Doing so would be structurally awkward. You would make the aircraft a lot heavier for no great purpose. First you decide that the weapons bay goes no further that the front of the main landing gear bays, then you make sure that the center of gravity will have the right position in relation to the main undercarriage.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
well, i am talking about images. what grave mistakes in photo analysis did i make there?
also, just what does j20 use its internal body volume for, then? its engines cant be noticably bigger than f119. its fuel consumption may be a bit higher, but we still cant be talking about 30% higher consumption, that would be silly. if j20 is around 20 meters long, then we can compare its images with images of f22 and asess the width and length of its fuselage. and deduce its volume. and the fuselage volume is AT LEAST 6 cubic meters larger. what does a combat plane do with so much more volume?? it'd be inefficient to use it all for extra fuel.
i just did a more precise calculation. assuming j20 is exactly 20 meters long, its fuselage has between 8 and 8.5 cubic meters of more volume than a f-22. That has to go somewhere. but please, what about the images? the belly image? are my red outlines of the weapon bay correct? or is the bay visibly shorter?
also, just what does j20 use its internal body volume for, then? its engines cant be noticably bigger than f119. its fuel consumption may be a bit higher, but we still cant be talking about 30% higher consumption, that would be silly. if j20 is around 20 meters long, then we can compare its images with images of f22 and asess the width and length of its fuselage. and deduce its volume. and the fuselage volume is AT LEAST 6 cubic meters larger. what does a combat plane do with so much more volume?? it'd be inefficient to use it all for extra fuel.
i just did a more precise calculation. assuming j20 is exactly 20 meters long, its fuselage has between 8 and 8.5 cubic meters of more volume than a f-22. That has to go somewhere. but please, what about the images? the belly image? are my red outlines of the weapon bay correct? or is the bay visibly shorter?
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
I tend to agree. The opened main weapon bay door in the first picture does seem to go about at least level with the back edge of the main landing gear bay door.
Would it?
The F-22 is shortlegged compared with other heavy Fourth gen. fighters like the F-15 and Su-27. Also keep in mind that the J-20 has slightly thinner wings, which means that less fuel could be carried there.
So what about the image? where does the weapon bay end? can you draw it over the image of the plane?
As for the fuselage volume being used for fuel excusively - f22's wings AT BEST hold some 0,9 cubic meters of fuel. Probably it's half of that amount or less, as i calcuclated just the outer volume. even if j20 again holds just half as much, we still have over 7 cubic meters of difference for fuel.
f22 can cross 1800 nm with 12 tons of fuel, f15 crosses 2400 nm with 11 tons of fuel. that is 150 nm per ton of fuel for raptor. if we add another 6 tons of fuel that would fit in 7 cubic meters that j20 has extra, that'd add roughly 900 nm, or 50% more. yes, real values are probably lower, but how much? 5%? 10%?
i say it is not efficient to make a plane which will have 40-50% more range than your direct adversary. that is a huge figure, and it means a lot of space and weight used. it would be better used for different things. sure, some extra fuel. but also some extra space for other things.
alternative is that chinese engines and aerodynamics and materials/weight are so much worse than those in f22 that all that extra volume was needed just to roughly match the raptor.
what does occam's razor say about that? what is a more likely reason?
As for the fuselage volume being used for fuel excusively - f22's wings AT BEST hold some 0,9 cubic meters of fuel. Probably it's half of that amount or less, as i calcuclated just the outer volume. even if j20 again holds just half as much, we still have over 7 cubic meters of difference for fuel.
f22 can cross 1800 nm with 12 tons of fuel, f15 crosses 2400 nm with 11 tons of fuel. that is 150 nm per ton of fuel for raptor. if we add another 6 tons of fuel that would fit in 7 cubic meters that j20 has extra, that'd add roughly 900 nm, or 50% more. yes, real values are probably lower, but how much? 5%? 10%?
i say it is not efficient to make a plane which will have 40-50% more range than your direct adversary. that is a huge figure, and it means a lot of space and weight used. it would be better used for different things. sure, some extra fuel. but also some extra space for other things.
alternative is that chinese engines and aerodynamics and materials/weight are so much worse than those in f22 that all that extra volume was needed just to roughly match the raptor.
what does occam's razor say about that? what is a more likely reason?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Or that the Chinese have realised that in a world where both sides have 5th gen stealth fighters, the weakest link becomes the support assets like tankers. This is especially true in any Pacific scenario where the bulk of any USAF combat power will have to come from far away bases like Guam.
Why bother trying to lock horns with raptors when the PLAAF can take the entire F22 fleet out of the fight by taking out the relatively easy targets to USAF tankers, without whom the F22 would not have the range to even take part in the fight?
If CAC designed the J20 to have the range to hit backend enemy support assets like tankers without needing tanker support of their own, then they would effectively defeat the enemy's best weapon without having to have to face it directly, or at the very least force the enemy to deploy it's own limited 5th gens trying to hunt down your best fighters instead of picking on your legacy fighters that will have a much worse chance against them.
That is very typical of Chinese military thinking.
Why bother trying to lock horns with raptors when the PLAAF can take the entire F22 fleet out of the fight by taking out the relatively easy targets to USAF tankers, without whom the F22 would not have the range to even take part in the fight?
If CAC designed the J20 to have the range to hit backend enemy support assets like tankers without needing tanker support of their own, then they would effectively defeat the enemy's best weapon without having to have to face it directly, or at the very least force the enemy to deploy it's own limited 5th gens trying to hunt down your best fighters instead of picking on your legacy fighters that will have a much worse chance against them.
That is very typical of Chinese military thinking.
^^Occam's razor says that you miscalculated 
just kidding Totoro
i think your calculation show it is what it is, J-20 is longer legged than the F-22, by how much? 40%-50%? why not if it serves PLAAF's purposes
my take on this range issue is PLAAF needs a long legged aircraft, and they probably included it as a requirement to the J-20
PLAAF has not been investing heavily in tankers, and probably expect future engagement close to Chinese borders. This is a direct opposite of US global air power reach supported with many tanker fleets. For the US long range is preferable but not a main concern.
Thus without tankers, PLAAF expects aircrafts to rely own their own fuel load. And as PLAAF evolve the engagement periphery also changes. We now probably know where they draw the line, further and father beyond the Taiwan scenario, and PLAAF want J-20 to be able to reach there
probably in PLAAF book, J-20 is the main building block for Chinese air superiority in Western Pacific, and it will have to do so from the airbases in mainland
just kidding Totoroi think your calculation show it is what it is, J-20 is longer legged than the F-22, by how much? 40%-50%? why not if it serves PLAAF's purposes
my take on this range issue is PLAAF needs a long legged aircraft, and they probably included it as a requirement to the J-20
PLAAF has not been investing heavily in tankers, and probably expect future engagement close to Chinese borders. This is a direct opposite of US global air power reach supported with many tanker fleets. For the US long range is preferable but not a main concern.
Thus without tankers, PLAAF expects aircrafts to rely own their own fuel load. And as PLAAF evolve the engagement periphery also changes. We now probably know where they draw the line, further and father beyond the Taiwan scenario, and PLAAF want J-20 to be able to reach there
probably in PLAAF book, J-20 is the main building block for Chinese air superiority in Western Pacific, and it will have to do so from the airbases in mainland
The J-20's wings are not that much thinner than F-22 to massively impact the difference in internal fuel between the respective aircraft I believe.
J-20 at 20.3m x 13.4m
F-22 at 18.9m x 13.56m
T-50 at 20.8m x 15m
not really accurate but well, J-20 and T-50 from Paralay, F-22 from wiki
Lol when I saw that I thought I was spazzing out...
And I beleive T-50 is shorter than J-20, wikipedia lists it as 19.8 meters. That's consistent with Paralay's latest comparisons of J-20, T-50 and F-22.
well i took J-20 numbers from the recent Huzhigeng number
F-22 numbers from wiki
and T-50 numbers from Paralay's own drawing, let's just say the T-50's number is provisional, but hey the engine is a fit
- Status