Su-57 down to ridiculously low prices that can have you losing 2 Su-57s per F-35 and not bat an eye. The rumored J-20 price is 100 million (especially with exchange rate changes over the past few years). In terms of other subsystems, the J-20 has advantages in the operation PL-15 system, but the PLAAF lacks micromissile development as even the Russians are attempting such to fit their tiny Su-57 side weapons bay. The PL-21 can't fit on the J-20, the J-20 seems to lack an interceptor missile for very long-range interception against AEW&C and tankers, the J-20 seems to lack an anti-radiation strike missile for the SEAD mission. The Su-57 has a DIRCM that the J-20, to date, lacks, although as I've pointed out, the J-20 is very pod ready given its side weapons bay.

In short, one possibility that can be brought up is that the J-20 is going to be the Chinese 6th generation fighter. When you look at the J-20's development and design, it's clearly a J-10 derivative (and a key feature is that it inherits the anhedral-dihedral canard wing layout as the J-10 has a modified inverted gull wing from the inner section of its wing being dihedral). The ability to modify the basic J-20 design for other purposes and enhanced capabilities suggests that modding the J-20 can be how the PLAAF gets a sixth generation aircraft up by 2035 or even 2030. It could, in all honesty, be a 5.5th generation aircraft, but it's close enough to 6th generation to form a stop-gap. That also allows the PLAAF to develop more aggressive 6th generation designs that would be riskier than the PLAAF could support without a stop-gap fighter like J-20 derivatives.


Ia this written by you ?
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
2,214
Likes
17,753
Country flag
Well some part through online research, some parts through my Sis and some part of my knew how, that all's.
Ok ✌ I have strong objections . But dont Have much time but I would like to tell , we cannot get any clue of its DSI without actual tests . Softwares can simulate somewhat but still not much authentic . Chinese have experience in DSI JF17 , J10 are examples , in case if they have any faults they can fix it in next iteration . Super Cruise is mainly depends on the aerodynamic shaping As an example Both Tejas and Gripen NG uses same engines but Gripen can Super Cruise but Tejas can't .
 

ARVION

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
2,735
Likes
5,772
Country flag
Ok ✌ I have strong objections . But dont Have much time but I would like to tell , we cannot get any clue of its DSI without actual tests . Softwares can simulate somewhat but still not much authentic . Chinese have experience in DSI JF17 , J10 are examples , in case if they have any faults they can fix it in next iteration . Super Cruise is mainly depends on the aerodynamic shaping As an example Both Tejas and Gripen NG uses same engines but Gripen can Super Cruise but Tejas can't .
Well the problem with the DSI is well knewn in all chinese experts the problems was quoted by one of the member's of the design team and they will rectify it in newer variant's when they the J 20's will move from A to B to C variant's. So A variant has problem, B will give 2.5 TVC in limited control and C will probably solve the problem.
 

ARVION

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
2,735
Likes
5,772
Country flag
Getting report's of the later J 20 B's could be powered by a an WS-10B's engine's capable of producing 140 KN's. And here goes the WS 15's down the draine's. And it's getting by an trustee's source's PuPu.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Well the problem with the DSI is well knewn in all chinese experts the problems was quoted by one of the member's of the design team and they will rectify it in newer variant's when they the J 20's will move from A to B to C variant's. So A variant has problem, B will give 2.5 TVC in limited control and C will probably solve the problem.
That is interesting opinion about DSI that I heard first time.
The idea of A to B to C is all about engine as far as I know: A (AL31) -> B (WS-10) -> C (WS-15).

Do you mind sharing your source?
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Getting report's of the later J 20 B's could be powered by a an WS-10B's engine's capable of producing 140 KN's. And here goes the WS 15's down the draine's. And it's getting by an trustee's source's PuPu.
If you quote someone's words, please quote their original not your own modification.
Pupu says:

"Indigenous engine, thrust improved version of Taihang (WS-10). Not only Sir zhang, but also Sir Xu checked it. They were both satisfied with it except it is not WS-15."

He mentioned nothing about the future of WS-15.
 

MiG-29SMT

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,496
Likes
4,346
Country flag
View attachment 53082

We immediately need a Stealth aircraft , J20 started mass production with TVC . If they are able to churn out 10 in a year in the next two years Number of J20 will be more than 40 . And we are waiting for Rafale😊.

Ghatak , AMCA MK1 /MK2 , F35 or Su 57 no matter what we need a Stealth aircraft . The Chinese aggression will continue and they won't hesitate to attack India.

A light stealth aircraft like Tejas RV will be very helpful . More importantly I won't think AMC A MK1 will come in near future, may be only in 2035. I m praying for an early induction. And J 31 in PAF will be the last nail on IAF air superiority.

We can develop ORCA as an antistealth Aircraft with advanced Avionics and long range Weapons. The airframe will be much simpler we don't need to worry about the stealth , and we don't need to put our time in Stealth profiling . ORCA with Stealthy Unmanned Wingman which can act as a EW support , Weapon carrier and as a sensor can protect ORCA from Stealthy adversaries. And using Unmanned Wingman in suitable formation and triangulation techniques , ORCA and its AI Wingman can give a tough time to intruders .

MWF can also do the same but a single engine MWF has limitations , Twin Engine ORCA with a superior Payload can do much better . We need to develop atleast MWF within 2025 , one or two Squadrons of F35 or Su 57 can hold our Airforce until AMCA arrive
you over estimate J-20 and stealth, India only needs to have nukes to blow away anythreat, India has nukes that will make think twice any agressor, China included, the Chinese are weaker than you think, they are pretty stupid thinking they will rule the world, but India only needs to develop ICBMs and nukes able to avoid interception. India military speaking is no second class power, with nukes all nations are the same, nukes are capable to kills millions of people and pollute the enviroment to kill more people by radiation, stealth aircraft are useless.
 

MiG-29SMT

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,496
Likes
4,346
Country flag
Dilemma of J 20's for Role's

This is not to say that J-20 cannot be a viable and capable strike aircraft – for instance, the F-22 has demonstrated that even carrying a relatively light strike load of only JDAMs or SDBs, it is able to produce very potent strike capability by leveraging supercruise, sensor fusion and a very low observable design. But F-22’s primary role is that of an air superiority fighter, with a weapons bay designed to match that purpose, and it is most accurate to say F-22’s respectable strike capability arises despite the inherent limitations of the design of the actual airframe and its weapons bay dimensions rather than flourishing as a result of its design. In other words, if the Chinese Air Force truly desired a stealthy aircraft for strike and naval strike, there are a variety of other more sensible airframe designs and weapons bay configurations that could have been pursued first.

J-20 as an interceptor:

J-20’s other major role as speculated by mainstream defence media, is that of an interceptor. In such a role, it is suggested that J-20s would leverage their stealth, high speed, and long range to attack various United States airborne force multipliers such as vital tanker aircraft , airborne early warning and control aircraft, and electronic warfare aircraft .

Such actions, if successful, could cripple the ability of the United States military to conduct an effective air campaign in the western pacific, and the design of J-20 certainly does not rule out such a role for J-20 within an integrated offensive air campaign. However, as with the strike fighter debacle, the hard question which arises is whether J-20 is designed primarily (or in other words, “only”) as a long range interceptor aircraft or if its role as an interceptor is just one of many possible roles as a result of its design.

Dedicated interceptor aircraft were a common fixture of air forces during the early to mid Cold War, where the threat of massed nuclear bombers and the constant need to dissuade opposing reconnaissance aircraft required fighters which could fly at high altitude, with high speed with long range to reach and engage an opposing aircraft before it is able to launch its (potentially nuclear) payload. However, as the intercontinental ballistic missile succeeded the strategic bomber as a nation’s primary means of delivering nuclear weapons, the need of the interceptor also subsided.

Few air forces today operate dedicated interceptor aircraft, and those which do exist are typically increasingly obsolete and slated for replacement (such as China’s J-8 and J-8II interceptors), or feature unique speed and range characteristics allow them to cross vast distances for countries with expansive geography (such as Russia’s Mig-31s). Such examples of dedicated interceptors may be upgraded with newer avionics and weapons systems in the air forces they serve in, however such aircraft are a dying niche breed, and have been succeeded in the interceptor role by general air superiority aircraft, which are not only capable of aggressive air combat manoeuvring, but may also feature competitive performance in parameters such as speed, altitude and range.
J-20 is not more than a tactical weapon, compared to hypersonic weapons is useless, a MiG-31 carrying hypersonic weapons is harder to beat simply because it can fire their missiles from distances no fighter can reach it, add air to air missiles have ranges of 100Km head on if lucky, J-20 will not be ble to attack hypersonic weapons speacially those from submarines, in few words J-20 is only for skirmishes or border dispute at the most, once ICBMs or weapons of mas destruction are used stealth is no use.

Russia for such reasons only develops SAMs and ICBMs as priority and stealth fighters for export and the same is the USA with F-35.


Japan buying 100+ F-35 will be able to counter act China easily and with hypersonic missiles on Tu-160 or MiG-31 easily J-20 beocmes obsolete, J-20 is no STOL needs long strips and is maintainace difficult to keep, hypersonic weapons can destroy its bases.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top