J-20 Weapons Load

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 02 Dec 2018, 14:22

Recent photos suggest the J-20 will carry 6 AAM's. 4 in her underbelly bay and 2 in its side bays.

Does anyone here think it's odd they've carrying 6 vs. 8? Their AAM's are considerably smaller than the Russian equivalents, at least from what I've seen. Perhaps that's not the final weapons load, but 6 struck me as rather light. Especially if it's designed to go after US AWACS and tankers. The fuselage bay looks large, so I'm guessing they'll be able to fit 6 at some point?

madrat · by **madrat** » 02 Dec 2018, 14:38

They only had the schematics for a six missile F-35 to work from.

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 03 Dec 2018, 01:30

I know my eyes are getting old....but there is something about that picture that doesn’t look right

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 03 Dec 2018, 06:30

tailgate wrote:I know my eyes are getting old....but there is something about that picture that doesn’t look right

What you mean the Short Range AAM mounted outside the fuselage instead of the missile bay??

gideonic · by **gideonic** » 03 Dec 2018, 09:54

h-bomb wrote:
tailgate wrote:I know my eyes are getting old....but there is something about that picture that doesn’t look right

What you mean the Short Range AAM mounted outside the fuselage instead of the missile bay??

They are not mounted outside. J-20 side bays have a wonky design: Before launch the bay doors open and close again after the missile is put into the firing position.

I don't think this is done primarily to limit RCS, but rather to simplify the release mechanism (compared to a F-22-like side-bay) and limit missile redesign, as it can still be fired the same way as from any other aircraft.

AFAIK Raptor side-bays required disproportionate amount of testing and design time, compared to their utility. Their complexity was the main reason for dropping them from the F-35 requirements).

The J-20 solution obviously has its drawbacks, but it's quite elegant in some ways.

Source (as much as it pains me to link to Tyler Rogoway):
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... i-air-show

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 03 Dec 2018, 14:30

The J-20’s side bays design is intriguing to me. It looks simplistic in design and functionality. Almost like a single door version of the Boeing JSF’s swing out side weapons bay.

I wonder though, what would the launch envelope for the IRIS-T…er, I mean, PL-10 would be for that design?

-Is it the full 9Gs? (The AIM-9M/X has full launch clearance from the F-22’s side weapons bays which was a huge endeavor partly because it had to clear the F-22’s massive flight envelope.)

-Would it need to as it’ll have 90-degree HOBS launch envelope?

-Over the shoulder shot capability with helmet or sensor cueing/slaving?

-Does that swing-out design have any advantages in terms of maintainability?

The main weapons bay looks like it’ll be mainly for the PL-15/21 missiles. Too small for this new missile:

I wonder if this missile will be exclusive to the J-16 or may be carried externally by the J-20. Thinking aloud, the J-16 could carry some of these missiles while the J-20 deploys downrange and guide the missile after launch towards it’s intended target (thinking tanker or AWACS). Not a new tactic from our standpoint, but may be new to the PLAAF and dependent on how good their systems are at this point.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 03 Dec 2018, 15:35

madrat wrote:They only had the schematics for a six missile F-35 to work from.

LOL!

That "new missile" slung under the wing of a J-16... nobody knows yet. Could be an ER AAM, could be an anti-radiation missile. Wouldn't surprise me to be an ER AAM though...

Given my conversations with US pilots, they're far more worried about the Chinese vs. Russian aircraft, weapons and systems.

aonestudio · by **aonestudio** » 03 Dec 2018, 16:53

At 3:50

North American XF-108 Rapier by Republic Aviation 1959

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 03 Dec 2018, 18:57

Greets, that is indeed a very interesting application. I know that when the Raptor was being developed, one of the characteristics of the weapons systems was to limit movement, moving parts, singularity of deployment. I think the realization is that we are so far ahead right now, it's a race to catch up.
Anyway, my thoughts on the photo was that the Chinese have developed what looks to be a very interesting aircraft. I do not understand why the aircraft is dimensioned the way it is. I know it has a quite large fuel requirement. That would point to the technology we have developed in engine efficiency. In VLO/Stealth, I understand that the smaller the better, and canards are a no-no.
I wonder, lol, what the true RCS is of this aircraft, not what is claimed. Maybe "somebody" will get a peak at it and gets some good data.................. :wink:

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 03 Dec 2018, 19:23

tailgate wrote: I wonder, lol, what the true RCS is of this aircraft, not what is claimed. Maybe "somebody" will get a peak at it and gets some good data..................

The more I look at it the more I am convinced it COULD BE as low as .005, and SHOULD BE lower than 0.1. RCS is a very nuanced design practice so I would not wager any narrower of a guess than that. I could be wrong either way. I'm sure it won't be long before the J-20 and the F-35 have a clash of the sensors.

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 03 Dec 2018, 19:34

Yes, it is probably high on the list to "discover'. The aircraft finish is very interesting as well as it shows no signs of a "stealthy" coating.it seems to be a very good picture from which to analyze some things......

my thoughts

P.S. So after looking some more, maybe a stealth coating is there, maybe not. That would be interesting to vett. I think that any coating would be the "factor" in what we are told versus what is real.....

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 03 Dec 2018, 20:13

the coatings being such an unknown is why my range is so big.

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 03 Dec 2018, 21:26

I agree. I do however find it difficult to imagine any VLO with those canards and "open' exhaust pipes wiht no IR or plume reduction. That alone will almost negate any VLO advantages.

The 9 X ray will see that as a big fat turkey.

Tailgate

tphuang · by **tphuang** » 03 Dec 2018, 22:42

Are canards that much more untreatable than other moving surface? They have tried to put it on the same plane as the wings (angling up a little bit for some deflection?) and also add saw tooth at the trailing edge to scatter radar waves. I certainly aren't qualified to judge how much that reduces the effect of having canards, but they've certainly put a lot of effort into minimizing its effects.
The first one in this search is the best I can find for now.
https://www.google.com/search?q=j-20+ca ... E9HCVcROCM:

They've also done some work on "stealth nozzle" to reduce IR signature.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cpLUPYdm4Z4/U ... nozzle.jpg

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 04 Dec 2018, 01:33

aonestudio wrote:
At 3:50

North American XF-108 Rapier by Republic Aviation 1959

"North American XF-108 Rapier by Republic Aviation"? :roll:

No. That was the Republic TFX entry, which GD won, resulting in the F-111. This is the North American XF-108 Rapier: