Chengdu J-20 pictures, analysis and speculation Part II

[totoro]

I had a change of heart while comparing various images and it is looking more and more likely that what we're seeing is pl-12 body with new fins. Go find images of pl-12. There are images of it at very similar angles as this. When superimposing them over this missile and scaling them to either length or width, it will fit more or less perfectly.

Also, let us keep in mind that exterior dimensions of weapon bay doors were never over 4,4 meters long. And here we can compare the length of the door with the missile length. It also works out to the same length as pl-12.

That's not to say there isn't room for 3 amraam sized missiles per bay. There is. It's just that pl12 is a larger missile, even in this form with completely new fins. It's still too wide for 3 missiles to be fit in one bay.

 

[Blitzo]

A different angle to gauge size.

That's a mock up and it doesn't even look to scale. It probably isn't anything near official and just something an enthusiast made

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yep I did this comparison. Angles aren't perfect but the AAM on the J-11 is clearly near identical to PL-12 sizewise. I think the foreshortening in the J-20 bay pics is misleading.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Seems like there is a trend for 4 missiles in the main bays.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Edited. I'm going with SD-12 size. That makes the weapons bay doors between 4.3 -4.4m long. From this angle the body thickness is no greater than PL-12. PL-12 is already fatter and longer than AIM-120.

 

[Deino]

Agreed ... I have to correct my first estimation, but ... the nose cone of both missiles is different !

Deino

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That could mean a new seeker perhaps.

 

[Sundog]

Also, based on that layout it will only carry four internally, not six. I'm referring to the main weapons bay only.
Now if Flateric would get us some pics of the weapons bays open on the T-50 prototypes. I mean come on Russia, the T-50 flew before the J-20. You guys are slacking.

 

[Avimimus]

I'll bet that they consist of four 700kg launchers (plus the two smaller side-bays)...? Any takers?

It looks like the standard armament for 5th gen aircraft will become 6 missiles.

 

[SOC]

Also, based on that layout it will only carry four internally, not six. I'm referring to the main weapons bay only.

Not necessarily. Look between the two missile rails in each bay and there appears to be an attachment point for a third.

 

[SpudmanWP]

My guess is if that is a center mounting point, that it is for a bomb rack (so no missiles in that bay at the same time).

 

[SOC]

Or, you might be able to adjust the outer pair of weapons in each bay sideways away from center. There's noticeable space between the fins of the missile seen and the wall of the bay; using a compressed carriage derivative with a smaller span should leave you room to fit six weapons in the bay.


Either way the bay appears to be much deeper than required to simply put these things or a derivative thereof in there. That suggests either 1) built in growth capacity for newer things down the line (maybe they don't want to have to deal with bulging bay doors), or 2) they intended from the start to be able to employ weapons bigger than this PL-whatever (seen it referred to as a PL-X-15). I find either one of those options hilarious for various reasons :-X

 

[Blitzo]

May I inquire why the reasons for extra big weapons is funny? :-\

I imagine having existing growth potential is a good thing

 

[SOC]

May I inquire why the reasons for extra big weapons is funny? :-\

There is a rather obnoxious sentiment that keeps popping up that claims it's just ludicrous to think of the J-20 as anything but a pure air superiority machine. When I find potentially contradictory things like this, I find it amusing ;D

I imagine having existing growth potential is a good thing

Sure it is. It's also amusing when something is sensibly built with the capability built in from the start. Might keep one from having to fatten up the airframe and reduce the performance requirements during testing...

 

[Deino]

 

[Sundog]

In all my time looking at these photos I never noticed the housings under the chines. It will be interesting to find out what is going there.

 

[Hanse]

In all my time looking at these photos I never noticed the housings under the chines. It will be interesting to find out what is going there.

Probably just actuator fairings.

 

[Trident]

I think they're simply hollow bulges to accommodate the main landing gear tires, located as they are on the upper main landing gear doors.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

May I inquire why the reasons for extra big weapons is funny? :-\

There is a rather obnoxious sentiment that keeps popping up that claims it's just ludicrous to think of the J-20 as anything but a pure air superiority machine. When I find potentially contradictory things like this, I find it amusing ;D

I never subscribed to the theory it's an unmanouverable bomb truck, but I'd put it in the same basket as MFI / T-50 - designed from the start as dual role, initial capability being air-air.

 

[Sundog]

I think they're simply hollow bulges to accommodate the main landing gear tires, located as they are on the upper main landing gear doors.

I hadn't realized those were the on the doors. I have to agree.

 

[Radical]

Is it me, or is it that the fairings for slats and ailerons join the wing at right angles? Isn't that detrimental for stealth?

 

[Bill Walker]

That could mean a new seeker perhaps.

The store without fins is possibly an instrumentation pod, or a non-functional representative mass for test purposes. In those cases, the different nose cone shape may just be a result of controlling production costs.

 

[quellish]

The store without fins is possibly an instrumentation pod, or a non-functional representative mass for test purposes.

That bay is heavily instrumented.

 

[Deino]

Following latest reportrs J-20 2002 left CAC and flew to CFTE Xa'an-YanLiang yesterday afternoon.

http://www.iissbbs.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=4091435&extra=page%3D1

 

[Deino]

I know it's psed (and it looks a bit close on the rear of the center-missile), but at least it does not look completely unrealistic !

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2013/August%202013/box082713china.aspx

 

[Deino]

Maybe or not baby 2004 ??? ???

 

[Deino]

News from CAC ... seems indeed to be a no. 2004, but following some "strange" rumours at several blogs it is most likely not a new but our well-known prototype no. 2002, which was renumbered (but why ??) :?:

Andi

 

[LowObservable]

I remember something about some kids whose senior high-school prank was to release four greased piglets in the school building, each marked with a number - 1, 2, 3 and 5.

 

[quellish]

I remember something about some kids whose senior high-school prank was to release four greased piglets in the school building, each marked with a number - 1, 2, 3 and 5.

In my case it was 1 and 4, and they made quite a mess.

Perhaps if the weapons bays are photographed while open we can tell if this is a different AV than 2002.

 

[Deino]

Is one of the J-20 now grey ??? (as reported since some time already) or simply a trick of the light ???

 

[Trident]

Not sure, it might be the lighting - remember that 2001 looked dark green on early photos.

 

[Sundog]

It definitely looks grey to me, based on how light the lower surfaces in shadow appear to be. However, my question isn't so much would it be a trick of the light as if it's real or Photoshop.

 

[Foxglove]

It could be a shadow but the top surfaces seem to have an area in a darker shade of grey ( two-tone camo, like that on the F-22?)

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

It's lighting. It appears darker when the camera is facing a brighter light source so the camera aperture is smaller to accommodate less light.

On the other hand, it appears lighter when the camera is facing a dimmer light source since the camera aperture is wider to accommodate more light.

 

[Deino]

At least '2002' has still the same dark scheme .... albeit look at the PL-10 !!!

 

[Deino]

Finally some news ... a modified tail !! ... or again a simple ps-job !?

 

[quellish]

Finally some news ... a modified tail !! ... or again a simple ps-job !?

Deino, is there a Chinese equivalent to RAT-55 NT-43A or the older Metratek AIRSAR?

 

[Deino]

To admit I don't know .... but how is it related to the image I posted (which seems most likey a ps-job) !??