J-20 Weapons Load

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 393
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post04 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.

Image

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
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1455
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 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.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 393
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post04 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
Offline

nefory

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2018, 04:59

Unread post04 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.
Attachments
1526009283410e0073241b4.jpg
Mroj-haichqz4006893.gif
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2993
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5070
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 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):

NYYmr.gif


Republic XF-103:

xf103pb_002.jpg


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

3980103013_66f466318a_o.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7645
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Dec 2018, 08:32

Attachments
Screenshot_2018-12-08-15-35-16-283_com.miui.gallery.png
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

gtg947h

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 197
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 16:52

Unread post08 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:
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post08 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:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1969
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post08 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.
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post08 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
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2993
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 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...
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post08 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
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1455
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post10 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).
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post10 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.
Image

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

Image

Image

Image

Image
I'm watching...
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 19 guests