that’s not what you said..

Note the word “Apparently”… come on…

Thanks, I did not realize that the body of the J-20 was that wide.. assuming the F-22 and J-20 cockpit are the same size.

Here’s one of the F-35 and J-20 much more similar to each other than the F-22

I think that diagram was more directed at the multiple bumps on the F-35’s underside/sides… J-20’s much cleaner and more like F-22 than F-35 in that aspect imo.

Do you know what finness ratio is?

If you wanna wait for some Chinese general to tell you what the width:length ratio is, fine. Meanwhile the rest of us will go ahead and examine the thing.

The fuselage is large. The fuselage is very large in comparison to the wings. That means plenty of space for sensors, weapons, avionics, engines, the pilot… and fuel.

The sensors will not be any larger than those on comparable aircraft, nor will the avionics. Pilots are roughly the same size.

Leaving volume for weapons and fuel.

Hmmm…..

:rolleyes:

Or how about listen to experienced professionals.

The same professionals that said it would take China well beyond 2020 to field its first stealth fighter?

Assuming you mean engineers… see below

I don’t care if we’ve heard nothing.

In fact – I wouldn’t care if their top general came out and said exactly that.

You cannot get past the laws of physics, the same ones apply in the USA, Russian and China.

Unless you have some knowledge and information about this aircraft beyond what we know then extrapolating a role from eyeballing the physics while most people can still not agree on its length seems a little strange no?

But whatever, I see people are more interested in debating what it could be rather than settle on what it is.

Regretably, almost all of such measurements based on very low quality photo.
By GE photo you can even get 19 meter more or less.

the estimates based off the truck and trailer photos, as well as pinko’s runway comparison with J-20 and J-10 all gives J-20s length as between 20-21m, leaning towards 20m which is better than any other method of estimate we’ve had.

I agree the GE photo is not very clear, so I wouldn’t base anything off that.

Hmmm .. Yes, but why a Tu-204 as a testbed !??

Since the PLAAF and PLANAF only used the house&drouge system a new pod could be tested simply on one of the standard HU-6 or even Il-76 … and a refuelling boom is IMO unlikely !?

Deino

Well huitong did mention J-20 could be getting a boom style receptacle… I’m more interested in what kind of tanker will replace or supplement the wearied H-6Us. Personally I’m hoping PLAAF took the extra step to consider giving all their Y-20s the capability to act as a tanker/transport like the A400M and KC-390, while having dedicated Y-20 tankers as the mainstay.

Actually in the pictures eagle talon posted it looks like the air china livery has been removed… or PSed off? o.O

There will not be anymore(your words) ‘dedicaded Interceptor’ ever again.
The last one is the Mig-31, not sure about the F-22 though(it has poor range)..
The Flanker design is not a dedicated interceptor, but its classify as an heavy Interceptor, even if it has other great performance too!

It has something to do with Internal fuel capasity, speed, weapons load and a powerfull radar(sensors) first and formost.
All these transform into a larger airframe design then the ussual fighter design.
Yet as a Interceptor the Flanker is a air superiority with multirole capability too.
I’m sure the J-20 will have some multirole capability.

I did not say ‘dedicated Interceptor’.. you did..:rolleyes:

I’m not sure where we disagree, we both agree there was no dedicated interceptor developed beyond the Mig-31 (unless SAC’s still whipping the J-8 lol), we both agree large fighters can act as interceptors and aircraft like F-22 J-20 and Su-27 can fill that role as well.
Yes I did say “dedicated interceptor” and you didn’t seem to get that when you made reference to my post in your reply 221

The J-20 is a heavy Interceptor class aircraft, now deal with it!

The problem is semantics I suppose. Would you consider F-22, Su-35S and T-50 to be heavy interceptor aircraft? If so then fine. Personally I classify them as heavy air superiority aircraft with multirole capability.
Not sure why you are so touchy with my reponses..

The term interceptor specifically refers to dedicated interceptors like the F-106, MiG-31, etc. By definition they are highly specialized aircraft. The Flankers, Eagles, and Raptors are air supremacy fighters. Although they are capable of the interceptor role they are not called interceptors.

Now that nomenclature is established, I propose we move on.

+1
Basically what I’ve been trying to say this whole time.

You sure the J-20 has multirole capability? Then define what does multirole mean in your way……
Does carrying few bombs or a2g missiles can be multirole?

Indeed. F-22 can carry JDAMs and SDB, does that make it “multirole” when other aircraft like JSF can also be considered that?