By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington D.C.) The F-35 has been a lightning rod for criticism and debate for many years. Yet, to an equal or even greater extent, the Joint Strike Fighter has been critical, even essential, to the survival and prosperity of the free world.
There is little question that 5th-generation technology represents a paradigm-changing “breakthrough” in the realm of air combat when compared with any 4th-generation fighter.
The U.S. and NATO’s superiority in the air is arguably a key reason why China has not yet moved on Taiwan and Russia has not attempted to further expand into Eastern Europe and threaten NATO stability.
Any cursory examination of available Russian and Chinese air power reveals that neither great power rival appears capable of truly challenging the U.S. and NATO in the air. There is one clear, self-evident reason for this: the dawn of the F-35 era.
The U.S. is already operating more than 300 F-35s, and both carriers and amphibious are armed with mission-ready, operational JSF planes, so there is an ability for U.S. forces to “mass” 5th-generation air power formations both across the European continent and from the sea in the Pacific.
Neither China nor Russia has a sea-launched 5th-generation capacity in any impactful fashion, and China’s J-20 fleet is limited to land take-off.
Dominance in the Sky
Therefore, even a quick look at the global balance of power would suggest that the U.S. and NATO simply cannot be challenged in the air, a circumstance likely responsible for deterring major conflict in recent years and increasing global stability.
Without the threat of U.S. and Western 5th-generation air power, would China have already taken Taiwan?
Would Russia have already attempted to advance further in Eastern Europe?
Should the majority of the U.S. fleet continue to be primarily comprised of 4th-generation aircraft, adversaries might have an entirely different perspective regarding their relative level of aggression or provocation.
These are fair and important questions, given the continued discussion about the future of the F-35, costs, and anticipated fleet size.
The Air Force ultimately hopes to acquire 1,763 F-35As, and the world has seen an explosion of U.S.-allied countries acquiring F-35s and joining a growing international force of networked 5th-generation aircraft.
Sensor range, stealth properties, computing, and networking are just a few reasons 5th-generation aircraft radically change the air power equation.
For instance, during U.S. Air Force Red Flag wargames, a single F-35 was shown able to destroy large formations of 4th-generation fighters without itself being seen.
Can the F-35 Dog Fight?
The F-35 is well known for its advanced computing, sensor fusion, long-range targeting accuracy, threat data library, and drone-like surveillance capacity.
But can it dogfight?
The F-35 Controversy That Won’t End
This seemingly loaded question has many layers and variables to consider, as the question has been raised numerous times over the years.
As a multi-role fighter capable of a wide range of missions, some have questioned the ability of the jet to prevail in air-to-air combat against an advanced adversary.
Specifically, a report as far back as 2015 in War is Boring cited details from a report on a test dogfighting exercise in which an F-16 repeatedly out-performed and defeated an F-35 in multiple air-to-air combat engagements.
The War is Boring report, which claimed to cite findings and assessments from a test pilot involved in the exercises, generated a storm of controversial discussion about the future of the F-35 and its capabilities.
But, in the end, it was all for nothing as a key fact was missing.
Not the Real F-35
There are tactical and technical things of great relevance to consider.
However, it first seems essential to explain the circumstance and provide specific context and details left out of the 2015 War is Boring report.
At the time, I remember connecting with the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office, which explained that the model F-35 involved in the exercise was a flight sciences testing model, which was not “not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.” That is, as you can imagine, a vast difference from a fully combat-ready F-35.
The F-35 variant used in the exercise was called the AF-2 and, according to the Pentagon’s F–35 JPO, it was a model only intended to test “flying qualities,” not weapons or air-combat capability.
Therefore, comparing an F-16 against this “flight sciences” AF-2 variant makes no sense and does not in any way reflect what would happen in an encounter between an F-16 and a fully-functioning production-quality F-35. Somehow this context was not included in the original 2015 article.
A Bogus Comparision
Given this context, it may not even make sense to raise the question of whether an F-16 can outperform an F-35 in a dogfight.
There are many other critical variables to consider. For instance, war games have for many years shown that the advanced sensing, targeting technology, and computer-enabled data processing are such that the aircraft’s long-range, high-resolution sensors enable the F-35 to see and destroy enemy targets and paradigm-changing ranges.
This means standoff distances where the attacking F-35 is not seen or discovered. This contingency was exactly what happened in an Air Force Red Flag wargame experiment in which a single F-35 showed the ability to track and destroy an entire group of 4th-generation fighters from ranges where it was not itself seen or detected.
What this suggests, ther
efore, is that perhaps an F-35 may not “need” to dogfight as it will see and destroy enemy aircraft before dogfighting becomes a necessity. Available specs on both the F-16 and F-35 reveal that an F-16 does appear to be faster with a listed speed of Mach 2.05, as compared to the F-35’s max speed of Mach 1.6. At the same time, thrust-to-weight ratios, which reflect acceleration and aerial maneuverability, are somewhat comparable.
The F-35 is listed as having a 1.07 thrust/weight ratio, as compared to a slightly higher 1.24 for the F-16. What is not reflected in available specs to a large degree, however, is the massive difference in mission systems, weapons capacity, targeting, and computing, which likely separates the two aircraft.
With a larger weapons envelope and far superior targeting technology and weapons guidance systems, an F-35 would seem well-positioned to destroy an F-16.
Nuclear Armed F-35
Several years ago, the Pentagon was clear that it would develop the F-35A as a nuclear bomb attack platform, which significantly helps the Pentagon’s strategic deterrence strategy by adding new tactical and operational possibilities for war commanders.
Deterrence Factor
The introduction or integration of nuclear weapons into any platform is of course likely to generate thoughtful discussion, as nobody wants to lower the threshold to nuclear war or any use of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, there are several key variables to consider here such as the additional flexibility this development affords to the Pentagon’s deterrence posture, the kind of weapons it could carry, and the prospect of further deterring any potential use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The prospect introduces a certain critical question: should the Pentagon contemplate the possibility of some kind of limited, low-yield tactical nuclear response in the event of an attack? Some argue that any use of nuclear weapons, on any scale, should prompt a massive retaliation of full force. Sending such a message, the thinking extends, would prevent a potential adversary from contemplating any use of nuclear weapons of any level.
However, proponents argue that adding variable yield, lower yield, or tactical nuclear weapons options to the U.S. arsenal enhanced the depth and effectiveness of any deterrence posture simply by giving commanders a wider envelope of options to consider. It adds layers, depth, and flexibility to any assurance of nuclear counterattack, thus deepening or enhancing the deterrence posture.
This was the thinking several years ago when former Secretary of Defense James Mattis told Congress that the introduction of tactical nuclear weapons might help bring Russia back to the negotiating table after violating the INF Treaty. At that time and in years since, the Pentagon has successfully added a lower-yield variant of the Trident IID5 nuclear-capable, submarine-launched ballistic missile. Plans for a lower-yield sub-launched cruise missile were later canceled.
F-35 to carry B-61 Mod 12 Nuclear Bomb
This led to the critical question of the kinds of nuclear weapons the F-35A could carry, as the possibility would introduce an entirely new sphere of tactical possibilities for a commander. The F-35A will soon fly with the upgraded B-61 Mod 12 nuclear bomb. This variant, in existence now for many years, integrates the operational capacity of several legacy long-term B-61 bomb variants into a single munition. Specifically, an F-35A pilot carrying a B-61 Mod 12 will not need to use different bombs to achieve various battlefield effects such as a proximity fuse, penetrating, bunker-buster nuclear bomb variant, or point-detonate with adjustable yield or destructive power.
Such versatility could present a new range of complications for an adversary who faces a multi-faceted threat. A B-61 Mod 12, which has already been successfully tested from an Air Force B-2, could introduce various nuclear threats. Should there be a need to limit or streamline destructive power, a lower-yield variant could be dropped. Should there be a need to explode an underground facility without damaging the surrounding surface with a tactical nuclear weapon, the B-61 Mod 12 could accomplish this also. Should there be a tactical need to attack with a point-detonate nuclear weapon, that option is available with the B-61 Mod 12 as well. Finally, should there be a need to detonate a nuclear bomb just above the surface of the ground to achieve a specific, sought-after explosive impact, the modernized B-61 Mod 12 could make that happen.
There is also the advantage of maneuverability and access. While certainly a stealth bomber such as the B-2 or B-21, or a large nuclear-capable bomber such as the B-52 can introduce the threat of nuclear weapons. Yet these aircraft would of course have trouble maneuvering in close proximity to ground targets in highly-contested threat areas.
A stealthy platform like a B-2 would rely upon its stealth properties and altitude to elude detection, yet might lack the vectoring ability and speed to introduce a lower-altitude tactical nuclear threat. An F-35, by contrast, could use stealth, speed, and maneuverability to hold otherwise unreachable targets at risk of some kind of nuclear attack.
This changes the deterrence equation in a clear and measurable way, as it speaks to the strategy rationale upon which the Pentagon arms the F-35A with nuclear weapons. The hope is that such a possibility will, as it pertains to other nuclear weapons, function as a deterrent and therefore help ensure there is no use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances.
F-35 to 2070
One Word: Upgradability – As the F-35 continues to emerge throughout the U.S. military services and those of allies, the Pentagon is planning to operate the jet for at least another 45 years beyond its current service. This is because
of its proven ability to incorporate improvements in sensing, computing, weapons delivery, and targeting envelope with software upgrades. This process will likely take place much more quickly and no longer need to be separated by years between software increments, or “drops.”
The F-35 Is An Upgrade Machine
This means the Air Force’s upcoming sixth-generation aircraft, which recently went airborne, will likely complement and operate alongside the F-35 for many decades into the future. Not only does the Air Force plan to acquire more than 1,700 F-35s, but the service plans to fly the aircraft well into the 2070s through continuous modernizations.
Many anticipated breakthrough technologies are expected to be software-reliant, computer-based, or related to advanced sensing and AI, therefore allowing a jet like the F-35 to bound forward in performance without needing a new airframe configuration. Lockheed engineers built the F-35 with this idea in mind — it was technically configured to be upgradeable for decades.
The F-35’s sensor fusion already encompasses early iterations of AI, given that advanced computer algorithms are able to aggregate, analyze, organize, and transmit clear, integrated information to pilots. New, yet-to-exist sensors and weapons configurations could be accommodated by this kind of technical infrastructure.
Weapon lethality and guidance systems can be upgraded with software, as we have already seen with the F-35 as well as the F-22. Further, engine enhancements that decrease heat emissions or increase propulsion and maneuverability are also entirely possible.
What this means is that all the evidence points to the continued, long-term operational relevance of the F-22 and F-35. The Air Force already plans to fly the F-35 until 2070, and the F-22 until 2060.
Newer networking technologies, such as radios able to connect F-22s and F-35s in stealth mode and two-way LINK 16 connectivity between the two platforms means secure interoperability between fifth- and sixth-generation fighters is expected. This technological scenario foretells a significant expansion in tactical warfare possibilities.
It is worth remembering here the 2014 US-China Economic and Security Review, which contained a 70-page chapter on Chinese military modernization. Among its many findings, the report specifically cited Chinese mobile ICBM launchers with as many as 10 re-entry vehicles in some cases.
These weapons, of course, present significant new threats. The more re-entry vehicles approach a target, the more difficult they are to defend. With this in mind, an F-35 might bring an ability to use stealth, speed, and maneuverability to operate above heavily defended inland areas to find, chase, and destroy mobile launchers,
The F-35’s well-known ability to significantly improve its lethality and performance through software upgrades is something weapons developers see as a developmental focus for the jet. Software drops for the F-35 have been implemented over the course of many years.
Each new software integration has expanded the weapons and sensing capabilities of the jet, so this will likely continue. The F-35 in 2060 may have roughly the same stealthy external configuration as it does now and yet operate with an entirely new generation of mission systems, sensing, computing, and weapons.
F-35 vs. Chinese J-20 & Russian Su-57
As the multi-national acquisition of the F-35 aircraft explodes throughout Europe and hundreds of new F-35s slowly arrive at military bases, many are likely to wonder whether the famous fighter should be considered the world’s “best” fighter jet. Called a “flying computer” and well-known for its “sensor fusion,” targeting range, and drone-like surveillance technology, the F-35 simply may not have an equivalent. Does it?
Competitive Edge
Certainly, Russia’s Su-57 and Chinese J-20 and J-31 represent great power efforts to match or “out-perform” the U.S. F-35, yet there are a handful of specific attributes which rival-nation 5th-generation aircraft would need to match. Perhaps the first and most visible F-35 characteristic that likely proves difficult to replicate is simply the existence of three variants.
At the moment, it does not appear that any rival nation operates an F-35B-like vertical take-off and landing 5th-generation aircraft able to operate from smaller-deck amphibious assault ships. Added to this equation, it is also not clear whether any rival nations operate a carrier-launched F-35C equivalent. The Chinese are of course engineering the J-31 for carrier-launch operations, yet it is not clear how far along or combat-ready this aircraft is.
Beyond mere configuration, there are a number of key technological attributes that rival 5th-generation offerings may be challenged to replicate, such as sensor range and fidelity, AI-enabled computing, threat library mission data files, flight automation, weapons envelope, manned-unmanned teaming, and fleet-wide data link networking.
One of the clear and perhaps most impactful F-35 advantages shown in wargames is that the range and fidelity of its targeting and sensors are not only enabled by integrated, high-speed data integration and processing or “sensor fusion,” but also the sensors are able to reach unprecedented ranges.
Wargames using the F-35 as well as live fire exercises such as the Air Force’s Red Flag have shown that an F-35 can see and destroy large formations of enemy fighters from standoff distances where it cannot be “seen” or detected by an enemy. In this kind of scenario, which has been shown in several wargames, a single F-35 has proven able to see, identify, and destroy larger numbers of enemy airplanes without placing itself within a line of fire.
This means the Distributed Aperture System, a 360-degree sensor camera view around the fuselage, coupled with long-range electro-optical targeting technology, are able to see enemy threats, quickly identify them by bouncing them off a computer data library of known threats called Mission Data Files, and use precision-guided long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons to destroy enemies while itself operating at safe distances.
All of this, quite significantly, is enabled by so-called “sensor fusion,” a term to describe sensor data integration wherein pertinent, time-sensitive details from otherwise disparate sensor streams are integrated into
a single, user-friendly data screen for pilots.
J-20 vs. F-35
The Chinese government-backed Global Times newspaper describes an incident wherein the J-20 and F-35 flew in close proximity to one another as part of routine People’s Liberation Army exercises in the region.
The paper quotes comments from Air Force Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, Commander of US Pacific Air Forces, saying the US pilots were “impressed” with the J-20. The US general’s quote reportedly came from an online event broadcast on youtube, the paper says.
“We got relatively close to the J-20s along with our F-35s in the East China Sea, and we’re relatively impressed with the command and control that was associated with the J-20,” Wilsbach reportedly said, according to the Chinese paper.
Wilsbach also reportedly said the Chinese pilots were “flying the J-20s pretty well,” according to the paper.
However, when placed in a more complete context, Wilsbach’s comments are by no means unusual, as senior Air Force and Pentagon leaders often point out the technological abilities of Chinese weapons systems as part of a vital need to ensure continued US modernization.
However, this by no means indicates that the Chinese 5th-generation aircraft actually outperforms or even rivals an F-35. Apart from the J-20s visible external configuration, and many Chinese press reports about its improved domestically-built engine and fast-improving performance, there may be little known information about the PLA aircraft’s mission systems, computing, sensors or weapons interfaces.
Clearly its stealth exterior would suggest it may be an F-35 and F-22 “copycat” in terms of its blended wing-body and rounded fuselage. However, apart from its apparent stealth properties, any true margin of difference between the two aircraft would likely reside in less visible technological variables such as sensor range and fidelity, on board data processing and weapons targeting precision, among other things.
Should Wilsbach’s comment about the J-20s command and control be accurate, that does introduce an interesting and rare window of observation into perhaps previously unknown elements of the J-20. If in fact the Chinese aircraft appeared to maneuver with an effective command and control system, that would indicate that perhaps at least some of the J-20s mission systems and computing are effective.
At the same time, it seems important to point out that regardless of potentially being “impressed” with the J-20 and its flying, Wilsbach offered no input or comment regarding the question as to whether he thinks the Chinese 5th-generation aircraft in anyway resembles the F-35.
Nonetheless, China claims its fifth-generation, stealthy J-20 fighter jet is now taking yet another massive step toward war preparedness by flying in what could be referred to as “full stealth” mode.
A report from the Chinese-government backed Global Times says the J-20 was “spotted” flying without a Luneburg lens, a small device used to intentionally expose a stealth aircraft to others in situations like training or non-combat flights.
Does this mean the aircraft has taken new steps toward combat and operational “readiness?” Furthermore, just how stealthy is it?
J-20 & F-22: Wingspan, Speed & Weapons
The Chinese J-20 certainly appears slightly larger than an F-22 or F-35 stealth jet fighter, given its dual wing configuration, an engineering method employed to optimize air flow and achieve improved aerodynamic performance. While the wing configurations of a J-20 and F-22 are decidedly different, the J-20 fuselage itself appears to resemble that of an F-22 with two engine exhaust and blended, curved or rounded main body exterior.
What would it mean to truly rival or surpass the F-22 stealth fighter? Now that the J-20 has been flow in full stealth capacity and modified slightly with the integration of a new engine, some might wonder if the Chinese aircraft could achieve any kind of “supercruise” capability that has—so far—been unique to the F-22.
The F-22 has a forty-four-foot wingspan and is, at certain high altitudes, able to hit speeds as fast as Mach 2.25. Various data spec sheets and articles cite that, by comparison, a J-20 is several meters longer but built with a similar 44-ft wingspan. The articles, in Air Force Technology and The National Interest say the J-20 can reach speeds of Mach 2.55. It is unsure if this is confirmed per se and speed metrics don’t necessarily translate into maneuverability or sustained speed.
Regardless of a J-20’s speed, a key F-22 advantage is that it not only can reach supercruise speeds but also sustain them as well without needing afterburners, a major technical enhancement. Also, a slightly shorter, sleeker, and more streamlined fuselage, coupled with potentially unmatched levels of propulsion, thrust, and high-speed maneuverability, could very well give the F-22 a decisive advantage.
The F-22 is also armed with massively upgraded weapons such as the now software-enhanced AIM-120D and AIM-9X air-to-air and air-to-ground or surface weapons. Ultimately, the F-22’s advantage may reside in its often discussed role as an “aerial quarterback,” described by innovators as an ability to exchange real-time, two-way information amid warfare with both fourth- and fifth-generation American and allied warplanes
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force plans to continually modify the engine of their J-20 5th Gen stealth fighter to the point wherein it can match, rival, or potentially out-perform the U.S. F-22.
J-20 & F-22 Engines
Many U.S. engineers and military leaders maintain that the speed, maneuverability, technological sophistication and performance specs of the F-22 are simply unparalleled, yet many of course are acutely familiar with China’s fast-growing technological sophistication.
A report months ago in the South China Morning Post quotes an unspecified “military insider” (seems to indicate a Chinese military insider) explaining that the Chinese military will no longer use the Russian AL-31F engine in its J-20 but rather replace it with the WS-10C, a modified version of its domestically-built WS-10 engine.
“It’s impossible for China to rely on the Russian engine, because Russia asked China to purchase more Su-35 fighter jets in exchange for the AL-31F engine deals,” the insider, who requested anonymity, said in the paper. “The key problem is – except for its longer combat range advantage – the radar, navigation system and other electronic components on the Su-35s are inferior to Chinese aircraft like the J-16 strike fighter.”
Interestingly, the modifications to the Chinese WS–10 do not, according to the insider, go far enough.
“The air force (presumably Chinese) is not happy with the final results, demanding that engine technicians modify it until it meets all standards, for example mat
ching the F119 engine used by the Americans’ F-22 Raptor,” the South China Sea Morning Post writes.
What would it mean to truly rival or surpass the F-22? Does this indicate that the emerging, or soon to emerge, modified Chinese engine would achieve an F-22-like “supercruise” ability to sustain Mach speeds for long periods of time without afterburners? Does it mean it can vector and maneuver in a manner somewhat analogous to an F-22?
J-20 & F-35 Fuselage
Well that may not be fully known, yet it seems there are a few things that can be observed; the J-20 fuselage, with its double-wing configuration, may be somewhat stealthy, yet it does appear larger and somewhat less maneuverable than a more streamlined F-22 fuselage.
The F-22 has a 44-ft wingspan and is, at certain high altitudes, able to hit speeds as fast as Mach 2.25. Various media reports cite that, by comparison, a J-20 is several meters longer but built with a similar 44-ft wingspan; the reports, from Air Force Technology and The National Interest say the J-20 can reach speeds of Mach 2.55.
Not sure if this can be or is confirmed per se, and speed metrics don’t necessarily translate into maneuverability or sustained speed.
A key F-22 advantage is that it not only can reach those speeds but can sustain them as well. Also, a slightly shorter, sleeker, and more streamlined fuselage, coupled with potentially unmatched levels of propulsion, thrust, and high-speed maneuverability, could very well give the F-22 a decisive advantage.
Weapons integration, sensor range, EW, and targeting are perhaps the most defining attributes likely to help distinguish which aircraft, the J-20 or F-22, would prevail in an air-to-air engagement or out-perform the other in combat.
An ability to see, attack, out-maneuver, and destroy an enemy aircraft at further ranges and with more targeting precision and sensor fidelity would likely prove to perhaps be the most decisive factor in any combat engagement.
The F-22’s ongoing 3.2b software upgrade has produced now-operational weapons upgrades to the AIM-120D and AIM-9X air-fired weapons. The enhancements greatly improve targeting precision, accuracy, guidance systems, and range for the weapons, potentially bringing as-of-yet unseen combat advantages. Some of the enhancements to the weapons, perhaps of greatest significance, include anti-jamming RF technologies built to adjust frequency to sustain weapon targeting and thwart attempted jamming.
The real question then, is despite China’s known propensity for rapid technological advancements, does the J-20 have any kind of air-to-air thrust and maneuverability, supercruise sustained acceleration, or advanced sensors and weapons systems sufficient to rival an F-22?
J-20 Combat Threat
Regardless of its comparative status related to the F-22, the J-20 presents a wide-array of threats. Could the Chinese J-20 5th generation stealth fighter succeed in destroying crucial U.S. tankers, surveillance planes or airborne command posts?
The interesting question was posed by a London-based analyst cited in an article from Forbes magazine, raising the idea of whether such a prospect would, in fact, be true. The Forbes article makes the point that U.S. and allied air assets, at a deficit in terms of actual numbers, would rely heavily upon less stealthy surveillance assets such as an E-2D Hawkeye, Triton maritime drone or KC-46 tanker.
“In wartime, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force likely would sortie J-20s to fly through the clutter of raging air battles along the Chinese coast, in the hope that the Mighty Dragons might punch through to the open air space of the western Pacific Ocean,” the Forbes article states.
However, could this actually be possible? Most likely not for a range of possible reasons.
The analyst cited in the article, Justin Bronk with the London-based Royal United Service Institute, makes the point that J-20s would be outmatched in the air by U.S. F-22s deployed to challenge them.
Bronk writes that the J-20 “is a heavier, less agile aircraft that will be more expensive to build and operate. It also cannot compete with the extreme performance or agility of the F-22.”
Bronk makes what appears to be a valid point, as the J-20 does not appear by any estimation to operate with an ability to rival the U.S. F-22. However, what if there are not enough F-22s? Or they are not deployed in the right place at the right time? While the Air Force does have more than 180 F-22s, the F-22 production lines were truncated prematurely according to many observers and they certainly might not be in the right places at sufficient numbers in the event of war with China.
However, many Navy and Air Force war planners are exploring the idea of using F-22s to defend surface assets such as carriers, and Bronk’s point is strongly reinforced by the existence of the Navy’s emerging MQ-25 Stingray carrier launched re-fueler. Not only would this decrease the need for potentially vulnerable larger KC-46 tankers, but they could also massively extend the operational reach, and therefore dwell time, of F-22s looking to cover the seemingly endless expanse of the Pacific. The widely discussed “tyranny of distance” known to characterize the Pacific, making it essential to refuel assets such as an F-35C or F-22 needing to sustain operations well beyond ranges reachable without refueling in the air.
In the event that F-22 and F-35 combat, attack, and defensive maneuvers were better enabled by sleek, fast, carrier-launched re-fuelers operating at sea in closer proximity to ongoing airwar, J-20s would be quite challenged to perform the missions envisioned by Bronk. Also, the Pentagon already operates some very stealthy drones and of course plans to operate even stealthier drones in the future, making forward surveillance more possible in hostile environments in which Chinese J-20s would try to attack reconnaissance drones.
J-20 & F-35 Design
Last year, an overhead satellite picture showed an interesting and significant view of the Chinese J-20 stealth multi-role fifth-generation fighter, offering an informative view of the top of the fuselage.
The images can be seen in an overhead satellite picture published by The Aviationist.
The first thing that jumps out is the dual-wing configuration, meaning the aircraft has a short set of sloped, horizontal wings followed by larger structures aligning across the back end of the body. Perhaps this represents an effort to break up or smooth out the airflow passing on either side of the fuselage; airflow at high speeds can generate heat signatures potentially vulnerable to detection from enemy air defenses.
The F-35 and F-22, by contrast, have singular gradually sloped-horizontal wings. A shorter protruding, yet aligned or sloped wing, followed by longer wings, might represent an attempt to improve stealth performance.
A dual-wing formation could, it seems, interrupt the speed of the aerodynamic airflow on each side, potentially better managing temperature. Stealth properties can be optimized if temperatures emitting from or surrounding the aircraft align with or somewhat match the surrounding temperature, thereby concealing or removing thermal signature.
he st
ructure also includes the kind of conformal, blended wing-body shape of many fifth-generation fighters, complete with rounded back end exhaust emissions. Interestingly, the J-20 reveals a dual-engine configuration, something which mirrors an F-22 as opposed to an F-35.
This may indicate an attempt to achieve an F-22-like supercruise technology that enables sustained speeds without needing an afterburner, something that helps expand mission time and improve aerial performance.
Also, the top of the J-20 has dual rounded “humps” that look nearly identical to the top of an F-22. In contrast, the F-35 has a single rounded parabola like fuselage on top, whereas the J-20 and F-22 reveal a flat upper fuselage blended into two separate rounded engine pathways. This kind of engineering might also be an effort to maximize maneuvering, vectoring and aerial dogfighting capabilities similar to those known to be possible with an F-22.
All of this raises significant questions about various characteristics of the J-20, such as its speed, stealth performance and maneuverability. While much of the specifics of the J-20 could simply remain a mystery, the aircraft may not truly rival the F-22 or F-35, despite the apparent external similarities. After all, while a stealth fighter’s ultimate success is related to stealth configuration, its true margin of superiority may lie in its sensors, weapons, avionics, temperature management and internal construction.
J-20 & F-35 Quantity
While debates and uncertainties continue to swirl around how agile, lethal, stealthy and advanced China’s J-20 stealth fighter may be, the country may simply have another challenge crippling its ability to rival the F-22 and F-35: There simply may not be enough J-20s.
Several interesting reports from last year cited production problems and delays with J-20 manufacturing, particularly centered around the J-20’s “high-thrust turbofan WS-15 engine.” A report from the South China Morning Post says J-20 engine work has “fallen behind schedule,” and that China was “thought to have built about 50 J-20s by the end of 2019, but problems with the jets engines delayed production plans.”
If China has in fact produced 50 or 100 its highly touted J-20, that still falls way short of the U.S.’ current fleet of ready and armed 5th Gen fighters. Lockheed statements given to The National Interest report that the firm has built and delivered 195 F-22s, with 186 of them combat ready. Made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the F-22 uses two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles, an Air Force statement said. It is 16-feet tall, 62-feet long and weighs 43,340 pounds. Its maximum take-off weight is 83,500; there is much interesting discussion comparing F-35 and F-22 engine thrust to China’s J-20 engine.
F-35 Beast “Mode Bomb Truck”
The F-35 is often considered a fast, stealthy 5th-gen fighter able to elude and destroy enemy air defenses. Yet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter also has a “beast mode” bomb truck capacity for larger attacks.
A Big Statement
Decreasing stealth properties does not render the F-35 ineffective in a variety of respects, given that the F-35 is built for heavy bombing as well as reconnaissance missions.
Thinking of these together, an F-35 could use its electro/optical-infrared (EO-IR) cameras and surrounding sensors to find far-away ground targets autonomously, and then attack them from the air with bombs.
The aircraft does have an internal weapons bay, intended to enable attacks while preserving a stealth configuration, yet a full-force attack will mean using the external pylons to enable what many call the F-35’s “beast mode.”
An interesting report from the Aviation Geek Club describes beast mode as arming an F-35 with “six inert 500-pound GBU-12 laser-guided bombs, four loaded externally on the wings and two internally in the weapons bay, as well as an AIM-9 training air-to-air missile.”
Naturally, this means an F-35 would increase its radar signature and decrease the effectiveness of its stealth properties, however, such a configuration would be possible in combat environments wherein the United States has already achieved air supremacy.
Externally hanging weapons present contours and configurations likely to provide enemy radar with a more detailed radar return, therefore delivering a rendering of the aircraft to adversaries.
This kind of attack mode might also be needed, should a combat campaign need to extend mission dwell time, creating the opportunity for F-35s to hit more targets with a larger weapons load.
Laser-guided GBU-12s, a guided bomb unit, can pinpoint ground targets “lit up” by laser designators from the air or ground, enabling precision strikes.
The Air Force’s GBU-54, also a laser-guided bomb, also brings the ability for an aircraft to hit moving targets on the ground.
This would be a massive increase in efficiency, as the aircraft could respond to new intelligence information in real time, thereby greatly reducing latency and sensor-to-shooter time.
By extension, the F-35’s often-discussed “sensor fusion” could play a role here, as it relies upon computer automation and AI to gather otherwise separate sensor information, analyze and organize it to provide pilots with a single integrated picture.
Navigational, targeting, and electronic-related metrics can all be merged by the aircraft itself.
.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
