J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[no_name]

I also wonder if they could reload the missile this way, and whether it makes it easier to reload.

 

[latenlazy]

The issue isn't that MiG-29 providing alternate viewpoints. The issue is that after his viewpoints have been debunked, by statements from Chinese engineers no less, he drags in irrelevant information in order to float his fantasies. For example, the SAC's engineer already showed canard allows J-20's competiting design to achieve control at 65° angle-of-attack. He then points out how Russian aircraft can do Cobra which is completely irrelevant.

That tactic is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the sole purpose of which is to distract with irrelevant information instead of addressing the points in concern. That is exactly what derails a thread. I think we should start consider having logic police of some form on this forum, whose job is to review posts to ensure nothing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is employed. In the immediate future, any post that employs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

should be deleted promptly.

Anyway, back to the J-20.


I think adverse effects to the canard and LERX would be unlikely, given the door is situated beneath and not at the same level to those aerodynamic features.

As for the theory that the rail would allow other weapons to be carried externally, I think that is pretty much an impossibility. One needs to remember that this is a rail, not a bomb rack, which pretty much limits the carriable weapon to SRAAM.

What about missiles that wouldn't otherwise fit into the bay, or might fit but have no room to leave the way safely?

 

[leibowitz]

What about missiles that wouldn't otherwise fit into the bay, or might fit but have no room to leave the way safely?

Then you just extend the pylon outwards and attach the missile like you would to a normal external hardpoint?

 

[latenlazy]

Then you just extend the pylon outwards and attach the missile like you would to a normal external hardpoint?

That's what I was thinking. Depending on the size of the bay they may even be able to fit an amraam inside, and just launch the missile after extending the rail.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Personally I don't think such harsh measures are warranted. While MiG 29 may be long winded at times and gets off tangent here and there, he does offer alternate points of views and I know he and Engineer has a love/hate relationship going on like an old married couple. Far from speaking for him but I have a sneaky suspicion our dear Engineer will be bored to death if MiG 29 is not here to offer his counter arguments...

anyway just my 2c.

I'll second that motion with the appreciation that the mods are great guys who are always bending over backwards to be fair, Mig is a student in aeronautics, and Kwai is right, this forum achieves a nice balance, and as eng states the J-20 is a very well thought out airplane with advanced aerodynamics, thats what makes this a better forum than others, we can have that discussion about why and how, just like this little discussion on the rail, I think Dieno has handled this well, and thats what sets Sino Defense apart from Defense Technology, when you shut discussion down and ban all the noobs, because they don't agree with you, you really don't have a forum, you have a Party Line. I do like Mig, I do occasionally get a little ticked, but that keeps us all honest. Brat

 

[latenlazy]

Take back the idea of fitting an AMRAAM inside the bay. My rough measurements don't fly. Still possible to use the rail as an external hardpoint though.

 

[Engineer]

Ordinances that don't fit inside weapon bay shouldn't be going on the J-20 in the first place. There are other aircraft available that can carry those ordiances.

 

[latenlazy]

Ordinances that don't fit inside weapon bay shouldn't be going on the J-20 in the first place. There are other aircraft available that can carry those ordiances.

There might be missions where stealth won't be necessary, and where external hard points will be useful. I'm merely suggesting that the side bays could be a solution to for extra external hard points. I'm trying to see this from the angle of versatility.

 

[ahadicow]

I think you guys had read too much into this. There is no "special function" or "distinct advantage" offered from this design. It is just a simple mechinism that CAC came up with that launch missle in a safe, clean manner whereas if you launch a missle directly from side weapon bay, you have to deal with 1000C+ exhaust on your weapon bay and body paint and a large force directly effect on the airframe, both harder to deal with than a mechical rack.

Keep in mind CAC has no incentive to stick to whatever design LM decided to put on F22, J-20 is not F22 and CAC is surely going to choose what they see as the most advantagous or the easiest to realize.

 

[latenlazy]

I think you guys had read too much into this. There is no "special function" or "distinct advantage" offered from this design. It is just a simple mechinism that CAC came up with that launch missle in a safe, clean manner whereas if you launch a missle directly from side weapon bay, you have to deal with 1000C+ exhaust on your weapon bay and body paint and a large force directly effect on the airframe, both harder to deal with than a mechical rack.

Keep in mind CAC has no incentive to stick to whatever design LM decided to put on F22, J-20 is not F22 and CAC is surely going to choose what they see as the most advantagous or the easiest to realize.

Well, it doesn't hurt? Just floating ideas. If they're wrong they're wrong.