By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington DC)
The Chinese People Liberation Army Air Force makes regular detailed comments in government-backed newspapers about the merits and promise of its emerging fleet of 5th-generation stealth aircraft. At once point, the Chinese Global Times newspaper cited a US Air Force general’s observation about the J-20 in an effort to suggest China’s 5th-generation J-20 was in fact superior to US 5th-gen aircraft.
The J-20 is already airborne, yet only land launched, and the PLA’s J-31 carrier-launched 5th-generation stealth attack aircraft is earlier on and does not appear to exist in large numbers.
The US military services already operate hundreds of F-35s and has a robust fleet of combat ready F-22s, so how many J-20s does China have? How threatening is the aircraft, despite consistent Chinese reports about its new domestically-built engine and first-of-its-kind “two-seat” J-20 variant. An interesting report in The Drive says China may already be flying an even more modern WS-15 domestically built engine.
Just how threatening is China’s fleet of 5th-generation stealth aircraft
The recent emergence of a Chinese force of stealthy, heavily armed 5th-generation fighter aircraft such as the J-20 and carrier-launched J-31 have raised the ever critical question as to how they might compare with or perform against the US Air Force’s world-leading 5th-generation F-22 and F-35.
There are likely to be many unknowns, as there is likely much unknown information regarding performance parameters of China’s new 5th-generation aircraft. In terms of external configuration, there is a very well-known and widespread concern that both the J-20 and the J-31 appear to be transparent copycats or “rip-offs” of US 5th-generation stealth technology. This concern has been highlighted publicly for many years now in Congressional reports, news reports and even Pentagon reports highlighting clear visible similarities between Chinese and US 5th-generation aircraft.
The People’s Liberation Army Air Force has already produced a fleet of J-20s and has announced plans for many more, and the carrier-launched 5th-generation J-31 seems much earlier on in its development. These aircraft are technically “newer” than the US F-22 and F-35, and they do appear to replicate some design specs, yet just how closely can the Chinese 5th-generation aircraft replicate or rival the computing, sensing, weapons delivery or networking of the F-35 and F-22.
China’s J-20 and J-31
Interestingly, apart from any technological comparison, there may be additional variables why the now in-existence J-20 may not be as much of a threat as is commonly assumed.
Certainly Chinese J-20 and J-31 represent great power efforts to match or “out-perform” the US 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 which 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 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 which rival Chinese 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.
In terms of pure speed and thrust-to-weight ratio, there are some interesting observations to be made, as the J-20 is reported to be faster than the F-35, yet not as fast as the F-22 Raptor. The J-20 is listed as being able to operate at a max speed of Mach 2.0 and the J-31 is slated with speeds up to Mach 1.8. Speed for both the J-20 and J-31 are less than the F-22s Mach 2.25 speed, yet faster than the F-35s speed at Mach 1.6. The F-22 also has the most advanced thrust to weight ratio in the world, and is therefore able to maneuver, vector and out-run enemy air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles in ways that are likely to be unrivaled.
The J-20 does operate with a “bomb-truck” like capacity to deliver more ordnance than an F-35 on a single mission, as it can take off with 27,998 pounds of internal and external ordnance, compared with an F-35 in beast mode which can travel with 18,000 pounds of weapons. The J-31 can also travel with a heavy load of weapons, as its maximum take-off capacity is listed as being at 28,000 kg.
A full internal and external weapons complement, however, would certainly compromise stealth by generating a larger and more precise radar return signal to adversary air defenses.
While an entire essay could be written about each of these particular categories, one clear and perhaps most impactful F-35 advantage 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 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.
Therefore, if a Chinese J-20 does not have targeting sensors or computing that was in any way comparable to the F-35, other attributes would not even matter much. In short, whichever aircraft is best able to complete the OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) and operate within or ahead of an enemy’s decision cycle is likely to prevail by destroying the enemy faster than it can itself be hit. Completing this process requires expedited sensing, computer processing, data analysis and integration, all F-35 attributes which may or may not be matched by adversary 5th-gen aircraft.
Certainly Chinese papers write about the J-20s maturation, demonstrations and technologies such as its WS-10 domestically-built engine, yet apart from a few training missions, the J-20 has n
ot been airborne much near areas where it might be seen up close. This was the thinking of one prominent Chinese expert researcher and former high-level US military official who suggested that perhaps the J-20 was kept from flying within Taiwan’s ADIZ to prevent it from being seen by Taiwan’s air defenses, surveillance planes or fighter jets at close range.
The J-20 has also rarely flown any sorties into the East China Sea or South China Sea. As a land-launched stealth platform, the J-20 may have limited reach without operating with not-so-stealthy large tankers, although the jet can clearly go the 100 miles from mainland China to Taiwan.
The official, who conducted and published public, unclassified open-source material and still publishes for US Military public publications, also suggested that the absence of the J-20 may also pertain to its mission scope, as it is not necessarily built for an F-22-like air supremacy mission and is instead larger with “dual-wings” and an elongated fuselage. This raises questions about the extent to which it could maneuver and prevail in air-to-air combat engagements, suggesting that perhaps the Chinese might intend a more limited role for the aircraft. This may be largely unknown to a degree and it would likely depend upon the range, fidelity of its sensors, processing speed of its on-board computers and other tough to determine factors.
J-20 2-Seat
Reports in The Drive, Air Force Magazine, Shepard Media and the Chinese-government-backed Global Times all show images of the new aircraft, long rumored to be in development by the People’s Liberation Army – Air Force.
Explaining that the new two-seat J-20 will likely be referred to as a J-20B, J-20AS or J-20S, the Drive says the pictures of a two-seat “tandem cockpit” J-20 in yellow primer paint emerging from Chengdu Aerospace Corporation’s plant and flight test airfield.
What does this mean? A 5th-generation stealthy “top gun”-like F-14 Tomcat? Maybe. However, unlike the famous 1980s era Tomcat which emerged prior to the large-scale explosion of AI-enabled computing, a 5th-gen fighter carrying a two-man crew raises some interesting questions and dynamics. The F-14 Tomcat came to exist well in advance of today’s AI-empowered sensing, computing, targeting, networking and information analysis.
At the beginning of 2021, the Chinese Global Times newspaper quoted unnamed military analysts citing the merits of a two-seat J-20.
“The twin-seat variation of the J-20 could be used for electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or bombing, and the domestic engine means the J-20 is no longer reliant on Russian engines,” the Chinese government-backed Global Times stated in the previous report, citing military analysts.
The addition of a second seat to the 5th-Gen stealth fighter presents some interesting questions, as it does potentially add new decision-making variables to air combat such as drone coordination, EW, or intelligence analysis in the air.
J-20 2-Seat Advantages
Should connectivity be lost, jammed, disabled or compromised in a combat situation, command and control could at least temporarily disappear, creating a circumstance wherein having an extra set of human eyes, observational faculties and decision making capability could certainly bring a tactical advantage. While human eyes might not necessarily see any farther, clearer or better than advanced cameras, another person might introduce new variations of intelligence analysis.
Perhaps a second pilot, or aviator, could oversee the operation of nearby drones, analyze and decide upon an interwoven tapestry of threat information, or coordinate communication with nearby air and ground assets should the main pilot be engaged in pressing combat tasks?
J-20 Manned-Unmanned Teaming
Certainly the prevailing wisdom regarding manned-unmanned teaming seems to indicate that warfare effectiveness is best served by an optimal blend of high-speed, AI-enabled sensors and computers along with faculties and attributes unique to human cognition.
Man-machine interface, as it’s called, can synergize more subjective variables and attributes associated with human decision making with high-speed, data analysis and organization. Certainly when it comes to gathering, organizing and performing certain kinds of data analysis, high-speed, AI-empowered computing and information processing performs exponentially better than humans, yet computers may not yet be able to approximate more subjective phenomena less calculable or measurable by mathematically-oriented computer algorithms.
Dynamic human decision making offers attributes far superior to anything machines can interpret in many respects. Combining both, therefore, seems to be the consensus among leading Pentagon weapons developers.
Therefore, could a two-man crew enabled J-20 introduce double the amount of man-machine interface potential possible in the sky? Perhaps the vast volumes of information made available by advanced sensing generates so much data which, even if organized, streamlined and analyzed by computers, may best be utilized by more than one human decision-maker in the air?
However, the -enabled computer itself as a copilot, and unmanned fighter jets capable of dogfighting, advanced maneuvers, and surveillance have been developing for years.
It may be that the U.S. Air Force’s experiment last year using a human pilot in tandem with an AI-enabled computerized co-pilot offers the best option, given that so much information can now be gathered, analyzed, streamlined and transmitted in accurate and highly relevant ways without needing human intervention. Maybe so much can be done effectively by computers in terms of matching threats against a database library, analyzing prior war scenarios to find the best weapon for a particular scenario, or assessing navigational, weather and ground target information in relation to one another in milliseconds, that having a human supported by a computerized AI-pilot may be the best approach.
The AI algorithm, called ARTUu, flew along with a human pilot on a U-2 Dragon Lady spy plane, performing tasks that would “otherwise be done by a pilot,” an Air Force report from 2020 about the development stated. “ARTUu’s primary responsibility was finding enemy launchers while the pilot was on the lookout for threatening aircraft, both sharing the U-2’s radar,” the Air Force report said.
Computer algorithms enabling near real-time analytics have informed some experiments and simulations wherein drone fighter jets prevailed in dogfights against human pilots, or at least performed successfully in many respects. Therefore, given technological progre
ss, why would an extra person be added at a time when humans are, if anything, increasingly being removed or decreased from operations? Machines are increasingly performing more vital combat functions faster than humans can, increasing the likelihood that more drone fighter jets will emerge in the future.
The thrust of the debate or discussion, it seems clear, is grounded in the extent to which attributes unique to human cognition can be closely approximated or even replicated by machines? Many say . . . never completely.
How can mathematically-engineered computer algorithms address, express or analyze subjective phenomena such as human feelings, intuition, or elements of intent? Humans are composed of a delicate, complex, and still somewhat mysterious mixture of thoughts, feelings, and psychological complexities, many of which simply might not be calculable by machines.
Many kinds of fast-changing dynamics, particularly those involving concepts or more subjectively determined variables, are at least at the moment best left to humans. For instance, to what extent could a computer discern “feelings” or “intent” as they may pertain to a combat engagement. Perhaps a pilot gets scared and makes an abrupt, unanticipated move? Can even the best AI-capable algorithms make sense of all of these kinds of phenomena? Particularly as they collide with one another? Many of these kinds of more subjective challenges may be much better addressed by humans.
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 /lComparative Literature from Columbia University