Ask anything Thread (Air Force)

[Brumby]

Thank you to all those who have responded on the weapons separation discussions. I do not intend to address each post individually. I would instead address it in one post to maintain centrality in my reply.

I believe there are two main points in this conversation. The contention itself and the underlying argument in support of each opposing views.

What is the contention? Is weapons separation a sufficiently significant milestone that demands evidence or is it an event achievement that one can simply assume without evidence.

Below are the two opposing post that kicked off this conversation

“Deploying weapons externally is different from launching from internal bays. One can't assume is business as usual until is proven.” My post #5289

If anything I would argue it is a rather rudimentary and basic capability that should be demonstrated rather early on for 5th generation aircraft during their development/EMD phase. Bltizo’s post #5288

With that I would now move on to address the reasoning because that seems to be the main point that had been brought up by a number of posters that had commented on it.

Is weapons separation so rudimentary that it can be assumed? A fighter plane like the J-20 is an offensive platform and being able to launch weapons is central to its function. It is an important milestone because everything about the program is working towards that capability. It is an event that is monitored to assess progress in a program. It is also often demonstrated with much publicity because it is a very visual representation of capability and a messaging tool. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean that such capability is absent but a demonstration of such capability is very often a signal that such a milestone is reached.

Why is the question and the underlying rationale so unreasonable whereas presumption of capability without evidence is somehow reasonable? It is about what is reasonable and application of equal measure regardless of your views. Is your belief of the program progress status based on your choice to believe regardless of evidence or your belief is grounded on evidence?

A number of posters have invoked the operational status argument. In reply, the meaning “in operation” is so broad especially with the way China inducts a platform into service that in my view is hardly a ground to prove anything. For example, a competing program like the SU-57 is also “in service”. It has demonstrated a couple of days of being in Syria and had provided escort to Putin as a propaganda tool. Based on independent sources, the SU-57 is presently a flying shell and testing to-date had been rather limited. Currently it is still undergoing weapons and systems testing. It is unreasonable in my view to assume anything on program progress until there is evidence of milestone achievement.

 

[ougoah]

Thank you to all those who have responded on the weapons separation discussions. I do not intend to address each post individually. I would instead address it in one post to maintain centrality in my reply.

I believe there are two main points in this conversation. The contention itself and the underlying argument in support of each opposing views.

What is the contention? Is weapons separation a sufficiently significant milestone that demands evidence or is it an event achievement that one can simply assume without evidence.

Below are the two opposing post that kicked off this conversation

“Deploying weapons externally is different from launching from internal bays. One can't assume is business as usual until is proven.” My post #5289

If anything I would argue it is a rather rudimentary and basic capability that should be demonstrated rather early on for 5th generation aircraft during their development/EMD phase. Bltizo’s post #5288

With that I would now move on to address the reasoning because that seems to be the main point that had been brought up by a number of posters that had commented on it.

Is weapons separation so rudimentary that it can be assumed? A fighter plane like the J-20 is an offensive platform and being able to launch weapons is central to its function. It is an important milestone because everything about the program is working towards that capability. It is an event that is monitored to assess progress in a program. It is also often demonstrated with much publicity because it is a very visual representation of capability and a messaging tool. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean that such capability is absent but a demonstration of such capability is very often a signal that such a milestone is reached.

Why is the question and the underlying rationale so unreasonable whereas presumption of capability without evidence is somehow reasonable? It is about what is reasonable and application of equal measure regardless of your views. Is your belief of the program progress status based on your choice to believe regardless of evidence or your belief is grounded on evidence?

A number of posters have invoked the operational status argument. In reply, the meaning “in operation” is so broad especially with the way China inducts a platform into service that in my view is hardly a ground to prove anything. For example, a competing program like the SU-57 is also “in service”. It has demonstrated a couple of days of being in Syria and had provided escort to Putin as a propaganda tool. Based on independent sources, the SU-57 is presently a flying shell and testing to-date had been rather limited. Currently it is still undergoing weapons and systems testing. It is unreasonable in my view to assume anything on program progress until there is evidence of milestone achievement.

That's a totally fair view to have. I think it would be interesting to start really quantifying just how difficult this challenge is. Unfortunately none of us here probably know enough to be able to eyeball whether j-20 in its present form can do this. Without looking into studies and examining the j-20 in the context of having properly understood the exact specifics of releasing weapons and opening/shutting bay doors in supersonic flight, we've reached a dead end.

I think both perspectives have been comprehensively explained for readers who aren't just skimming through looking for confirmation bias.

 

[Air Force Brat]

That's a totally fair view to have. I think it would be interesting to start really quantifying just how difficult this challenge is. Unfortunately none of us here probably know enough to be able to eyeball whether j-20 in its present form can do this. Without looking into studies and examining the j-20 in the context of having properly understood the exact specifics of releasing weapons and opening/shutting bay doors in supersonic flight, we've reached a dead end.

I think both perspectives have been comprehensively explained for readers who aren't just skimming through looking for confirmation bias.

Anytime you build a new airplane there are monumental hurdles that either must be fixed, or worked around. The J-20 seems to be in a production hiatus, it could be any numbee of issues. To be honest, weapons separation isn't something that can be "eyeballed", but must be tested incrementally. Not as complex as the FCS, but still a lot of trial and hard work. So no doubt the J-20 has been through an exhaustive process and is very well engineered. As others continue to point out, the Chinese are very methodical and meticulous, given that, the J-20 is a much more mature package than the Su-57 for example. So we will see?

 

[Equation]

Why is the question and the underlying rationale so unreasonable whereas presumption of capability without evidence is somehow reasonable? It is about what is reasonable and application of equal measure regardless of your views. Is your belief of the program progress status based on your choice to believe regardless of evidence or your belief is grounded on evidence?

Because, once again, the capability is extremely basic.

Is your belief of the program progress status based on your choice to believe regardless of evidence or your belief is grounded on evidence?

The former, just like I choose to believe that my neighbor eats food even though I've never seen him do it.

A number of posters have invoked the operational status argument. In reply, the meaning “in operation” is so broad especially with the way China inducts a platform into service that in my view is hardly a ground to prove anything. For example, a competing program like the SU-57 is also “in service”. It has demonstrated a couple of days of being in Syria and had provided escort to Putin as a propaganda tool. Based on independent sources, the SU-57 is presently a flying shell and testing to-date had been rather limited. Currently it is still undergoing weapons and systems testing. It is unreasonable in my view to assume anything on program progress until there is evidence of milestone achievement.

China, Russia, and the USA are different countries. Because Russia is at a severe lack of funds, its choices cannot be applied to China. And also, the Su-57 can fire weapons at supersonic speeds as well. Is there any aircraft in Chinese history that was rushed into initial service without the ability to fire weapons at supersonic speeds? This would be a relevant example for you to provide if one exists.

It is unreasonable in my view to assume anything on program progress until there is evidence of milestone achievement.

OK, that is your view; as I said before, it is tantamount to saying that it is unreasonable to assume that the next commercial laptop by Lenovo/Dell/Huawei can turn on until you see it do so.

 

[SpicySichuan]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's 24 BVRAAMs...

 

[taxiya]

I know I am pretty late to the "launching weapon from internal bay at super-sonic speed" debate. I am not intended to restart it all over again, but here are some inputs that I haven't seen being mentioned.

1. Can F-22, F-35 do it? My answer, very likely at least F-22 decades ago.
2. If yes, is such achievement related to some super deeper aerodynamic knowledge that ONLY US has mastered, while nobody else understood? My answer, I don't think so. Everyone know it, just like every other aerodynamic knowledge acquired through decades of theoretical study and wind-tunnel experiments.

So, I may ask, why is it even a subject deserving debate? As if this is some sort of alien technology.

Hints: Research paper "Investigation on key aerodynamic and aero-acoustic problems of internal weapons bay" by State Key Laboratory of Aerodynamics, Mianyang Sichuan.
Key words:

1. "mass-injection" flow control
2. test speed range: Mach 0.6 to 1.8
3. Wind tunnel: Mach 0.4 to 3.5
4. Conclusion (solution): injection improves weapon separation at super-sonic speed.

Beyond that, PLA is not going to show you the video of weapon release with speed meter readings over-imposed on the video, it is not PLA's job to convince anybody who want to downplay China's capability.

 

[Inst]

The US solution involves the ability to eject missiles from the bay with propulsive, even explosive, force. The J-20 looks like the missile bay is designed so that missiles will crash into the rear platform of the launching bay and slide out.

 

[Brumby]

The US solution involves the ability to eject missiles from the bay with propulsive, even explosive, force. The J-20 looks like the missile bay is designed so that missiles will crash into the rear platform of the launching bay and slide out.

Can you quote a source on this?. I would be interested in the details.

 

[Blitzo]

The US solution involves the ability to eject missiles from the bay with propulsive, even explosive, force. The J-20 looks like the missile bay is designed so that missiles will crash into the rear platform of the launching bay and slide out.

?

For ventral weapon bays of F-22, weapons are launched via trapeze style ejector hardpoints to push the weapon out of the bay into the airstream. For F-35's "deep" hardpoints in each of its two weapon bays it is the same.

We have pictures of F-22's hardpoints and what it looks like:

We also have had pictures of J-20's hardpoints in the past as well:

Based on the geometrical similarity of F-22 and J-20's ventral weapons bay and the pictures we've had of J-20's hardpoints compared to F-22's hardpoints that are trapeze in nature, the most logical conclusion would be that J-20's hardpoints are trapeze in nature to push the weapons out from the weapons bay into the airstream as well.



Without such a function, it would be impossible to deploy weapons because they can't rail launch missiles from the ventral weapons bay like they do for the J-20's side PL-10 bays because obviously the ventral hardpoints aren't long enough to support it. The only logical answer would be an F-22-esque solution to similarly push missiles out into the airstream.

 

[Equation]

The US solution involves the ability to eject missiles from the bay with propulsive, even explosive, force. The J-20 looks like the missile bay is designed so that missiles will crash into the rear platform of the launching bay and slide out.

I really don't think so; its absurd to have things crashing into each other flying at supersonic speeds. This isn't some vegetable sorter that throws cabbages across the room and hopefully somewhere into a basket; this is a 5th gen fighter gen and every mechanism is precise. These missiles need to be ejected out way clear from hitting any part of the aircraft just like in American fighters.