J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
PL-15 was developed more or less alongside with J-20. Probably designs were frozen in 2005-2010 period. J20 and pl-15 teams surely had requirements shared to them by PLAAF. So PLAAF could have easily said, "we have this and this bay in j20. to tripack the missiles, we need each missile to be this big and not more"
You also have to have suspension points(which will be carrying loads under all stresses of maneuvering, i.e.they can't be just anywhere.)
Basically, by having points arranged like they are in f-22, you sacrifice lots of heavy loads which otherwise(judging by volume) you could use and fit.
Is it a good trade off? For pure air superiority with only secondary strike, it is preferable. But Su-57 has already shown a good example of what heavy fighter can achieve otherwise, and we reliably know about "fat" long range a2a missiles fitting there. It brings an interesting point: The closer "interceptor" (silver bullet) theory to reality, the more feasible retaining 4 points becomes. And otherwise, if j-20 is intended to become "core" fighter, we shall expect 6 missiles.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Tilt the middle missile, keep the other two unchanged. You can trade depth for width. The bottom two (40cm squares) can fit in a box with 100cm width. The middle one does not require additional width. See attached for the idea (not accurate)

i think that's a bit too unorthodox for A2A missile carriage, considering the arrangement will be more complex that will be affected by the strains of a fighter aircraft, not to mention staggering missiles in a 3D manner is also risky for A2A missile carriage (if one of the more distal missiles fail to launch then it backs up the missiles deeper in the bay).

I think the only way J-20 will see 6 BVRAAMs is with a new type of missile developed.
 

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
i think that's a bit too unorthodox for A2A missile carriage, considering the arrangement will be more complex that will be affected by the strains of a fighter aircraft, not to mention staggering missiles in a 3D manner is also risky for A2A missile carriage (if one of the more distal missiles fail to launch then it backs up the missiles deeper in the bay).

I think the only way J-20 will see 6 BVRAAMs is with a new type of missile developed.

I fully agree. That was just a theoretical discussion. I am sure the guys building J-20 can outsmart folks on the internet
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
i think that's a bit too unorthodox for A2A missile carriage, considering the arrangement will be more complex that will be affected by the strains of a fighter aircraft, not to mention staggering missiles in a 3D manner is also risky for A2A missile carriage (if one of the more distal missiles fail to launch then it backs up the missiles deeper in the bay).

I think the only way J-20 will see 6 BVRAAMs is with a new type of missile developed.
Also have to consider the aerodynamics of the separation and drop. Might not be safe or feasible to mount a center missile that way.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
About fitting 6 missiles, another person
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
it's impossible with the current width of 20.3 cm and that it will be a new missile (PL-20?). pb19980515 also
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a new missile (of which 6 could fit) is in development and posts a page from a study showing folding fins.

Also, is yankee saying/implying that J-20 weapons firing footage will be released?

I think he's saying that everyone is eagerly awaiting footage as it will be the next big thing to be seen

the arrangement of the fins that pb posted in his pic looks bizarre

weird.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top