- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 2839 Hour
- Reading permission
exportedkiwi Post time: 2012-6-16 14:55
You're assuming that the PLA-Ns ASW is up to speed. I don't think so!
FYI, the J-20 reaching and ...
With aerial refueling, J-8 (later upgrades), it is suggested, can now enjoy the luxuries of those leisurely, laid back, getaway super luxury cruise excursion from points inside Guangdong and Hainan all the way to the northern coast of Indonesia and back and J-8's are known as gas guzzlers. So, go figure the potential reaches of the J-20 which is speculated to have greater fuel capacity and weapon's load than that of the F-22.
Argument: The General Dynamic F-111's combat radius, which I believe is what the J-20 had taken cue, strategic wise, are given as [1,100 plus nautical miles]. Also, given the deemed and dedicated purpose of the F-111, hence also the J-20 because that, IMHO, is what the J-20 is all about; the US base in Guam, in Okinawa, in Japan, in the Philippines, inarguably have to be what it's all about...
Hypothetically: Based on the mere configurations (the extreme sleekness) of the J-20, we have to agree that the aerodynamics of it suggests that it would not make for a very agile or air superiority close proximity dog fighter as that of the F-16, of the F-18, of the Su-27, of the J-10/J-11, or even as agile as the F-22 which I see is an F-15 incorporating stealth features, althought flight tests of the J-20 had proven otherwise. The focus of the J-20, based on my analysis, is deep penetration via advantages as follow:
(a) exploitation of speed (Word in the street; J-20 maxes @Mach 3 dash; supercruise @ Mach 2.4 - 2.45)
(b) evasion of enemy detection via stealth (Stealth trechnology uniguely Chinese; not linked to Western/Russian concepts)
I would speculate that the J-20 is a cross between a B-58 and a F-111 and that its designate purpose is strategical strike, decapitate, and destroy if necessary, which is why the greater fuel capacity and weapon's load as claimed by the Chinese. Additionally, with the J-8D series, the J-10, J-11, and the 11B, China is good for air superiority fighters as is. What she lacks, IMO, is a long haul first rate strike bomber and this, again IMO, is where the J-20 comes into play.
The J-20 is definitely not an air superiority fighter as that of the F-22 or the T-50. For something that's truly Chinese which would be of the F-22 and T-50 class, I would suggest that we keep our eyes open for what was deem as the J-14 and what was suggested in the net as the semi-steathy version of what was speculated as the J-11C, programs where I would put my money that it will soon also makes its first debutes just as did the J-10 and 20.
The logic here is this: If we (China) is to copy Western/Russian stealth technology down to the very t and to the very dotting of the i, it would defeat the very purposes as to why we would need to invest so heavily in a system as costly as the J-20 in the first place (J-20 is speculated to cost a hefty $80-100M USD a pop) wouldn't it?
I mean if I were the thinktanks inside China's war strategy room, the very first question I would ask before adapting western technologies and concepts to those of my own is this: Why would I want to replicate/incorporate Western/Russian stealth concepts into those of my own knowingly [technologies to defeat these very technologies] had to have, have to have, and must have been produced before hand before they would introduce such concepts to actual military applications? I mean how are their own pilots going to distinguish their own buddies are from those of their enemies if they can't see and identify each other?
As for China's version of an F-35 counterpart (or the Snow Owl as was rumored throughout the www), yes, such a program may indeed exist. But, given the drawbacks of such a system, i.e., the extra weigh of the mechanisms needed to divert engine thrust for vertical take off landing, the equation plays into the possibility that China will actually adopt such a system or concept for its fighters.
Similarily to that of the geometrical swept wing concept, the extra weight required by the mechanism to operate the wings makes for a handicap I doubt the Chinese would want. For this very reason, it is said that that was why the Chinese had settled for the fixed wing (JH-7) concept over [a geometrical swept wing design], a specimen the Chinese had actually produced and designated as the "B-12" at the time (60's/70's) for feasibility evaluations.
Bottom line: With a given and strategically defined and secured air space secured by Chinese air superiorit fighters with no concern of interference/interuptions from enemy fire or penetration over a given period of operational time in space, Chinese H-6U/DU's definitely won't be no clay pigeons that you have visualized, nor will they need to settle for Kamakazi tactics -- if they are required, strategically to take out targets which prove a security anomamly to China or to Chinese forces in the region, even if these targets are NZ, Australia, Guam, Japan, Okinawa, Mubie, wherever, as need is the mother of all creations, NZ and Australia is breachable!