Striker or Interceptor? Assessing commentary on J-20's role

siegecrossbow said:

Great job Blitzo! Must've taken you a long time to gather all the sources and provide compelling arguments. Hopefully Bill Sweetman will take note.

Click to expand...

Thanks!
It took about half an hour to get all the sources into endnote, and the writing used up maybe two hours of actual writing time.
I've been meaning to get all these arguments down on paper for a while now, so the writing itself wasn't too difficult.

Bltizo said:

Cheers, yeah I wrote the entire thing in one afternoon and I typically find it difficult to start off papers in a graceful way.

Click to expand...

You, and 98% of the rest of us!

boy, that Mig 1.44 sure looks like a J-9Vi clone

Hey, Blitzo,
It just dawned on me that the title of your thread omits the very role for the J-20 that you seek to advance. Why not Striker, Interceptor, or Air-Superiority Fighter? Were you simply sticking it to the under-estimators, as in: Striker or Interceptor, how about neither, chumps?

I've edited the original document a little. A few grammar changes, and I replaced the F-35 weapons bay picture with one where it carries JSM to better illustrate its depth.

Just for reference's sake.




---

janjak desalin said:

Hey, Blitzo,
It just dawned on me that the title of your thread omits the very role for the J-20 that you seek to advance. Why not Striker, Interceptor, or Air-Superiority Fighter? Were you simply sticking it to the under-estimators, as in: Striker or Interceptor, how about neither, chumps?

Click to expand...

interestingly, f-35 can carry gbu-31 which has depth of some 450 mm, but can't carry gbu-16 which has some 465 mm depth. (length is not an issue)

f-22 as it is today can carry gbu-32, with depth of some 352mm.

f-22, as it was envisioned before the final prototype in mid 1990s, was designed to carry aim120a/b, so weapons bay was designed with at least partial depth of 447 mm and minimum of 375 mm.

On another note, f-22's fuselage volume, from the nose to the engine nozzles (but excluding wings) is some 38 cubic meters. j20's fuselage volume from nose to engine nozzles, again excluding wings is some 10 cubic meters more, or roughly 25% more. figures gained through measurements of sectional widths of drawings of both planes on paralay's site. (where paralay suggests j20 is 20 meters long.)

can't edit anymore. just wanted to add that total volume, with all aerodynamic surfaces is somewhere around 46 m3 for f-22 and 56 m3 for j-20. give or take some margin for error, of course.

Totoro said:

can't edit anymore. just wanted to add that total volume, with all aerodynamic surfaces is somewhere around 46 m3 for f-22 and 56 m3 for j-20. give or take some margin for error, of course.

Click to expand...

Yes, I didn't bother to try and estimate the volumes or weights for J-20 or other fighters, given those numbers won't be really useful unless we have other things to work with.

Of course, the difference in internal volume will say a lot for J-20's potential range compared to F-22, but that was an argument for another time.