Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Looks absolutely massive. Which makes me wonder what kind of engine will it use? Ws-15 seems small compared to this plane considering it is supposed to be more manuverable than j-36.

The J-XDS is about similar size as the Sino Flankers, so having 2x WS-15 engines is certainly enough.

Also, the J-XDS has a larger wing area than all the previous Chinese fighter jets, meaning smaller wing loading, and hence, greater flight performance characteristics.

Will there be a new engine class for this plane?

We expect Adaptive Cycle Engine (ACE)-based WS-XX to be equipped onboard the J-XDS (and also J-36) in the future production run, although this shouldn't really be news at this point.

 

[asif iqbal]

Holy Mackerel ! !

 

[ying1978]

My theory for the bulges attached to the side bay doors is that it houses IR sonsors connected to the internally mounted point defence missile. This way the missile can start tracking its target before the bay opens, which reduces reaction time and shortens the time span for which the side bay door has to be opened.

 

[Gloire_bb]

My theory for the bulges attached to the side bay doors is that it houses IR sonsors connected to the internally mounted point defence missile. This way the missile can start tracking its target before the bay opens, which reduces reaction time and shortens the time span for which the side bay door has to be opened.

Such a system doesn't require such protrusions.
See how it worked on century series(F-101, 102, 106) for details.

 

[by78]

One more video.

 

[ying1978]

Such a system doesn't require such protrusions.
See how it worked on century series(F-101, 102, 106) for details.

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.

 

[mack8]

I would think LOAL would be pretty much the standard these days, certainly for a brand new design such as J-50 or J-36?

 

[lcloo]

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 carry 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.

 

[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 :-( ）