J-20 could be as famous as the Zero: Japanese magazine

Want China Times ^ | 2014-01-29

[sukhoi-30mki]

Although some consider Chinese fighters to be little more than less impressive copies of Russian designs, the J-20, China's first fifth-generation stealth fighter, has the potential to become one of the world's most iconic military aircraft like Japan's Mitsubishi A6M Zero during World War II, according to Aireview, a Japanese magazine covering military aviation news.

Before the Zero first saw action against the Russian-built I-15bis and I-16 fighters operated by the Republic of China Air Force over Chongqing in September 1940, most Western military experts had a similar view of the Japanese fighter as people have towards Chinese fighters today, the magazine said.

Claire Lee Chennault, the legendary leader of the Flying Tigers — a group of American volunteer aviators recruited to help the ROC combat Japanese forces — sent warning to Washington about the threat posed by the Zero at the time, however none of his supervisors believed that Japan was able to effectively design its own plane.

The United States learned first-hand the now legendary capabilities of the Japanese fighter when Zeros wiped out the US defenses at Pearl Harbor and Manila in December 1941. The Zero's performance in the early stages of the Pacific War earned it a formidable reputation. Aireview said China is now developing an advanced fighter which may in time earn a similar reputation.

The article also said Chinese fighters are currently only superior in their numbers but not in quality, adding that without active electronically scanned array radar, China's J-10A fighter is unlikely to defeat Japan's American-built F-15J in a dogfight. The J-10B, the upgraded version of the J-10A, is reported to be equipped with active electronically scanned array radar but China does not have enough early warning aircraft compared to the United States and Japan, the magazine said.

Meanwhile, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force has 17 early warning aircraft and China has 11 — among them, only five are the most advanced Chinese KJ-2000 early warning planes. The People's Liberation Army Air Force and Navy Air Force have around 1,500 fighters, five times the number of Japan, however China would at present still not be able to win a decisive air battle against Japan. However, the article maintained that China will be able to fix these problems in the future.

The J-10B and its successor, the J-20, both have the potential to reach the level of fame as the Zero during World War II, the magazine said, if the Chinese aviation industry is capable of upgrading the aircraft's software. Aireview stated that the J-20, with a large fuselage, is likely to be designed as a long-range multi-role fighter which can also be used as a tactical bomber.

As for the J-31, China's second prototype stealth fighter, its main purpose is to be exported to developing nations which are not able to purchase the US-built F-35, the magazine added.

[DesertRhino]

It can be done and done well. I give you the F-15 Strike Eagle model. I give you the F-14D model. From times past I give you the P-47 and the F4U Corsair.

[Leaning Right]

Bring back manufacturing from China. Stop sending our manufacturing there.

You bet. The Russians at least did not pay for the Japanese fleet that eventually defeated them.

But today the USA is shoveling money over to China. And China is converting a good amount of that money into modern armaments.

But who cares? Because of China I can buy a hammer for $2 instead of $3. However, I suspect that my grandchildren will have to care about China's rise, and care very much.

[mitch5501]

Great image!

There's nothing like hearing a WW2 fighter open the throttle right over your head as you watch it climb to the clouds.Hot rods of the skies,absolutely awesome!

Personally I think the Zeros were a beautifull looking aircraft.However...."they made a good show as they went down in flames"

[cpdiii]

It can be done and done well. I give you the F-15 Strike Eagle model. I give you the F-14D model. From times past I give you the P-47 and the F4U Corsair.

True, but what is their bomb load compared to the B-17, the B-24, the B-29 or of our era the B-52 or B1-B or the B2 bomber? Tons of ordinance on target is what makes a bomber a bomber.

[DoughtyOne]

I couldn’t agree more. Strategically, we’re hollowed out IMO.

[Taylor42]

I think it looks like the Northrup F-21 that lost the competition with the F-22.

[DoughtyOne]

I think you make a good point. From what I see, I think you’re description is more accurate.

[Fred Hayek]

Dur4ing WWII, Japan did not rotate their pilots. Their top pilots were continuously kept at the front lines, instead of some being rotated back to the flight schools to train up the next batch of pilots.

[mcshot]

You are thinking of the YF-23 over which the YF-22 was chosen. The Yf-23, black widow, lacked vectored thrust but was otherwise superior IMHO. I hope they are developing it as a black project but the “Wonder” has likely screwed that up too. Good YouTube vids on the black widow. I recall the twin engine version of the P51 mustang was also called the black widow.

[75thOVI]

Like many of you, I've always heard of how the Zero dominated the skies over Pearl Harbor. Recently I found cause to do some deeper research, and discovered a very different story. It's quite difficult to pin down exact Japanese air to air losses for all the usual reasons, (dual claims, fog of war, etc.) However a reasonable estimation seems to be 10-11. At least 2 possibly as many as 4 being A6M2s. In exchange U.S. A2A losses were 1 P-40 destroyed on take off, and one shot down in the air. One Zero may have been shot down by a P-36! Take what lessons you will from this, but the Zero certainly did not have air superiority over Pearl Harbor.

[fso301]

Zeros had no armor to protect the pilot and did not have self-sealing fuel tanks.

Agreed but as it concerns armor to protect the pilot, I commented to another poster that I have never seen a photo of a smiling American pilot showing off the dents in the armor plate behind him.

Japanese pilots were trained to engage enemies in slow speed dogfights. Above 275 mph the Zero’s excellent handling diminished, making tight high speed turns nearly impossible.

There is no perfect airplane. All aircraft design involves tradeoffs. For the Japanese, the Zero gave them a plane that had the kind of tremendous range needed in the Pacific, a plane that could operate from carriers and a plane that could best all known fighters in 1940. The problem for the Japanese is they did not set about immediately designing a successor.

[rbg81]

Exactly. The Japanese changed the Zero almost not at all during WWII—it was no match for newer fighters like the P-51 Mustang. Being labeled “iconic” won’t help you in combat.

[central_va]

Thank God the Nips never got the Zeros replacement into production. The 'Reppu' was probably equal or better than our fighters of the time. For some reason the Nips delayed the program, maybe cost them the war. Can you imagine the Marianas Turkey shoot happening if the sky had been filed with 'Reppu's instead of the Zero?.

Towards the end of 1940, the Imperial Japanese Navy asked Mitsubishi to start design on a 16-Shi carrier-based fighter, which would be the successor to the carrier-based Zero. At that time, however, there were no viable high-output, compact engines to use for a new fighter. In addition, Jiro Horikoshi's team was preoccupied with addressing early production issues with the A6M2b as well as starting development on the A6M3 and the 14-Shi interceptor (which would later become the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, a land-based interceptor built to counter high-altitude bombers). As a result, work on the Zero successor was halted in January 1941.

[tophat9000]

The funny thing is the AVG never really fought the Zeros The A6M was a Navy fighter...The AVG went up most times against the Ki 43 “Oscar” an Army fighter of very design philosophy and performance to the Zero.

[smokingfrog]

Do you really think they would have installed cockpit armor and added all that weight to the aircraft unnecessarily if it was not saving lives? Replacing a shot-down aircraft is easier than replacing an experienced pilot.

[fso301]

Do you really think they would have installed cockpit armor and added all that weight to the aircraft unnecessarily if it was not saving lives? Replacing a shot-down aircraft is easier than replacing an experienced pilot.

The additional armor certainly provided protection against shrapnel from flak and perhaps .30 caliber bullets but .50 - 20mm AP at combat distances was going to punch through it.

[yarddog]

I recall in one of his books, Robert L. Scot mentions either himself or maybe another pilot getting rivets taken out of his back.

They were only superficial wounds caused by the rivets which apparently attached the seat to the armor were knocked loose by bullets hitting the back of the seat.

[eartrumpet]

True, but what is their bomb load compared to the B-17, the B-24, the B-29 or of our era the B-52 or B1-B or the B2 bomber? Tons of ordinance on target is what makes a bomber a bomber.

Not as great a difference as you would think. The B17 carried 8000lb for short missions and 4500 lb for long missions. The P47 could carry 2500 lb. The F4U-4 could carry 4000 lb of bombs. The A-1 Skyraider could carry 8000 pounds of bombs or other goodies.