Ideal PLAAF Modifications

Well, the JH-7 Thread has mentioned the lack of such a thread, so here it is. Have an idea for the better of current planes in PLAAF aircrafts? Express your view.

Note, this is for Modifications, not replacements. Violators will be prosecuted accordingly.

And since the JH-7 ideas have already started pouring in its thread, it can stay there, but all else, let it be thrown out here!

Hmmmm... the biggest problem I have with chinese-built fighters is that the models that have air-to-air refueling capability all have fixed refueling probes. For the love of God, make it retractable, cuz it creates drag, increases the RCS and is an eye-sore, especially on the J-10.

The designers probably didn't take those into consideration when they first designed the aircraft, so it's gonna be tough to make room for a retractable probe and its accompanying hydraulics inside the fuselage. But man, I would be pissed if I were the pilot and a thing is sticking out like that.

Oh, while we're on the subject, I think the J-10 can use some twin rail launcher to increase its A-A capabilities too. My understanding is that only the 6 wing pylons can carry A-A missiles. If the two inner pylons are used for fuel tanks, the J-10 is left with only 4 AAMs, 2 of which are WVR AAMs. If I were a J-10 pilot, I'd be kinda pissed if I have to go on a CAP mission with only 2 MRAAMs.

Anyway, as always, just my 2 cents

panzerkom said:

Oh, while we're on the subject, I think the J-10 can use some twin rail launcher to increase its A-A capabilities too. My understanding is that only the 6 wing pylons can carry A-A missiles. If the two inner pylons are used for fuel tanks, the J-10 is left with only 4 AAMs, 2 of which are WVR AAMs. If I were a J-10 pilot, I'd be kinda pissed if I have to go on a CAP mission with only 2 MRAAMs.

Anyway, as always, just my 2 cents

Click to expand...

why carry so many missiles? That only adds drag, increases RCS and reduces range. If each J-10 in a war scenario can shoot down one opposing fighter, I'd be pretty happy. Also, we have seen multi-missile racks.

Well, i would suggest getting proper 1 piece windshields to more advanced J-8II's and J-7 (E,F) Because if i were a pilot of either of those planes, i'd be pissed off if all i could see was the B-pillar and not the EP-3E i'm supposed to be intercepting.

P.S talking about the windshield, has anyone noticed the lack of window "tint" material on the glass (such as on F-16) of all chinese made units? As seen clearly in this photo :

China's first twin tail fin domestic fighter for the love of god. All single fin small-medium fighters. I know people gonna mention J-11 is a twin fin but it isnt domestic design. Something in that weight areana would be good.

tphuang said:

why carry so many missiles? That only adds drag, increases RCS and reduces range. If each J-10 in a war scenario can shoot down one opposing fighter, I'd be pretty happy. Also, we have seen multi-missile racks.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... okay, first, on the point of having the racks at this point, I've only seen pictures of racks for bombs on JH-7s and for A-G rockets on J-11s similar to the USAF's MER and TER on F-16s, but not racks for A-A missiles like the USN's Twin Rail Launchers on the F-18s.

Onto the point of the necessity of having more than 2 MRAAMs: Firs, the issue of multi-target engagement -- Former Soviet doctrines calls for ripple firing 2 missiles at a single target, if the PLAAF follows that doctrine, a J-10 with 2 PL-8s and 2 PL-12s will only be able to engage 1 target beyond visual range, which defeats the purpose of its radar having multi-target engagement capability. Plus, firing a missile doesn't guarantee a kill, especially when it comes to BVR engagements, even if you fire it when your target is inside the NEZ. A J-10 pilot might even want to fire the first PL-12 outside of the NEZ if the target is also armed with MRAAMs. Doing this would force the target to put the J-10 on his 3-9 line and thus give the J-10 pilot the upper hand. In this scenario, the J-10 pilot would probably have used 2 MRAAMs against 1 target as well, since he won't be in IR range if and when the target turns back after evading the first MRAAM. Which brings us to the issue of combat endurance. When flying a CAP or escort mission, it's very likely that more than one group of enemy fighters will show up, especially when conducting an offensive operation. In Vietnam, American fighters were often challenged by more than one group of MiGs during a single strike mission. In this kind of situation, being able to handle more than one engagement is important.

Finally, about the drag, RCS, and reduction in range caused by the added launch rail and missile -- Let's face it, 2 more MRAAMs is not going to create that much more drag when you are already carrying 2, maybe even 3, external tanks. The added benefits clearly out-weigh the cost here, since it's the difference between a whole strike package aborting and completing a mission.

panzerkom said:

Hmmm... okay, first, on the point of having the racks at this point, I've only seen pictures of racks for bombs on JH-7s and for A-G rockets on J-11s similar to the USAF's MER and TER on F-16s, but not racks for A-A missiles like the USN's Twin Rail Launchers on the F-18s.

Click to expand...

we have definitely seen pictures of racks that hold multiple AAMs

Onto the point of the necessity of having more than 2 MRAAMs: Firs, the issue of multi-target engagement -- Former Soviet doctrines calls for ripple firing 2 missiles at a single target, if the PLAAF follows that doctrine, a J-10 with 2 PL-8s and 2 PL-12s will only be able to engage 1 target beyond visual range, which defeats the purpose of its radar having multi-target engagement capability. Plus, firing a missile doesn't guarantee a kill, especially when it comes to BVR engagements, even if you fire it when your target is inside the NEZ. A J-10 pilot might even want to fire the first PL-12 outside of the NEZ if the target is also armed with MRAAMs. Doing this would force the target to put the J-10 on his 3-9 line and thus give the J-10 pilot the upper hand. In this scenario, the J-10 pilot would probably have used 2 MRAAMs against 1 target as well, since he won't be in IR range if and when the target turns back after evading the first MRAAM. Which brings us to the issue of combat endurance. When flying a CAP or escort mission, it's very likely that more than one group of enemy fighters will show up, especially when conducting an offensive operation. In Vietnam, American fighters were often challenged by more than one group of MiGs during a single strike mission. In this kind of situation, being able to handle more than one engagement is important.

Click to expand...

you don't think PLAAF has figured out how many missiles it needs from all the exercises that it has done, that you would know better? In any of the war scenario I can think of, PLAAF will have numerical advantage, but not quantitative advantage. So, your example of Vietnam and America doesn't apply

Finally, about the drag, RCS, and reduction in range caused by the added launch rail and missile -- Let's face it, 2 more MRAAMs is not going to create that much more drag when you are already carrying 2, maybe even 3, external tanks. The added benefits clearly out-weigh the cost here, since it's the difference between a whole strike package aborting and completing a mission.

Click to expand...

J-10's aerodynamic profile is optimized to fly a certain configurations. And as we have seen, that configuration is 3 external fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B. This is the configuration that offers the best compromise in terms of range and maneuverability. They can always go with the 1 external fuel tank + 4 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B combination if they think more MRAAM is needed. Let's put it this way, we have never even seen a picture of J-11B with more than 4 PL-12. They are not going to abort a mission because one J-10 has no more MRAAM left. They have plenty of planes.

tp,

i hope this won't turn into a "i know more than you do" thing, because i'm sure everyone here knows something different and there's always something that you know and i don't and vice versa.

tphuang said:

we have definitely seen pictures of racks that hold multiple AAMs

Click to expand...

i guess you've seen more than i have then. would be nice if you can post a link though, or at least tell us on which aircraft these were installed?

you don't think PLAAF has figured out how many missiles it needs from all the exercises that it has done, that you would know better?

Click to expand...

well, if we're talking about experience in air-to-air combat with missiles, no air force can beat the US. the standard A-A loadout for the F-16, which the J-10 is designed to match, is 6 AAMs + 2 ext. tanks + 1 ECM pod. the F-15 has 8 AAMs + 2 tanks; F-14, 8 AAMs + 2 tanks; F-18, usually 8 AAMs + 2 tanks with a max. of 12 AAMs.

In any of the war scenario I can think of, PLAAF will have numerical advantage, but not quantitative advantage. So, your example of Vietnam and America doesn't apply

Click to expand...

in the case of taiwan, keep in mind that not all of the PLAAF's 500 or so Su-27/J-11, Su-30, J-10, and J-8II can be deployed in the theatre at once -- which means that when it comes to BVR-engagement-capable aircraft, the PLAAF would barely have numerical superiority against taiwan's 330, and at a disadvantage if the US decides to get involved. and don't forget that in vietnam, the US enjoyed BOTH numeric and qualitative advantage. and US strike packages still get intercepted by MiGs quite often.

J-10's aerodynamic profile is optimized to fly a certain configurations. And as we have seen, that configuration is 3 external fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B. This is the configuration that offers the best compromise in terms of range and maneuverability. They can always go with the 1 external fuel tank + 4 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B combination if they think more MRAAM is needed. Let's put it this way, we have never even seen a picture of J-11B with more than 4 PL-12. They are not going to abort a mission because one J-10 has no more MRAAM left. They have plenty of planes.

Click to expand...

i guess it comes down to doctrine, but at least we can agree that 4 MRAAMs is better than 2, right?

Having more AAMs give you the advantage of redundancy because AAMs are not going to be 100% kill each time you fire them. Thus its actually a policy to fire at least two AAMs per target, the second one a few seconds after the other. If you have to engage two or more targets, then its targets x two for the required AAMs.

But do remember you do take a performance hit with the more missiles and fuel tanks you carry.

What you see in peacetime layouts don't reflect on wartime layouts. An AAMs can only go up a limited number of times and come home. Each time it is subjected to flight stress, its "quality" is compromised. Pictures that show fighters with full AAM layouts are merely for show and advertisement in order to illustrate the full capability. But in peacetim practice you try to avoid carrying live AAMs in order to preserve them for wartime use.

In theory the J-10 can possibly hold a BVRAAM on the outer wing tip, but you always need to have two short ranged AAMs in case of a dogfight. The PL-8/Python 3 is not a small missile for a SRAAM and any pylon that can hold that can hold a MRAAM.

If you double racked the middle and inner pylons, you can hold 8 MRAAMs, then put ECM pods on the points near the intake.