J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Bltizo said:

My somewhat less comprehensive but I think equally understandable comparison based off that original image lol

View attachment 78469

Click to expand...

I second this, but at the same time the vertical tail of the J-20 on the right also seems to be higher (the tip higher than the back wall, while the left J-20's tail does not) it may mean that one of the 2 J-20 is parked more to the front relatively (thus potentially invalidating our analysis on the canopy height), but quite possibly it can also be that the twin seater have enlarged vertical stabs, which seems quite likely given a larger and possibly higher canopy.

I've attached a crude handiwork of me trying to draw parallel lines on the picture, hopefully it will make my point a bit clearer =P

Saw this on my QQ group, not sure if it's real

WhiteBeardEdward said:

Saw this on my QQ group, not sure if it's real
View attachment 78481

Click to expand...

IIRC this was in circulation on the internet for a few months, not sure if it's credible... Also I can't really see why they would go with the twin-wheel main gear design, unless the twin seater is substantially heavier (and thus larger, which it doesn't seem to be) than the single seater.

WhiteBeardEdward said:

Saw this on my QQ group, not sure if it's real
View attachment 78481

Click to expand...

clearly fake

folks in weibo said j20S will equipped the REAL EOTS? not sure what they mean by that, and will feature air-to-ground capability?

j16 is shaking right now

minusone said:

j16 is shaking right now

Click to expand...

Why though? It will take some years before this dualseater enters serial production. Enough time to push the J-16 closer to 300 airframes.

And perhaps this dualseater is not there to replace the J-16 as it can't carry as much without compromising stealth? The J-20 has a worse payload than the Flanker airframe if it wants to retain its stealth.

sequ said:

Why though? It will take some years before this dualseater enters serial production. Enough time to push the J-16 closer to 300 airframes.

And perhaps this dualseater is not there to replace the J-16 as it can't carry as much without compromising stealth? The J-20 has a worse payload than the Flanker airframe if it wants to retain its stealth.

Click to expand...

well future variant had been touted to feature sidebay (both sides) that can carries 4 PL10, with main internal bay to carry 6 PL15 in total. not sure how they do that, smaller missile size? squeeze out more room internally?

and in non stealth operation, j20 for sure far exceeded j16 in payload.

minusone said:

well future variant had been touted to feature sidebay (both sides) that can carries 4 PL10, with main internal bay to carry 6 PL15 in total. not sure how they do that, smaller missile size? squeeze out more room internally?

and in non stealth operation, j20 for sure far exceeded j16 in payload.

Click to expand...

You are not alone, nobody knows how that can be done and what is the point of shrinking missile to the size of chopstick.

What is the point of having your Ferrari doing the job of a pickup truck?

minusone said:

and in non stealth operation, j20 for sure far exceeded j16 in payload.

Click to expand...

ummmm why? J-20 only have 4 external hardpoints IMO, and even if twin or triple pylons are used it would still most likely be less flexible in its choice of payload

Scchwerter_ said:

ummmm why? J-20 only have 4 external hardpoints IMO, and even if twin or triple pylons are used it would still most likely be less flexible in its choice of payload

Click to expand...

The whole point of stealth is to not hang stuff on the outside. They have plenty of J16s and JH7As to use as bomb trucks for when stealth no longer matters.