J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[manqiangrexue]

The missile has to be wired in to the fighter.

Now can this convention be broken? I'm not a tech genius or anything but as per my post #5704, I see the possibility of a retractable data plug and a jack on the missile replacing the wire. If you can plug a cellphone into a computer and they can communicate perfectly, what's stopping that happening between a missile and its fighter?

More problems than that the missile needs to clear the launch bay. That requires some form of arm. Even if the Chinese introduced a lock on after launch missile. You still need to get it into the air and out of the bay. Otherwise it will launch into the from bulk head. Not a very nice day.

Well, if the arm were to be foregone, which is NOT how the cartoon depicts it, but if it were to be removed, they can use an F-22-style open door launch where a much smaller and much more recessed mechanism pushes the seeker head into the air-stream. Alternatively, they can open the door, and use some kind of pressurized system to eject the missile out.

I'm not saying it's either one because removal of the lever arm is against what the picture indicates, but I think it could be done this way.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Wiring for the missile is the chosen mode as 1) it can not just talk to the missile but charge he missile. The missile has to have power supply.
2) dirt simple. Reliable. No issues of transmission, no potential coding errors or naming errors.

Besides any mounting arm you could imagine has the space for a wire connection.

F22 uses another type of arm to deploy the Aim 9 into the air stream. It doesn’t hang in the air like J20 but it is in the air. Any form of air to air weapon in that bay needs an arm. That arm could be pneumatic like the raptor or a swing arm but it’s still there.

 

[plawolf]

Now can this convention be broken? I'm not a tech genius or anything but as per my post #5704, I see the possibility of a retractable data plug and a jack on the missile replacing the wire. If you can plug a cellphone into a computer and they can communicate perfectly, what's stopping that happening between a missile and its fighter?

A couple of issues.

1) The connection has to deal with high g-forces. The last thing you want is missiles not able to launch because the data cable pulled loose when you were manoeuvring had to get the shot.

2) Mechanical complexity, volume and weight. While it is not impossible, or indeed even hard, to design a mechanism to plug in a standard missile hardline cable, screw it in and reset the launch rail guillotine; such a device would most likely weight a fair bit, have a fair bit of volume (especially if all the parts need to be able to tolerate high g-forces and extreme temperature and pressure variations), and be pretty complex. and I am not even considering cost.

All of that is not a great trade off to be able to load just one extra missile per bay/loading device.

Such a reloading device would only make sense if you have a magazine with many rounds to reload, but you would be looking at medium bomber size planes at the minimum in that case.

As I said before, the easiest, and only, way I can see them fitting a second missiles in the side bays is if they had a second rail attached to the inside of the weapon bay door.

That way you don’t need to add in any more moving parts than is already in the design.

The only issue I can maybe see with that approach is one of clearance, since if you had a missile hanging off the weapons bay door, you will need the doors to be able to swing far enough out that the other missile can also swing out without hitting it.

That may be the issue, as the J20’s side bays don’t seem to extend far enough out to allow the swivel rail to deploy out with a missile if there is also another missile already attached to the inside of the weapons bay door.

The most obvious solution to that problem would be to have a slide rail, so the second missile (and launch rail) is stored inside the side bay normally, and would only move down the slide rail, to rest attached to the inside of the side bay doors, when ready to be fired.

The slide rail would be a simple one-way system, deployed via a one-shot gas/pneumatic charge to save on weight/complexity.

If given enough internal volume and weight allowances, that’s how I could design in a second SRAAM for the side bays.

 

[manqiangrexue]

The connection has to deal with high g-forces. The last thing you want is missiles not able to launch because the data cable pulled loose when you were manoeuvring had to get the shot.

Well, the retractable plug won't be the mechanism holding the missile to the arm, as I'm sure that current missiles aren't dangling off the rail because only a wire is holding them in place. There would be a grip mechanism to hold the missile fast to the rail and the plug is simply the data link between the jet and the missile.

That may be the issue, as the J20’s side bays don’t seem to extend far enough out to allow the swivel rail to deploy out with a missile if there is also another missile already attached to the inside of the weapons bay door.

Well, the protocol could be to fire the missile on the door before you fire the one on the rail.

Alternatively, if the one on the rail is to be fired first, the rail itself can be ejectable after launch so it doesn't get in the way of the second missile and rail coming out.

The most obvious solution to that problem would be to have a slide rail, so the second missile (and launch rail) is stored inside the side bay normally, and would only move down the slide rail, to rest attached to the inside of the side bay doors, when ready to be fired.

The slide rail would be a simple one-way system, deployed via a one-shot gas/pneumatic charge to save on weight/complexity.

If given enough internal volume and weight allowances, that’s how I could design in a second SRAAM for the side bays.

Sounds good to me too. Just collecting possibilities.

 

[AndrewS]

Alternatively they might be able to fit two newer, smaller missiles within the side bays.

Isn't the "loyal wingman" UCAV strategy a better way to carry more missiles?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Isn't the "loyal wingman" UCAV strategy a better way to carry more missiles?

It probably is. We’ll probably see something like the dark sword in service in the 2030s time frame.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Alternatively they might be able to fit two newer, smaller missiles within the side bays.

There is a practical limitation here the missile needs fuel and guidance. Both the PL10 and Aim 9 have similar lengths 9 feet or 3 meters. The mini missiles that have been proposed so far have been 6 feet or 2 meters. Unless the bay is sized for up to a 12 foot or 4 meter long missile it hard to figure on mounting 2 short missiles.

Isn't the "loyal wingman" UCAV strategy a better way to carry more missiles?

Cost is a big factor. A loyal wingmen may be cheaper than a J20 but not as cheap as just finding a way to double the missile capacity.

It probably is. We’ll probably see something like the dark sword in service in the 2030s time frame.

That generally when most plan to have “Loyal wingmen” online.

 

[siegecrossbow]

There is a practical limitation here the missile needs fuel and guidance. Both the PL10 and Aim 9 have similar lengths 9 feet or 3 meters. The mini missiles that have been proposed so far have been 6 feet or 2 meters. Unless the bay is sized for up to a 12 foot or 4 meter long missile it hard to figure on mounting 2 short missiles.

I was thinking more along the lines of Boeing or Lockheed's next generation kinetic kill AA missile where they are able to reduce the dimensions of the missile significantly by forgoing the warhead.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I was thinking more along the lines of Boeing or Lockheed's next generation kinetic kill AA missile where they are able to reduce the dimensions of the missile significantly by forgoing the warhead.

But significantly lost range. The Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile has a range of about 3 km, 1 mile from a ground launcher maybe more from the air but not much. Being generous will arbitrarily say 5 miles. It would be akin to a first generation air to air missile. It is small enough that you might fit 2 in a side rail but it’s easily outclassed.
The PL9/PL10 and Aim 9 easily range to 22km, 13 miles with work on going likely to hit easily 25km or 18 miles before to long.
[Edit] the Cuda Missile conception which was floated by Lockheed Martin is now that I think about it more likely what @siegecrossbow meant. However that weapon Concept and the Peregrine both would be 6 feet long or “halfRAAM” the weapons in the side bays of J20 or F22 are 9 feet long. As such the length of a Cuda or Peregrine class Missile would not be short enough to double capacity in those bays it would only work in the J20 main bay. Doubling the capacity to 8 perhaps 12 if there were also reductions in diameter.

But wait there is more.
Because of radar systems generally fifth gens would be visible to each other around 30-40 miles.
In that case a missile with range equal to AMRAAM models A-B or C would be the superior option as it would fill that gap and allow engagement at the maximum range of detection around that 40-50 miles.
In that window of fifth generation fighters vs fifth generation fighter which seems to be the aims of (Lockheed Martin) Cuda or (Raytheon)Peregrine. To create a weapon that offers attack in that detection range with more weapons.
At the MHTK ranges most fighters already have a weapon system for such ranges, 20-30mm Automatic cannons.

So if you have hypothetical two fifth gens in a fight one has 4 very close range missiles and 4 AMRAAM class missiles and the other 12 AMRAAM class missiles 50 miles + and 2 more near-BVR class missile (which is what 25km is) who has the advantage?

 

[by78]

Parade rehearsal. All images are high-resolution.