An Apache doesn't dedicate its airframe design to hold an SRAAM internally. Internal carriage is valuable real estate on a stealth fighter. If the function weren't key to its purpose the J-20 wouldn't have side bays, and would have used that space for something else (or else go with a completely different carriage design). Airplane designs don't provide dedicated functions for proximal roles.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
vesicles
Colonel
I see! Good to know! Had no idea...
I tried to read it out loud but it still made no sense to me... maybe because I don't know the Chinese terminology of those tech terms like AWACS and SRAAMs...
Anyways... Playing the word trick is an ingenious way to get around the firewall...
It's not necessarily to do with the firewall because that is generally used to keep foreign elements out.
Using those kind of poetic/pun/meme terms is more related to deniability -- conveying information in a sufficiently ambiguous way so the authorities don't see them as violating military secrecy. We see that with a lot of the pixellation and deliberate blurring of new photos when they come out as well for the same reason.
So it's more related to opsec than anything.
Also, the problem is that they are sometimes so vague the actual meaning of things can be left out... and sometimes it might be hard to figure out facts from falsehoods.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
You keep misinterpreting my original assertion. The J20 is a fighter. As such it will utilize all it's functions in destroying another plane or other aerial targets. Every inch of it is dedicated to such a goal be it sensors, weapons etc. The side weapons ejector bay just like the one on the Raptor was best thought to utilize SRAAMs while still maintaining stealth.
I don't understand your confusion.
All fighters be it 5th gen, 4th or 3rd etc carries a different range of weapons regardless of their primary design roles. Even the eagle whose principal weapons is the Sparrow/AMRAAM carry sidewinders. The J20 is no different.
It appears that you are implying just because a fighter carries some SRAAMs therefore that is it's primary function which is short range dog fight LOL.
"J20 was designed mainly for long range strike, OTH engagement."
"Let me rephrase then. J20's primarily role is not be involved in a knife fight where mirrors may potentially come in handy"
"Not in my books. knife fight to me is WVR with guns blazing and SRAAMs."
Where am I misrepresenting?
I'm not saying if a fighter carries some SRAAMs it's primary function is short range dog fighting. I am saying if a fighter has a *dedicated* SRAAM weapons bay then short range dog fighting is one of the functions the fighter was designed and intended for. You don't dedicate a part of an airframe to a specific kind of role unless you intend to use the airframe for that role (I am not saying that it's the *only* role the J-20 was intended for, but I am saying that WVR combat doesn't seem to be a trivial consideration given specific design choices). I don't think that's a very complicated or difficult point to grasp.
This is going to delve into a semantics argument before long. To prevent that, just tell us if you agree that the J-20 is designed for the same purpose as the F-22.
If you answer in the affirmative, then congratulations, we all agree. If you don't, what have you learnt in the past few years at SDF?
The J-20 could have some form of meaningful "strike" role in the future if the Chinese military develops a SDB-equivalent or a small enough ARM to fit inside the J-20's bays. I think right now the only strike a J-20 could conduct would involve maybe a pair of 500kg-class LT-3s. Maritime strike is out of the question unless you're talking vs missile boats or are willing to give up stealth. Really the J-20 is essentially an air superiority fighter that could at best shoehorn in an A2G role.
This result is somewhat surprising since the KJ-2000 uses an upper L-band AESA which should be able to pick up the J-20 since its stealth features should be more or less ineffective against anything below S-band. Perhaps the PLAAF should develop something even lower range, like in the UHF band range used by the E-2 series.
It's possible the J-20 were in fact detected by AWACS, but a kill chain couldn't be completed to before they were taken out.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I agree that the designers of her intended her to be a long range air superiority fighter that will take the fight far away from Chinese shores and that she is intended to meet the enemy head on .. literally ... which is why the emphasis on low frontal RCS and emphasis on BVR engagement or at least in the standoff regime. Her size and internal fuel implies not only long range but likely longer loiter time in anticipation of potential yet to be encountered threats.
Her principal weapon is also PL15/21 not PL 10.
With all that being said even the smartest designers in the world have made mistakes. Take the F4. They thought a gun was unnecessary and relied strictly on standoff missiles then Vietnam came and the MiG 19s etc ate her for breakfast then they put a gun there and USN started Top Gun.
Even with advances in avionics etc until a war actually breaks out it is impossible to tell.
- Status