SamuraiBlue
Captain
Maybe it's one of the station of an outdoor test setup
That is to measure actual amount of radar reflection from various angles.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
That is to measure actual amount of radar reflection from various angles.
That seems rather large to hang on those side bay doors to me, but who knows??? anyone else think that, or maybe tell me I'm just old school??
foxmulder_ms
Junior Member
LS-500J is in the main bay. Side bay has pl-9, I think.
That's assuming the model is accurate.
And we've seen many models of J-20 which are inaccurate, and this particular one isn't good in its other domains either, so I'd attribute this to an unknowledgeable model maker.
Equipping J-20 with LT-2s just doesn't pass the common sense test.
True, the photo seems to be more from an aircraft model tradeshow than an AVIC exhibition. Despite being labeled 2011, the canards are not clipped, I don't believe the canards have blisters immediately on them, the blisters should be on the LERXes, the LERXes are the old-style round-types, not the new straight lerxes on the 2011, the intakes should have an upward cant, etc...
I know you guys get pissed off whenever someone implies that the J-20 has striker or interceptor capabilities, but the PLAAF would benefit from being able to launch supersonic stand-off missiles from stealth aircraft against ships. The JH-7 just doesn't have the survivability to do that in an environment with AWACS and 5th gen aircraft with BVR missiles. And I'm not sure whether or not the J-31 has bays deep enough to carry missiles like this.
And then there's the other thing, the J-20 needs to be able to carry AWACS-killers in order to stop getting pinged by AWACS at long range, which would ruin its stealth advantage.
I know you guys get pissed off whenever someone implies that the J-20 has striker or interceptor capabilities, but the PLAAF would benefit from being able to launch supersonic stand-off missiles from stealth aircraft against ships. The JH-7 just doesn't have the survivability to do that in an environment with AWACS and 5th gen aircraft with BVR missiles. And I'm not sure whether or not the J-31 has bays deep enough to carry missiles like this.
And then there's the other thing, the J-20 needs to be able to carry AWACS-killers in order to stop getting pinged by AWACS at long range, which would ruin its stealth advantage.
Last edited:
If you have a Ferrari but you need a pickup truck, no amount of insisting that the Ferrari is a pickup truck will make it a pickup truck. It's not that the PLA doesn't need a strike platform that can perform standoff attacks, but that the J-20 just physically does not fit the mold. This is not a matter of whether we want the J-20 to perform stand-off roles. From what we can the tell the physical dimensions would not permit it.
I did a calculation based on other missiles stuffed into the J-20, and bay depth should be at least 470mm. The J-20 actually has a longer weapons bay than the F-35, to begin with, at around 4.5-4.7m, while having the same bay layout as the F-22.
The point is that what sunk the F-22 program was that the F-22 was only minimally multi-role; the high cost of operation and low-payload efficiency of the F-22 meant that it saw no action over Iraq or Afghanistan, if I recall correctly, and if not, it saw no action after enemy air-to-air threats were eliminated. The F-22 is thus relegated to a single-role air combatant; when the aircraft's air combat capabilities become obsolete, like if the F/A-XX program hits IOC, the F-22, unlike, say, the F-15E, can't be relegated to air-to-ground duties.
I am not arguing that the J-20 is purposely designed as a striker or interceptor, or is not focused on air superiority missiles, but there is no reason for it to be given some level of strike capability, instead of going the F-22 and F-15C-style "not-a-pound-for-air-to-ground".
Last edited:
- Status