How long for JF-17. Still no orders from PLA-AF. The same can be said of why China needs Su-35 if the Chinese cloned Flankers are so great.

IF J-10 had never been developed PLAAF they’d go for JF-17, but it would be a needless overlap of capability. Come on, using the lack of PLAAF orders for JF-17 is a soft target.

And a Su-35 purchase, if it ever materializes, isn’t because they are better than SAC flankers (which they are btw), but more likely due to a change in SAC production from J-11B to J-15 and J-16, along with a possible PLAAF need for heavy air superiorty fighters which SAC production cannot make up for…
The logistics impact and difficulty of integration of any meaningful Su-35 purchase will not be worth the benefits it brings (Irbis E, much more powerful engine, multirole capability, etc), so chances are there’s another factor at play — with that factor being a PLAAF shortfall of long range heavy fighters as older SKs, J-11As are retired along with J-8s.

Not too sure myself.

Although I understand the need to induct a new type, my reasoning was that purchasing, inducting, training on, and maintaining a new fighter is an expensive, time consuming business.

So you’d want the platform to still be viable in, say, 15 years time or longer.

You’d have to think the J-10 fits that bill a whole lot better than the JF-17, and as mentioned, it’s not that radically more expensive from what I can gather.

As intimated by yourself and taratukhin, there may be a good reason for that, apart from “tech tranfer”. Possibly the engine issue?
Still, from what I can gather, I do recall seeing it mentioned somewhere that the J-10 is for sale.

J-10 may not be for sale… There’s a lot of haze regarding that.

And JF-17 has already been integrated with a wide array of A2G weapons, perhaps most importantly for Argentina, would be the yj83K and maybe even the “hypersonic” CM400KG anti shipper. As of yet J-10 has demonstrated no powered A2G capability (ie no A2G guided missile capability)

The JF-17 I think should also have been designed from the outset to be more accommodating to foreign avionics requests, providing greater flexibility.
Really this is what JF-17 was designed for as well — providing decent multi role capability to replace ageing air forces in third world air forces and air forces on a budget

It doesn’t have to be such a big blob. Also how could it be a terrible A2G plane? I think the J-20 can do fine at it. But IMHO, the J-20 will have the primary role as ground attack. 2nd air to air. But the large bays should let the J-20 carry bigger bombs. Or else more bombs. But in A2A IMHO will do good at BVR. Long range and stealthy. But i don’t know in WVR. Such big canards and weight should make it maneuverable. But doubt it could do such slow speed maneuvering like the SH. But J-20 in A2A and A2G should do fine. But since there’s no A2A combat, the J-20 will have the primary role as CAS ground attack. A2A later when threats occur.

CAS ground attack?
CAS? You mean the same thing the A-10 performs?

I think we’re done here, shows over.

Long bays= carry more long ordinance. There for A2G weapons and BVR weapons.

The problem is that A2G weapons also tend to be wide. The J-20’s weapon bay, the way it’s laid out, simply physically cannot be that deep. Maybe if it were rounded and bulbous like the F-35 it could carry a couple of light AShMs, but the way it is now? Nope.

So the aircraft is not that long? Compare these

Top side:

J-20= 21m long

F-22= 18.92m long

F-35=15.47 long

PAK FA= 20m long

So J-20 is longer on top side

Side view:

j-20=21.00m

F-22=18.92m

F-35=15.47m

PAK FA=20.00m

J-20 is longer on side.

Front view:

j-20=13.80

F-22=13.56

F-35=10.70

PAK FA=14.00

Front view J-20 is taller

You know as well as the rest of us that comparing various aircraft without a common known quantity to scale them from is a fruitless exercise
Even with the above, your image gives J-20 a 21m length. A bit bigger than the commonly accepted 20.5m length, but whatever.

You forget the Russian plane length is from the tip of the front to the end of the after-burner, all load carrying airframe.

The supposed length of this plane in the diagram includes over six feet of tail behind the end of the engines, which carries nothing.

The Russian plane is much larger.

How much of that six feet is the nose tip and tail?
The model on the other hand features a blended wing body, a greater wingspan and possibly wing area.

I don’t doubt t-60S may have greater internal fuel with that massive delta wing. But if the model is 30m long… Well the discrepancy between the two should not be that great

The B-58 carried slightly over 70,000 lbs. of fuel, mostly in its wings.
With air to air refueling it could carry an absolute maximum of 101,627 pound of fuel, and its range was still considered lacking.
It had a range of just over 2,000 miles if it never broke the Mach.
If it it broke the Mach, its range was less than 2,000 miles and this is only Mach 1.3 not Mach 2. which is why its combat radius was averaged to 1,750 miles.

This plane cannot carry anywhere near the fuel the Hustler did as the Hustler was designed to use every inch of space for a purpose.
It appears to be a slightly larger than nineteen fifties size supersonic fighter bomber, or strike fighter, with a stealth type airframe.

Since how do we know this aircraft doesn’t use “every inch of space for that purpose” as well?
Do stealthy aircraft not generally have greater internal fuel capacity compared to similarly sized non stealthy aircraft on internal fuel? f-22/15, f-35/16

And yes Y-20 I’m sure that’s what paralay was insinuating, that the Russians were helping. Definitely not that the T-60s and this model shared similar performance characteristics.

I agree, I think the side bay is only going to be used for one BVRAAM, and it wont’ be staggered. A pair of BVRAAMs for self defense. Its nose is small for a striker of its size as you said, but it should be able to fit a smaller aesa I think (depending on how big the plane is overall… where our opinions seem to diverge on)

I think your pixel measurement leaves out the tail’s tip. there is some distortion due to the rudder being off closer to the camera, as you said, but I’m not sure if the pixel measurement includes the complete length.

But I agree with your statement regarding clearance — 4.5 m does seem a bit much for PL-12, but like I said, future, larger missiles is a real possibility.

I suppose it isn’t out of the question for the aircraft to be a 22-25 meter striker, although its functionality would be severely hindered and I doubt such a smaller aircraft will be able to carry 2 YJ-12s internally.

—

Of course there’s also the possibility that the model makers just hadn’t gotten everything exactly to scale on this plane, which would make such precise estimates based off the side bay door flawed anyway.

I personally am going to subscribe to the specs from that curiously informative and very prompt post on cjbdy.

—- I made the error of using the wiki. Max take-off weight was 163,000 pounds.
Part of the Hustler’s weight was the pod, which contained fuel and an nuclear bomb. This is part of Maximum take-off weight. There is not enough room, in any manner, in the drawing for the fuel and very large bomb contained by the pod.
The bomb was a nine megaton fusion bomb that weighed over 8,000 lbs.
With fuel and bomb the pod weighed over 36,000 lbs or over 15 metric tons.
find a picture of a B-58 with people near by, they are not even close in size. Those estimates are based on wishful thinking that it is the same size as the Hustler.

Well those estimates are all we have to go on, and cjbdy gives the model a 28-29m length and 22m wingspan. We have nothing else to go on.
And to use common sense, anything significantly smaller than that will give you a bomber/striker which is not very useful for PLAAF’s needs. (Say if it were 20m long rather than 30m, it could only carry… what, maybe a pair of lightweight AShMs internally across 1000km at best? That does nothing for the PLA)

And here’s a picture of B-58… it seems close in size to paralay’s drawing.
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/10486/B-58A_W.jpg

As to whether the “JH-X” can weigh as much as B-58… keep in mind that any estimate for JH-X’s MTOW may include external ordinance. And stealthy aircraft also tend to have greater MTOW than non stealthy aircraft of a similar size too (F-22/F-15, F-35/F-16) — a result of more powerful engines, more modern aerodynamics, blending etc.

The main reasons the Hustler was retired was its short range and the comparatively small size, compared to the B-52, made changing the aircraft for other missions impractical.
It is not bomber in any sense of the word, but as a strike fighter, or Chinese version of the F-117, it might work.

You could call it a theatre bomber, or intermediate range bomber. It’s definitely not a bomber in the sense of B-1/2/52, yes.

But at<30m long, it’s a bit big to call it a strike fighter (which conjures up images of F-111, Su-34 or even F-15E). F-117 comparisons are not completely valid either, given this thing is much bigger, and obviously is meant for much superior kinematic performance, namely breaking the sound barrier for dashes or even extended periods of time. The FB-23, if it were built, would have been a good comparison.

Appreciated!

Interesting specs and dimensions. They correspond quite well with the dimensions given on cjbdy. I’d assume paralay’s dimensions are estimates, but they’re very close.
A pair of WS-15s, if they do manage to reach the 180kn mark, should be able to power this plane nicely.