F-35 is small compared to j-20. Physical reality that when you have more interior space, you can stick in more powerful electronics.
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
More powerful electronics is a thing, cooling it is another problem. Space means also the possibility of more fuel capacity. In the case of the F-35 that use fuel for cooling, it brings the necessity of keeping fuel load for cooling. It is a liability when space is already at the limit and with the F-35, external fuel load impossible. Even if you add better heat exchangers to bring the cooling capability up, if it relies on your fuel load... it doesn't help a lot.
Physical space is a must for a long range system. With a bigger aircraft not based on agility, you can also tweak the design for less drag to allow better fuel usage and speed.
We have fighter (su-27 mtw:33t) flying right now that are heavier than heavy WW2 bombers (b-17 mtw: 29,7t), definition of 6th generation is still vaporware, what define a fighter ?
Last edited:
Small is relative.
The issue is that if you have less space than your growth potential needs, or if you have less space than ideal to be design easier/less "screwed up" solutions for growth versus having more space.
For example, the PTMS of F-35 is one of its most important subsystems, and is going to be upgraded, but one of the key needs/requirements is for any solution to avoid more changes to the rest of the aircraft to fit in the same footprint as the existing system.
With a larger aircraft with more growth space, you're able to be a little bit less constrained in your upgrades and there's less of a need to fit the exact same footprint of a legacy subsystem.
That all makes your design work much easier as well, reducing the risk of a "screwed up design".
So sure, a small design can absolutely still "work" and can still be "upgraded". But it also means you're making your future work much more difficult to yourself just because there's less space/volume from the outset so you'll need more complex engineering solutions and designs with smaller margins.
This actually makes me wonder about what kind of designs we are going to see. What is the chief design requirement?
So, I'm basing this on the assumption of 25% more engine power from 5th to 6th. What can you do with that?
If you want to value fuel space and interior space, then you keep weapon bay it's current size maybe. You are not as concerned about it's T/W ratio. Maybe something like what J-20 has with 2 WS-10C engines is good enough or maybe you are willing to have even lower T/W ratio.
By using more high grade composite material & titanium alloy, you can save additional weight across the aircraft. Keeping weight down is one of the hardest requirements.
That will also allow you to apply possible stronger RAM layer in important places on the aircraft.
Having a tailless design saves on additional weight.
By using high strength CFRP wings, you can presumably store more fuel in the wings, since CFRP material can be quite thin. I'm presuming fighter jets do that already, but maybe you can have thicker wing with 6th gen and store even more wing there.
If you can store a lot of fuel on the wings, then that opens up more interior space in the fuselage and have space for everything that you need.
I would just go with 1 center weapon bay. Don't think you need the side weapon bay anymore. I think that wastes precious space. It'd be better to make the center weapon bay able to hold as flexible of weapon payload as possible.
And it's interesting the ideal of fuel economy for cruising vs top line performance on turns. Hard to say.
That applies to the engine also.
I think we all pretty much agree that certain WVR characteristics like instantaneous turn rate and high AoA ability are no longer must haves. The cult of Pierre Sprey is finally ended...
It looks more like "30 percent in fuel efficiency and at least 10 percent in thrust" as per source below for AETP
---
That matches up with what we know about AETP, which adds a high bypass airflow for increased efficiency, but which only applies to lower, subsonic speeds.
So it looks like more range (at subsonic speed) is the main benefit.
But then the article mentions a possible third airflow in the engine?
If it is a 26 m plus behemoth as many have speculated then it is no surprise that it is inferior to the J-20 in some areas of the flight envelope.
Eh, I think that might be overstating things tbh. I suspect the goal is for 6th gen to have better high speed maneuverability in exchange for worse low speed maneuverability. Flight combat tactics are probably switching to repositioning from BVR and defensive maneuverability over WVR ITR nose pointing.