J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Quickie
Colonel
My opinion is the missiles can still be stacked more tightly in some kind of 3 dimensional arrangement. The problem of the outer missiles blocking the inner ones because of mechanism failure should be quite minimal if the ejecting mechanism is properly designed and thoroughly tested. Imagine if 8 missiles can be packed in, this doubling of missiles would already negate the risk of the mechanism failing and blocking some missiles in the very few instances.
I believe the missiles can also have free per bay. But not via stacking — that's unreliable.
I think the hard points can be adjusted (that is to say the "side" hard points) and a centre one can be fitted between them. I'm not sure f that configuration will hold this modified PL-12 missile or a different missile altogether though. But I don't think any of us seriously believe PLAAF will be content with four BVRAAMs in their premiere fighter in the long term. Especially when the current configuration doesn't use all the space wisely.
I think the hard points can be adjusted (that is to say the "side" hard points) and a centre one can be fitted between them. I'm not sure f that configuration will hold this modified PL-12 missile or a different missile altogether though. But I don't think any of us seriously believe PLAAF will be content with four BVRAAMs in their premiere fighter in the long term. Especially when the current configuration doesn't use all the space wisely.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think the 4 missile limitation is down to the large size of the PL12 missiles. They are too thick and too long to be triple stacked like AIM120s in the F22.
However, we should bare in mind that the J20 will not enter service for several years, and by the time that comes to pass, the next generation of missiles like the PL21 will likely be available. The PL12 was designed too early to have had any thought towards internal carriage, but the next generation weapons would almost certainly have been designed with internal carriage in mind.
The J20's weapons bays are larger than the F22s, so it is perfectly possible to carry 6 in the man weapons bay if there is a suitable missile.
However, we should bare in mind that the J20 will not enter service for several years, and by the time that comes to pass, the next generation of missiles like the PL21 will likely be available. The PL12 was designed too early to have had any thought towards internal carriage, but the next generation weapons would almost certainly have been designed with internal carriage in mind.
The J20's weapons bays are larger than the F22s, so it is perfectly possible to carry 6 in the man weapons bay if there is a suitable missile.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Lol, I honestly wish this had came out first.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Larger in terms of volume yes due mainly to it's depth however what is the actual usable width of the bay compared to the Raptor?
I think the depth may come in handy in the future though like what most of you have speculated. If PLAAF ever field a 'fat' missile like the AIM 54 Phoenix but a little shorter the J-20 can probably carry it with minimal modification.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Estimates for the J20's weapons bay dimensions are around 4.3-4.5m long and 2-2.2m wide.
The F22's weapons bay are 3.9m long and 1.8m wide.
Engineer
Major
J-20 being much bigger than the F-22 has no truth value whatsoever. The claim is merely something perpetuated by J-20 bashers in an attempt to portray the J-20 as a bomber. Although the J-20 is longer, it is also smaller span-wise when compared to the F-22. Proportionally, the J-20's body should have similar cross sectional area as the F-22, meaning the size of J-20's weapon bay shouldn't be much bigger than that of F-22.
In my opinion, there is too much extra space around the missile dummies. This makes me think that the weapon bay is not optimized to carry only four missiles. I believe what were being carried are slightly larger than current generation of medium range AAM.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
Even though they seem narrower, there appears to be a fair bit of depth in the bays. Should be useful for larger A/G loads. F-22 bay is relatively thin. , , , .
As far as the depth goes, the bay must accommodate the hard-point mechanisms, missile fins, margins, plus the thickness of the bay doors. Any extra space for outsized air-to-ground ordinances is an illusion as the extra space is in fact not useable.
- Status