Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[Schwerter_]

If you have a fixed volume for missiles in the aircraft's fuselage. Is it necessary to divide it to 2 side bay and a main bay?

Why not move some sub-sysem to the side bay position, and store all WVR and BVR missiles in one place? It is just a matter of creating a design that optimised usage of the space, as in UVLS instead of single purpose VLS on PLAN ships.

So not having side weapon bays does not mean the aircraft cannot launch WVR missiles.

Technically side bays are easier to implement railed launcher (better for high-G launches, as is often the case with SRAAMs), can provide better field of view for infrared seekers and make it so that the system doesn’t need to rely on LOAL (more things can go wrong when the missile has to find a moving target after it’s been launched)

as to whether these benefits warrant having separate side weapon bays is another problem, and I don’t presume that I know enough about the topic to say that one direction is better than the other.

 

[CVNisCV]

翼尖，它们在游泳。（Only ＜1M images can be uploaded :-( ）

 

[Gloire_bb]

Is that the case? My understanding is even the F-22 has to open its side bays in order to allow the AIM-9X's own seek head to have a clear line of sight to acquire a lock-on. For the J-XD, any sensors mounted on the bulge of the side bay doors will have a very close field-of-view to the internal missile's seeker head which may allow lock-on data to be transmitted seamlessly.

it's yes and no.
All quick bays other than J-20(it can outright stick wvr missile out and do traditional LOBL, too) work this way:
missile seeker starts tracking within the bay(from external angular feed, it by itself of course can't see anything yet), and when it gets out of the bay, it has immediate lock.

There's no need to co-locate sensors to get it work, it's very simple geometry anyways.

 

[phrozenflame]

View attachment 150572
翼尖，它们在游泳。（Only ＜1M images can be uploaded :-( ）

J-XD The Flappy Bird 0

Wondering how big is the nose % wise compared to say J-20.

 

[Aval]

High five!!


Expected. The strains the wingtps need to endure will be insane.


Actually I'm not too sure. 人畜无害遥感星 claimed in a reply (under a now-deleted Weibo) that a HOBS missile is inserted diagonally to reduce the SWIB door length (think the F-22).

Diagonal stowing and an F-22-style launch system would explain the lack of trapeze-system mini-holes around the rim of the bay doors like there is on the J-20 (unless they had fully committed with LOAL missiles). Although its uncertain if we could see such detail at the resolution/quality of currently available photos.

The biggest question here though is what that bulge on the bay door is. If its a weapon bay door, would putting a sensor (or something else heavy and/or requires extensive wiring to an internal component) on something that needs to swing out wide during high speed flight (i.e., put a lot of strain on the door hinges) be a good idea?

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Provided that the details of the J-XDS from the photo processing is accurate and that the J-XDS has similar length as the J-20 family (~21.2 meters), that means the IWB(s) are about 4.5-4.7 meters long. That's certainly not anywhere close to be significantly longer than the IWBs on the J-20/A/S.

PL-17 certainly will not fit into the IWB(s) of the J-XDS, so I suppose we can put that contention to rest.

In addition, there is definitely no side IWBs present on the J-XDS. So, all we can hope for is for the IWB(s) to be wide enough (to fit more AAMs) and/or deep enough (to double-stack AAMs).

It's reasonable to think that next gen fighters will be accompanied by next gen missiles (I've heard rumors supporting this). So we shouldn't limit our thinking to just fitting the PL-15 or PL-17, perhaps something like a 4.5m PL-XX

On the other hand, if larger IWB size is desired and more space is needed, I wonder if we’ll see PL-17–sized IWBs on the associated CCA. Perhaps the philosophy differs significantly between carrier-based and land-based aircraft.

 

[Gloire_bb]

It's reasonable to think that next gen fighters will be accompanied by next gen missiles (I've heard rumors supporting this). So we shouldn't limit our thinking to just fitting the PL-15 or PL-17, perhaps something like a 4.5m PL-XX

J-20 and J-35?
Length is not the only way to improve missiles. Strictly speaking overly long and slender weapons were born by external carriage.

 

[taxiya]

The only similar example I can think of is the YF-23s intakes?

What similarity? The small hoes on the fuselage for boundry layer? JF-17/FC-1 and J-10 all have it. Other than that, in terms of the way air flow is handled YF-23 is the furthest from J-50 than anything else.

JF-17