J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Engineer said:
What would be the point? A modification as extensive as that is essentially redesigning the plane from the ground up; might as well design a dedicated multi-role stealth fighter.
Click to expand...
Most of the benefits would be in the development and production side of things, mainly through parts sharing and shortening R&D. Those machining parts can get really expensive.

Also, while it would be a fundamental redesign of the plane's aerodynamics, it would save the trouble of having to figure out a new plane's internals, as well critical aspects of the engineering of the plane's structure and composition.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
I too think that the SAC fighter will be sufficient for the strike role.
Click to expand...

For what I'm thinking of it'll need to have a weapon bay able to hold a powered munition or two, and/or a large number of SDBs like fb-22.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
latenlazy said:
I'm sure it will be, and it might even be better for it. It was mostly just a curiousity given how many analysts have pointed to the "strike features" of the J-20.
Click to expand...

Those were based on the erroneous assessment that the plane was a 23-24 meter long behemoth.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
siegecrossbow said:
Those were based on the erroneous assessment that the plane was a 23-24 meter long behemoth.
Click to expand...
Let's not bring that up again. I've tried time and again to dispel that one -_____-;

However, there is also the fact that the J-20 (assuming good SFC) presumably already has very long legs, a very important requirement for strike platforms. If internal modifications weren't enough to increase the volume of the weapons bays, they could also lengthen the fuselage. Of course, the entire aerodynamics of the plane would have to change as mentioned previously. Just a thought (only important if they were focused on reducing costs).
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
latenlazy said:
Let's not bring that up again. I've tried time and again to dispel that one -_____-;

However, there is also the fact that the J-20 (assuming good SFC) presumably already has very long legs, a very important requirement for strike platforms. If internal modifications weren't enough to increase the volume of the weapons bays, they could also lengthen the fuselage. Of course, the entire aerodynamics of the plane would have to change as mentioned previously. Just a thought (only important if they were focused on reducing costs).
Click to expand...

You have to realize that increasing the weaponsbay volume comes at the expense of reduced fuel capacity. I theorize that much of the lower half of the J-20's body is dedicated to housing fuel since the wings of the J-20 are comparatively thin (in order to enhance high speed performance).
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
You have to realize that increasing the weaponsbay volume comes at the expense of reduced fuel capacity. I theorize that much of the lower half of the J-20's body is dedicated to housing fuel since the wings of the J-20 are comparatively thin (in order to enhance high speed performance).
Click to expand...

I agree -- the f-22 and j-20 length difference is two meters at the highest estimate but the latter looks to have a much greater volume despite similar wing sizes from placing the engines further back resulting in greater fuselage volume.

--

And a hypothetical JH-20 would probably remove the canards and have a larger delta wing, and lengthen the airframe too vis a vis the proposed changes from f-22 to fb-22
 
Last edited:
S

starikki

New Member
latenlazy said:
I meant create a strike platform based on a modified J-20 air frame like the FB-22? There'd probably have to be significant changes which might not carry out too well of course, like the deletion of the canards for a bigger delta wing. I suppose the whole idea is more useful for cheapening R&D and production costs from parts sharing more than anything else though.
Click to expand...

Hey we are on the same idea!
I'm currently designing a JH-20 RC model.
Bigger wings, smoother tail with 2D TVC, less impressive dog fighting ability but better super cruise / supersonic maneuverability.
Main role as EWAC sniper and/or UCAV fleet commander :D
sorry can't show pics yet, just registered here:)
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
siegecrossbow said:
You have to realize that increasing the weaponsbay volume comes at the expense of reduced fuel capacity. I theorize that much of the lower half of the J-20's body is dedicated to housing fuel since the wings of the J-20 are comparatively thin (in order to enhance high speed performance).
Click to expand...
I figured it would, but they would probably also be seeking to increase volume in other ways (like bigger wings or lengthened fuselage).

To clarify a bit, I primarily see the potential benefits being in time and cost reductions rather than performance. There's always a possibility that modifying an existing air frame could just as easily hurt as help those factors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top