J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

[benny]

I've done some editing. Thought I'd share what J-20 could look like in different forms

J-20 without canards


J-20 w/o canards and shortened fuselage


J-20 w/o vertical stab, canards and shortened. It looks like one of the 6th generation fighter concept envisioned a decade ago.

 

[Richard Santos]

You forgot to get rid of the ventral stabilizers. Those would likely be the very first to go.

also an Agile aircraft without Canards, tails or vertical stabilizers would likely need thrust vectoring.

 

[ougoah]

And use what control surfaces? TVC can't be a complete substitute or alternative to control surfaces. I've understood it can at most minimise the need for canard deflections only for certain turns at particular speeds?

 

[tupolevtu144]

And use what control surfaces? TVC can't be a complete substitute or alternative to control surfaces. I've understood it can at most minimise the need for canard deflections only for certain turns at particular speeds?

The B2 Spirit bomber seems to use air brakes for both pitch and yaw. So air brakes + ailerons + thrust vectoring?

 

[ougoah]

The B2 Spirit bomber seems to use air brakes for both pitch and yaw. So air brakes + ailerons + thrust vectoring?

Fighters will continue to evolve towards becoming stealthier and that could involve getting rid of more control surfaces and moving surfaces unless there are significant pay-offs like variable geometry frames that allow the fighter to perform well in all altitudes and speeds. So flying wing fighter is probably going to happen. Removing those from the J-20 with minimal redesign seems unlikely to me. The whole thing has been designed with those particular canards and stabilisers. It'll be a ground up new frame but removing those from the J-20 certainly makes it resemble artist impressions of some 6th gen US projects.

CAC definitely would need to shorten the entire J-20 if it wants to remove canards. There'd be far less point to such a long moment arm.

 

[Eurofighter]

There isn't enough space for more pl15s in the main bay since their fins are so large

I don't believe there is conclusive evidence (i.e. measurements with sufficient precision) that this is not possible even with current PL-15. Remember we have plenty of photos showing the weapons bay. But those photos are all taken directly from beneath, which means that the depth view of the bay is more or less distorted, so we are not able to fully access if the bay offer enough room for a "stacked" storage configuration for the missiles (like what you also see for F22). Also, if you look how cramped up the F22 weapons bay actually is compared to J-20's, but somehow still be able to fit six missiles. I bet if we see F22 with only 4 missiles in the bays, then it will also look like it wouldn't be able to fit six.

 

[antiterror13]

Also for peace time patrols J-10C is quite sufficient and cost effective, what with one engine and one pilot and so on.

Using J-11A would be better, heyyy, even J-7G would be good enough during peace time patrol for many areas

 

[siegecrossbow]

Using J-11A would be better, heyyy, even J-7G would be good enough during peace time patrol for many areas

J-7 doesn’t have the fuel capacity to serve as effective patrol aircraft.

 

[silentlurker]

I don't believe there is conclusive evidence (i.e. measurements with sufficient precision) that this is not possible even with current PL-15. Remember we have plenty of photos showing the weapons bay. But those photos are all taken directly from beneath, which means that the depth view of the bay is more or less distorted, so we are not able to fully access if the bay offer enough room for a "stacked" storage configuration for the missiles (like what you also see for F22). Also, if you look how cramped up the F22 weapons bay actually is compared to J-20's, but somehow still be able to fit six missiles. I bet if we see F22 with only 4 missiles in the bays, then it will also look like it wouldn't be able to fit six.

We do have some pictures of J20 bays from not directly below, the missiles look pretty tight packed to me:

Look especially at the back of the bay where the fins look like they almost touch the bottom nad top of the bay.

I remeber reading somewhere pl15s with foldable fins were being designed so the j20 could hold 6, but I cannot find the source, sorry

 

[Eurofighter]

We do have some pictures of J20 bays from not directly below, the missiles look pretty tight packed to me:
View attachment 63709
Look especially at the back of the bay where the fins look like they almost touch the bottom nad top of the bay.

I remeber reading somewhere pl15s with foldable fins were being designed so the j20 could hold 6, but I cannot find the source, sorry

actually happy you brought up this photo. I agree that missile almost touch the bottom which makes it unlikely to make room for additional missiles by shifting to the fore or to the back.
However, first note that there is still plenty of room on the side and also in between the missiles. The still available room is actually quite specious, and like mentioned before, especially if you compare to the cramped up bay from F22.
And second, which is even more interesting, note the angle in the back of the weapons bay, which is sloped down and backwards, meaning that there is still additional space both in the vertical direction as well as to the back when the bay is fully closed. And that room could be sufficient to allow you to arrange additional missiles in a stacked fashion: one additional missile in each half of the bay, hanging slightly down from the middle and to the back compared to the current ones (also note that we have photos going around almost since the very beginning showing potential additional attachment points in the bay). But like I said, unfortunately the angle from where the photos is taken does not permit precision measurement of the vertical space, so it is really hard to be conclusive. But you got to admit there is something there isn't it?