Three years after the first test flight of the Chengdu J-20, China's first stealth fighter, the Canada-based Kanwa Defense Review operated by military analyst Andrei Chang, also known as Pinkov, says aircraft designers around the world are still questioning whether the fighter is qualified to be called a fifth-generation fighter or not.
For the chief designer of Russia's Sukhoi company, the J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter as it does not have supersonic cruise capability; a criterion which would also exclude Lockheed Martin's F-35. He also questioned the reliability of the J-20's stealth capability.
An aviation expert from Poland said the design of the J-20 is extremely odd because its front wing will increase the chance of detection by enemy radar and early warning aircraft. In the view of a designer from Lockheed Martin, the J-20 is way too big for a stealth fighter. The J-20 has a very similar size to the US F-111 tactical fighter, said the American designer, adding that China does not have engines with sufficient thrust to power the fighter.
Kanwa said, however, that it is not fair to judge the J-20 by the same standards as aircraft developed in the United States and Russia, as it is the first stealth fighter fully designed by Chinese aviation experts. China has already invested too many resources in the development of the J-20 at this point, according to the magazine, and it is too late to cancel the project now. The magazine added that China can resolve the engine problem by introducing the AL31FM1 from Russia, which should provide it with sufficient thrust.
This is why it's unwise and miss directive to interpret aircraft capability by blanket labels like 'Gen 5'. As if that was like a rare brand of cognac or a specific club membership identity.
ReplyDeleteThe J-20 is roughly the -length- of the F-111 but because it has a huge delta wing, it is not restricted to that aircrafts loaded altitude restrictions (around 14,000ft, fully weaponed) and thus is not role-matched to it's lo-fast, terrain following, operational profile.
Nor is the J-20 limited by the F-22's desire to be seen as a super maneuverable 'fighter' airframe, a requirement which required 10% of it's fueled radius to be cut on a jet which was already massively overweight, thanks to it's LO features.
Further, unlike the F-35, which must use an F-22 class (TSFC = .88) engine, just to power the jet through STOVL and thus is fighting it's own fuel vs. radius vs. payload vs. performance battle (one which it will surely lose); the J-20 has _no need_ for the absolute thrust of an F135 class powerplant performance.
Instead, it should be considered as something like the Su-27, 'one airframe, two fighters': based on the likely ENORMOUS fuel fraction involved.
Indeed, with a fuselage almost 8 feet longer than the F-22 and at least as wide (10-12ft across plus a delta wing instead of the narrow chord VG of the F-111, it is quite likely that the J-20 has a similar fuel quantity to the Vark, in the 30-35,000lb range -and- a similar (.7) TSFC which is to say range more akin to the F-15/16 class with the F100 engine.
All of which points towards a specific profile equating to long radii through low threat airspace (overwater) as the jet 'burns up' to a maximum efficiency cruise point in the 50-60K foot regime. Followed by a brief sprint into or near the target area, both to avoid terminal threats and to **energize** any weapons which are then lofted at specific, high value, targets like flying AEW&C. Or Ramp Hardstands at places like Kadena, Misawa or Andersen.
Before turning for home plate, also at best cruise, but with only perhaps 10-15,000lbs of fuel. Which is to say within a reasonable (M=1.25-1.35) rate of return to RTB.
In this, you don't need absolute RCS reduction so much as adequate front and beam conditioned returns for those odd AEGIS missile cruisers/destroyers which might form a tangible missile trap enroute sniper threat.
The key point here is to see the jet as a bus platform for limited standoff munitions and perhaps as a pathfinder for conventional J-10/11/15 strikes by taking out key (ISR, tanker, EW) assets and throwing the Western 'Big Picture' defense into disarray.
Something which it could easily achieve over relatively short ranges (including loop around envelopment strikes from unexpected compass points), across the Black Ditch, and which, with some care, it could also manage at greater radii as straight line attacks on Guam or Okinawa.
If it has a real ability to loft very high altitude (100-200K) and Mach (8+) weapons above the scan volumes of systems like the E-2D or E-3C. Such weapons would seem to come from nowhere and, with the speed to achieve 250-350nm standoff, would protect their _reduced_ observable parent platform with simple 4th power distance.
Such an approach, in addition to highly devaluing the Western Approach to combined arms expeditionary airpower, would also tend to allow rapid construction of a very small fleet, using 'hand built' prototype shop level manufacture (similar to the F-117) with modifications also done, on a limited/specialist basis, as new systems become available (WS-15, Internal FLIR/IRST, better AESA radars etc.).
The real danger here is that China may have discovered a means to leverage high tech on a low volume scale of manufacture that doesn't require a 'line approach' to mass production and long-lead bureaucracy.