J-20 Weapons Load

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 04 Dec 2018, 08:08

gideonic wrote: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.

My guess it's because they have a requirement to launch missiles that don't have lock on after launch.
By closing the door they don't need to clean out the bay after each shot, since things can get messy from rocket plume.

my 5 cent

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 04 Dec 2018, 10:14

or, they need the missile to lock on before launch which they can't do for IR missiles if the missile is in the bay.

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 04 Dec 2018, 11:00

eeh... if it doesn't have lock on after launch...Yes, it should be lock on before launch...
I think we agree on that.

best regards

nefory · by **nefory** » 04 Dec 2018, 11:27

weasel1962 wrote:or, they need the missile to lock on before launch which they can't do for IR missiles if the missile is in the bay.

They might think it's just overall an easy layout in terms of implementation, and no need to deal with rocket flame burns inside the bay while firing missiles.

Launch before lock on is kind of a must-have thing, if they don't have it already.
Sooner or later, they'll start wondering why making a EOTS/EODAS mounted aircraft with no launch before lock on capability.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 04 Dec 2018, 14:10

On the J-20's side bays yeah... it's tough to tell why they're doing it. I was more interested in the fuselage bay, given that will largely determine how large/long range the AAM's they'll be carrying. If this thing is really going to go after tankers/AWACS, one would think a much larger internal load (at least 10 AAM's) would be preferable. It's likely though they need every nook and cranny stuffed with fuel. 2 engines, and likely FAR less fuel efficient than the F-119 and F-135 at that.

Great point about the North American XF-108 vs. the Republic design. Republic's was the XF-103, whereas the XF-108 from North American had swing wings and overall, I felt a much more pleasing design.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 04 Dec 2018, 14:25

mixelflick wrote:Republic's was the XF-103, whereas the XF-108 from North American had swing wings and overall, I felt a much more pleasing design.

Not quite. There are THREE different airplanes. The Republic TFX, which had the missile bay similar to the J-20 and swing-wing, the Republic XF-103, which was a tailed-delta, and the North American XF-108 Rapier, which was also a delta.

Republic TFX (F-111 competitor):

Republic XF-103:

: xf103pb_002.jpg (48.19 KiB) Viewed 21997 times

North American XF-108 Rapier (Used same J93s as XB-70, and AIM-47/APG-18 later used by the YF-12A):

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 08 Dec 2018, 08:32

Mitchell Gant strikes again?

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/07/w ... -u-s-base/

gtg947h · by **gtg947h** » 08 Dec 2018, 13:04

Even a cursory examination of KSAV shows no buildings that match the profile of the one in the alleged photo.

Plus, the area in question is in easy view of every airliner and GA airplane operating from 10/28.

:doh:

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 08 Dec 2018, 16:28

Oh Boy......first, with the limited numbers of these jets, we would have heard about this......loose lips unfortunately sink ships.............
second.....if we were able to acquire one.......you would not see it parked here.......

just my thoughts :doh:

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 08 Dec 2018, 16:49

Could it be an aerodynamic model?

Its long been a personal theory of mine that the USAF can easily make a miniature scale model of adversary aircraft and put them through a battery of wind tunnel testing to get a detailed estimate of it's aerodynamic performance.

It could explain how Adversary instructor pilots developed tactics and counter tactics to the Mig-29 and Su-27 even before the first western pilots ever flew them. Does this really happen?

However for Stealth aircraft, RCS estimates are also important so maybe a full scale replica is required for that.

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 08 Dec 2018, 17:50

It could be, but again, I don't think the US Gov would announce the fact.......

My guess is either somebody looking for attention or stirring the pot....

My thoughts

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 08 Dec 2018, 18:11

In any case, the J-20 weapons load looks to be maturing. I'd be interested in what weapon it could carry internally to put US carriers at risk. Perhaps they don't see it in that role though, instead focusing on its ability to down AWACS/refueling aircraft instead. Looks like that's where they're going with it...

tailgate · by **tailgate** » 08 Dec 2018, 18:59

Greets,

I would wonder if they would not use this aircraft in a "Home Defense" role, or possibly as HAVCAP asset. Depending on the sensor suite and capability, they could also envision this as a standoff "quarterback".

We use the Raptor similarly as just it's presence makes late 4th gens allot more potent.

Tailgate

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 10 Dec 2018, 01:11

tailgate wrote:It could be, but again, I don't think the US Gov would announce the fact.......

My guess is either somebody looking for attention or stirring the pot....

My thoughts

Its not difficult to create a model from pics. That's what 3D printing is all about. If its for RCS modelling, Is it really necessary to create a life-sized model?

Moody AFB used to perform AETC. It would be interesting if US actually built a J-20 aggressor replica that flies (w AL-31F engines which the US do have access to e.g. bought from the Ukrainians).

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 10 Dec 2018, 04:10

I'd be shocked that we would have an actual J-20 at this point. As mentioned, there are so few of them...

Intriguing, but that photo could be anything. Besides, I think Mitchell Gant is getting too old to pull it off again.

It might not go Mach 5, but it may have some zing to it.