Ask anything Thread


Inst

Senior Member
The trapeze mechanism on the F-22 actually refers to the system by which the sidebays open and launch WVR missiles. As for the J-20's weapons bay, if you look at the sliding section, it's actually quite similar to the F-22's lower weapons bay wherein there's two rear slanted sections, probably to reduce RCS and to improve aerodynamics when the bay is open.




Compare to the F-35, where the slanted sections either don't exist or are more a function of the bay than the bay ending.

 
The trapeze mechanism on the F-22 actually refers to the system by which the sidebays open and launch WVR missiles. As for the J-20's weapons bay, if you look at the sliding section, it's actually quite similar to the F-22's lower weapons bay wherein there's two rear slanted sections, probably to reduce RCS and to improve aerodynamics when the bay is open.




Compare to the F-35, where the slanted sections either don't exist or are more a function of the bay than the bay ending.

what would be a conclusion, if any, regarding recent inference (last several pages here) about the J-20 at supersonic speed being able, or unable, to launch missiles?

I mean a summary for me in one sentence max. please
:
 

Quickie

Major
The real challenge is building the fifth-gen stealth aircraft itself. Overcoming the challenge of launching missiles from a weapons bay (which has already been shown to be possible with earlier fifth-gen development) would be like 50 times less difficult. - Let's say measured in terms of development time and the number of manpower required.

One would have to very counter-intuitive (probably more like biased) in order not to see that logic.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The trapeze mechanism on the F-22 actually refers to the system by which the sidebays open and launch WVR missiles. As for the J-20's weapons bay, if you look at the sliding section, it's actually quite similar to the F-22's lower weapons bay wherein there's two rear slanted sections, probably to reduce RCS and to improve aerodynamics when the bay is open.
Just for the record. In the last few pages when the "trapeze hardpoint" was mentioned it was referring to the AMRAAM hardpoint in the ventral bay which pushes the missile out.

In absence of a more well known term, "trapeze hardpoint" was used to refer to it in my previous posts.
 

AssassinsMace

Brigadier
Interesting how the critics always think China forgot something. "They forgot to make the landing gear retract when designing the J-20." Now the question if China can launch a missile at supersonic speeds. I imagine any aircraft flying supersonic opening weapons bay is not going to have a smooth ride. I seem to recall some incident where a fighter not at supersonic speed fired a missile and the missile flipped when launched and hit the fighter. What makes anyone think that's less likely to happen at supersonic speed? Is the argument the F-22 and F-35 give a love tap to missiles when released as compared to the J-20 that abuses the missile when launched? Just imagine how that superior stealth shaping is nullified when those bays open. At supersonic speed means radars will light it up from a further distance alerting your adversary early. You're burning fuel faster and your turn rate is horrible so why is this some world beating advantage to brag about?

I remember the Key Aviation forum a while ago had a lot of absurd us vs them scenarios like Sweden vs China. I don't have to tell you who won... And of course Sweden had available weapons that weren't even deployed yet while China was restricted to what actually existed in their inventories. I read about some simulation conducted in the US in the last two years of a US response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The US's F-22s did well but the F-35s lost the war. What? F-35s able of launching missiles at supersonic speeds didn't help against J-20s that couldn't? Or maybe they lost because of it.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Major
Registered Member
As for the J-20's weapons bay, if you look at the sliding section, it's actually quite similar to the F-22's lower weapons bay wherein there's two rear slanted sections, probably to reduce RCS and to improve aerodynamics when the bay is open.




Compare to the F-35, where the slanted sections either don't exist or are more a function of the bay than the bay ending.

These three pictures are perfect demonstration that the weapons bay of J-20 and F-22 are designed for releasing weapon in very high speed, higher than F-35.

The slant is for reducing the high air pressure at the end of the bay. In case of J-20 and likely F-22, the front end of the bay is shallower (not only due to the inlet duct) to counter the low pressure. In addition J-20, according to the research paper I posted some days ago, adopted "induced air flow" to further reduce the low pressure at the front of the bay.

F-35 has none of the features, both the back and front are perfect vertical from photos I can find. The purpose is to maximize the weapon size and shape, but in the mean time sacrifice aerodynamic. It certainly wasn't designed to the requirement of speed like J-20 and F-22. But that is its purpose.
 

Brumby

Major
Yes, it was about two years between the F-22's first separation tests and its first supersonic guided missile launch as well. Both F-22 and F-35 conducted supersonic weapons tests before they entered service.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-537#post-562388



As for convincing you that launching weapons at supersonic speed for fighter aircraft with A2A as a primary role being a show stopper, I think the burden of evidence should be on you to convince me that it is reasonable to assume that supersonic weapons deployment should not be considered as a capability that an aircraft should have demonstrated before entering combat service.

After all, in both the examples of F-22 and F-35 (the only other two 5th gen fighters who we have those open milestones on), they demonstrated the ability to deploy weapons at supersonic speeds before entering service as well.
Are you able to demonstrate a persistent pattern among other fighter aircraft where the ability to deploy weapons at supersonic speeds was deliberately not tested before entering service?
I am not here to convince you of anything. I asked for the evidence and based on the evidence or lack of I form my own opinion. Youi are trying to push a certain view and therefore the onus is on you to support your position - not me.
The conditions qualifying for combat service are different between China and the US. I have no idea what is the meaning of combat service is for China and I don't think you know either. Conversely I know what is the meaning of IOC is for the F-35 and what capabilities comes with 3F.
 

Brumby

Major
as they say, The Proof Of The Pudding Is In The Eating:

the Chinese don't even announce what the Pentagon calls "milestones" of a military program,

so the Chinese of course don't announce if a "milestone" was or wasn't met yet (in the Pentagon, "meeting milestones" is usually connected to some fiscal year),

and only after a (significant) delay it becomes apparent the Chinese achieved what would be a "milestone",

and then it still may not be apparent if that "milestone" was met recently or several years ago,

so I think the current discussion (Brumby x Bltizo) is vague
Precisely why I find the effort to push a certain outcome achievement as rather illogical.
 

Brumby

Major
what would be a conclusion, if any, regarding recent inference (last several pages here) about the J-20 at supersonic speed being able, or unable, to launch missiles?

I mean a summary for me in one sentence max. please
:
I don't know because I have not seen any evidence. LOL.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I am not here to convince you of anything.
Why not? Given the claim you are making, the burden should be on you to convince us that your question is a reasonable one in the first place.


I asked for the evidence and based on the evidence or lack of I form my own opinion. Youi are trying to push a certain view and therefore the onus is on you to support your position - not me.
The conditions qualifying for combat service are different between China and the US. I have no idea what is the meaning of combat service is for China and I don't think you know either. Conversely I know what is the meaning of IOC is for the F-35 and what capabilities comes with 3F.
None of the above is relevant to the topic of debate, which is whether it's reasonable to assume that supersonic weapons separation tests have been conducted before an aircraft is declared as being in combat service.
Given other aircraft like F-22 and F-35 conducted those supersonic weapons separation tests/supersonic launch tests before they were inducted into service, it is entirely reasonable for me to ask you to provide evidence for why you think it would not be the case for J-20 as well.


=====


I think others in the community have expressed their opinions as to the usefulness and reasonableness of your questions as well.

I personally have no issues with people asking these sort of questions, but there's been a persistent pattern where your questions lead threads down off topic tangents which detract from the overall goal of a thread in terms of trying to have a record of J-20 related news, photos and discussion.

Consider making a thread specifically for any questions that you may have in future, rather than causing the main threads to have pages and pages of pointless debate.
Here I speak as just another user and not as a moderator. But you should have had enough experience here over the years to understand the kind of posts you make which tend to create long pointless arguments. So do the rest of the user base a favour and consider keeping those questions to a specific thread instead.
 

Top