Chengdu J-20 pictures, analysis and speculation Part II

[chuck4]

Perhaps one of the reasons to have the launch rail exposed with the doors closed is to be able to carry missiles/munitions on that station that would not fit within the weapons bay? For missions when LO isn't required, just as the F-35 has the ability to carry external stores during such missions.

On the issue of carrying stores externally, would j-20, because of its reliance on lifting canards some significant distance ahead of the wing, suffer center of gravity issues if it carried a great deal of weight on pylons under its main wing? The center of gravity and center of lift on that plane has to be substantially further forward relative to its aft mounted wings than on an aircraft with either normal layout, or more closely coupled canards like rafale and su-30?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Erm... no.

 

[mithril]

Perhaps one of the reasons to have the launch rail exposed with the doors closed is to be able to carry missiles/munitions on that station that would not fit within the weapons bay? For missions when LO isn't required, just as the F-35 has the ability to carry external stores during such missions.

what would be the point? carrying external stores with the F-22 and F-35 mean additional munitions. but just carrying a missile on the outside instead of the inside doesn't seem that much of an improvement.

however i could see the extending mount be viable in turning the F-22 style side bays into a location that can be used to carry bombs and ground attack munitions. or possibly also gunpods and targeting/recon pods.

 

[Blitzo]

Perhaps one of the reasons to have the launch rail exposed with the doors closed is to be able to carry missiles/munitions on that station that would not fit within the weapons bay? For missions when LO isn't required, just as the F-35 has the ability to carry external stores during such missions.

A munition that cannot fit into the side bay would be better off on a dedicated wing hardpoint I think. A weapon out where the SRAAM should be not only would result in clearance issues (imagine a 500kg LT-2 hanging there), but I doubt the pylon itself would be capable of supporting a weapon significantly heavier than the <100kg of your typicall SRAAM (again, think of a 500 kg LT-2 hanging there)

 

[chuck4]

Erm... no.

Well, the j-20's wings are even further to the rear than eurofighter's, to the point where the trailing edge is flush with the engine nozzles. Visual inspection suggests j-20 has proportionally a lot more mass ahead of the wing than the eurofighter. This suggest j-20's canards has a much larger lifting role than those of the eurofighter's, whose canards are comparatively much more control in function. Otherwise the j-20 would never rotate to take off.


This means j-20's center of lift is further forward relative to the wing than eurofighter's, which means heavy loads carried under the wing would be more problematic.


Also, because j-20 has high mounted wings, unlike the eurofighter's low mounted wings and relatively flush belly, the j-20 can's actually carry a pylon as close to the fuselage and therefore as far forward under its wings as the eurofighter. This would put the center of gravity of all external stores carried under j-20 wings further back relative to the wings than eurofighter's, which would further exacerbate the issue.

 

[chuck4]

Perhaps one of the reasons to have the launch rail exposed with the doors closed is to be able to carry missiles/munitions on that station that would not fit within the weapons bay? For missions when LO isn't required, just as the F-35 has the ability to carry external stores during such missions.

A munition that cannot fit into the side bay would be better off on a dedicated wing hardpoint I think. A weapon out where the SRAAM should be not only would result in clearance issues (imagine a 500kg LT-2 hanging there), but I doubt the pylon itself would be capable of supporting a weapon significantly heavier than the <100kg of your typicall SRAAM (again, think of a 500 kg LT-2 hanging there)

Perhaps the side bay was designed with an ECM pod in mind? Stowed for stealth, deployed for when stealth won't work and you still have to do something to stay alive?

 

[kcran567]

Perhaps one of the reasons to have the launch rail exposed with the doors closed is to be able to carry missiles/munitions on that station that would not fit within the weapons bay? For missions when LO isn't required, just as the F-35 has the ability to carry external stores during such missions.

What if I take it a step further and offer that those are external hookups for stealthy mission pods such as the silent hornet would carry. extra fuel and/or mission pods and missiles. built in growth potential and large capacity to carry weapons stealthily. If they are developing these we will have to wait and see. Its something to be checked into.

 

[flateric]

that's too much 'further'

 

[Blitzo]

Perhaps one of the reasons to have the launch rail exposed with the doors closed is to be able to carry missiles/munitions on that station that would not fit within the weapons bay? For missions when LO isn't required, just as the F-35 has the ability to carry external stores during such missions.

A munition that cannot fit into the side bay would be better off on a dedicated wing hardpoint I think. A weapon out where the SRAAM should be not only would result in clearance issues (imagine a 500kg LT-2 hanging there), but I doubt the pylon itself would be capable of supporting a weapon significantly heavier than the <100kg of your typicall SRAAM (again, think of a 500 kg LT-2 hanging there)

Perhaps the side bay was designed with an ECM pod in mind? Stowed for stealth, deployed for when stealth won't work and you still have to do something to stay alive?

At the point where stealth would be "useless" (that is to say, when an enemy is in WVR), chances are ECM will not be particularly useful either if the other side is going at you with ImIR guided SRAAMs. Not to mention the pods you would stow in there would be relatively small, and thus not particularly powerful... and you would probably be better off developing a stealthy casing for a dedicated ECM pod instead like what's been proposed for JSF. Of course, having an ECM pod there would also deprive your plane of a much important SRAAM of its own.


I think we shouldn't overthink it. It's just a weapons bay, designed for an SRAAM, likely exclusively PL-10. It just has a relatively novel firing sequence is all.

 

[aam641]

Targeting pod makes a lot of sense to me. It is something you will need outside for a couple of minutes. That is long enough that keeping the bay open carries large penalty, yet short enough that you wouldn't want to carry it externally.

 

[chuck4]

At the point where stealth would be "useless" (that is to say, when an enemy is in WVR),

Errr, no. Some estimates suggest that by 2020, airborne radar would be able to detect stealth aircraft in the aircraft's best angles more than 25 NM away. That's well beyond visual range. It would be very well to have some ECM capability against this.

 

[latenlazy]

At the point where stealth would be "useless" (that is to say, when an enemy is in WVR),

Errr, no. Some estimates suggest that by 2020, airborne radar would be able to detect stealth aircraft in the aircraft's best angles more than 25 NM away. That's well beyond visual range. It would be very well to have some ECM capability against this.

I doubt that even with detection they would be able to maintain a lock.

 

[Blitzo]

At the point where stealth would be "useless" (that is to say, when an enemy is in WVR),

Errr, no. Some estimates suggest that by 2020, airborne radar would be able to detect stealth aircraft in the aircraft's best angles more than 25 NM away. That's well beyond visual range. It would be very well to have some ECM capability against this.

Well the efficacy of stealth as we know it in 2020 may be debatable, but the notion of leaving a small ECM pod fixed out of the SRAAM bay would likely be detrimental to stealth, not to mention deprive the aircraft of a very much important missile.


It's not like the aircraft isn't big enough for them to have left space for dedicated avionics upgrades, whether they are future AESA arrays or conformal ECM arrays perhaps.
Point is, that SRAAM pylon won't be used for holding anything but SRAAMs, and definitely not for greatly extended periods of time.

 

[quellish]

Errr, no. Some estimates suggest that by 2020, airborne radar would be able to detect stealth aircraft in the aircraft's best angles more than 25 NM away. That's well beyond visual range. It would be very well to have some ECM capability against this.

How are the "estimators" defining a "stealth aircraft"? -24dbsm? -28dbsm? -37dbsm?
I estimate that by 1996 there will be an aircraft flying with a -65dbsm signature that requires visual signature reduction because adversaries will see it before they detect it electronically.

But to get back on topic...
Interesting radome is interesting.

 

[latenlazy]

Errr, no. Some estimates suggest that by 2020, airborne radar would be able to detect stealth aircraft in the aircraft's best angles more than 25 NM away. That's well beyond visual range. It would be very well to have some ECM capability against this.

How are the "estimators" defining a "stealth aircraft"? -24dbsm? -28dbsm? -37dbsm?
I estimate that by 1996 there will be an aircraft flying with a -65dbsm signature that requires visual signature reduction because adversaries will see it before they detect it electronically.

But to get back on topic...
Interesting radome is interesting.

What's so interesting about the radome?

 

[fightingirish]

High resolution photo of J-20′s side missile launch rail:


Better link:
www.alert5.com/2013/04/04/high-resolution-photo-of-j-20s-side-missile-launch-rail/

 

[Jemiba]

"403 Permission Denied - You do not have permission for this request /wp-content/uploads/2013/04/a0d5da4agw1e3cm595bkoj1.jp"

That's the only thing I can read from that site... :-\

 

[lancer21]

Jemiba, put www. in front of the alert5 address, it should work.

 

[mithril]

Ah, you're right, thank you ! Have corrected the link

still getting a 403 Permission denied error. the site may not allow hot linking.

i've found the image with a bit of quick searching. i'll append it now.

 

[Deino]

Long time no news .. anyway here a nice recent image from take-off ... and nearly the same position from the F-22 for comparison !

 

[Deino]

J-20 2002 reportedly flew again today .... including these high-res. images:

http://bbs.chinaiiss.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=4084630&extra=page%3D1

Please note the PL-10 in the side-bay !

Deino

 

[GTX]

I like the semi-subdued logo on the side of the intake.

 

[Deino]

And I actually hate it since it is not a marking but a sign from the photographer !

 

[GTX]

Oh! I thought it was on the aircraft itself. In that case I am with you.

 

[Radical]

I just noticed the main landing gear door seems different.

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm not attentive enough.

 

[malipa]

The baydoors of the aircraft look like they are made of aluminum...

 

[Deino]

During the test today the main bays were opened as well as again the side launchers deployed !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVUX_hfEouQ&feature=youtu.be

Deino

 

[Dragon029]

In the first and second images (moreso in the second), in the bottom right corner, there's a protrusion from the fuselage, with a forward / downward facing panel and tube; would that be part of it's EODAS-like system?

The alternative I was thinking of was that it could be a bolted-on weapons-release testing camera.

 

[GTX]

Although not clear, that certainly looks to be a big bay

 

[Deino]

Images from the production line at CAC .... so maybe 2003 ???

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Another one of the bay. Looks decidedly F-22ish, designed around PL-12 not some anti-ship weapon.

 

[skyblue]

Am I seeing the contents in that bay blurred out, with photoshop?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Am I seeing the contents in that bay blurred out, with photoshop?

It looks like it....

 

[Deino]

And finally here it is ...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice. Seems to have mounts for 4 standard PL-12 AAMs. Doesn't seem to be much extra room front and back for an AIM-120C staggered 6 configuration though. Its very F-22ish in general.

 

[Deino]

Not sure ... anyway a nice new information since as assumed by the psed images already posted, it is indeed a new AAM and these images reveal a lot of additional details as well they rise additional questions:

Just compare with the images attached !

It’s alone remarkable, since this weapon – sometimes called PL-X-15 – was so far only seen under one J-11B operated by the Special Missile Test unit at Base 14, Dingxing AB.
My first estimation was that the new AAM is a PL-12-based design with new fins to allow internal storage, but following these images, I’m almost sure it is indeed a completele new design featuring a much wider diameter and is even longer than the PL-12.
As such it seems as if (even if only two missile racks now installed in one bay) the J-20 has actually four missile stations in each bay but – and if You look closely – there is one more attachment point for a possible additional third missiles between those two.
In my opinion the J-20 has the capability to carry two of this large PL-X-15 or two of the standard wide-fin PL-12 but most likely up to three missiles with cropped or folding fins like rumoured PL-12C.

Hope for more,
Deino

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Apologies - you are right. Didn't check - thought maybe it was simply a compressed fin PL-12.

Seems to be maybe 4.2m in length and at least 280mm diameter, though the angles are poor for meaurement.

In which case there is easily enough room for 6 PL-12s in there.

 

[collins355]

A different angle to gauge size.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Is it actually an Anti-Radiation Missile, I wonder?

 

[Foxglove]

A different angle to gauge size.

These two guys are either world-class weight lifters or it's a dummy missile. What's the PL-12 weight? 200kg? Just a side track.