Ideal PLAAF Modifications

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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.




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?
check the JF-17 thread


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.
take a look at this,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

check at what the loads were when the combat radius were measured. Does that look like 6 or 8 AAMs to you?
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-7s will be deployed too. And they are going to destroy enough air fields that Taiwan would not be able to use all of those 330 planes.


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

panzerkom

Junior Member
check the JF-17 thread

okay, i might've missed something since i just browse thru quickly, but there's no picture with twin rail launchers for AAMs, there is, however, a picture on pg.21 of a rack for two bombs.


take a look at this,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

check at what the loads were when the combat radius were measured. Does that look like 6 or 8 AAMs to you?

the data on fas.org seems kinda outdated, those seem to be the config they used for testing instead of actual combat loadouts. just look this: "340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks" -- have you ever seen a viper in that config?

it is true that USAF F-16s often flew with only 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders even for combat CAP missions in Iraq and Serbia, but that's because the opfor had been so weak. during the latter half of desert storm, USAF vipers often flew with only 2 sidewinders on their wingtips, which was not considered "safe" before then.

before they got the AMRAAMs, taiwan's F-16s' typical A-A loadout was 4 sidewinders + 2 sparrows; now, it's more like 2 AMRAAMs + 2 sidewinders + 2 sparrows as pictured here on this ADF model.

aa_stores.jpg
 

PrOeLiTeZ

Junior Member
Registered Member
okay, i might've missed something since i just browse thru quickly, but there's no picture with twin rail launchers for AAMs, there is, however, a picture on pg.21 of a rack for two bombs.




the data on fas.org seems kinda outdated, those seem to be the config they used for testing instead of actual combat loadouts. just look this: "340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks" -- have you ever seen a viper in that config?

it is true that USAF F-16s often flew with only 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders even for combat CAP missions in Iraq and Serbia, but that's because the opfor had been so weak. during the latter half of desert storm, USAF vipers often flew with only 2 sidewinders on their wingtips, which was not considered "safe" before then.

before they got the AMRAAMs, taiwan's F-16s' typical A-A loadout was 4 sidewinders + 2 sparrows; now, it's more like 2 AMRAAMs + 2 sidewinders + 2 sparrows as pictured here on this ADF model.

[qimg]http://panzerkom.googlepages.com/aa_stores.jpg[/qimg]
Probably pictures on net gets you sidetracked on how many BVRAAM J-10 load out can take. China isn't currently in any threat or engaged in war right now so their is no use everytime a J-10 is in the air to pack it full with AAM.

Mostly J-10 in flight training is equipped with fake AAM, to simulate a live AAM being attached to it. Fake AAM has replicated weight as the real AAM but just without the explosive, engine and guidance so pratically a dead AAM.

Misconception is that really full load out for J-10 is 6+BVRAAM but the missles as average of 100 flight hours, so it'll be very expensive to equip the J-10 with live AAM everytime you do flight training. In war time scenario or when they feel threaten they will then equip them with live AAM's.

Question to you guys is that J-10 and F-16 are in "simular" weight class but then why does F-16 have a bigger payload than J-10? Shouldn't it be at least equivalent?
 

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Why are you talking about CAP? There I would agree with Tphuang, but if you are talking about air superiority or covering for strike planes during an offensive, you can expect a lot of enemy planes.

Good point, the J-7 could really use a bubble/mostly-bubble canopy. The fighter is nothing but a dogfighter and eye vision is very important here.
 

King_Comm

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Question to you guys is that J-10 and F-16 are in "simular" weight class but then why does F-16 have a bigger payload than J-10? Shouldn't it be at least equivalent?
==Delta wings of J-10 give it much higher take off and landing speed than F-16, so it's not safe to carry too much.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
okay, i might've missed something since i just browse thru quickly, but there's no picture with twin rail launchers for AAMs, there is, however, a picture on pg.21 of a rack for two bombs.

the data on fas.org seems kinda outdated, those seem to be the config they used for testing instead of actual combat loadouts. just look this: "340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks" -- have you ever seen a viper in that config?

it is true that USAF F-16s often flew with only 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders even for combat CAP missions in Iraq and Serbia, but that's because the opfor had been so weak. during the latter half of desert storm, USAF vipers often flew with only 2 sidewinders on their wingtips, which was not considered "safe" before then.

before they got the AMRAAMs, taiwan's F-16s' typical A-A loadout was 4 sidewinders + 2 sparrows; now, it's more like 2 AMRAAMs + 2 sidewinders + 2 sparrows as pictured here on this ADF model.

[qimg]http://panzerkom.googlepages.com/aa_stores.jpg[/qimg]
well, the Taiwanese actually have an issue where they are encountering a numerically stronger fleet of mostly J-7s, so it would actually make sense for them to do so. And it also would not sacrifice range if they did it this way.

I listed fas for f-16/f-18, because those ranges are measured for those missions specifically. So in those missions, F-16/18 are expected to carry that kind of load.
 

panzerkom

Junior Member
Why are you talking about CAP? There I would agree with Tphuang, but if you are talking about air superiority or covering for strike planes during an offensive, you can expect a lot of enemy planes.


actually, my original post talked about both CAP and escort missions. but even when flying CAP missions, whether BARCAP or TARCAP, where you are expected to loiter over an area for an hour or two, it is conceivable that multiple groups of enemy fighters will come in to contest the local air superiority.

also, when it comes to the point of whether CAS and strike packages would abort when no one is flying CAP, think about it this way, if you were a J-7 or Q-5 or even JH-7A pilot flying a plane laden with bombs, and your RWR is showing that an F-16 has a lock on you dead ahead, are you going to fly right into him?

Perhaps, the words of a former USAF pilot describe this situation the best:
The Silver Dawn and BigEye missions ( [note by panzerkom]CAP and AWACS, respectively) were considered important enough by higher-headquarters so that if there was no CAP available, other missions over North Viet Nam were cancelled. Aircrews tasked for these MIG CAP missions quickly learned that it was prudent to carry along food and drink, and "piddle packs."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Question to you guys is that J-10 and F-16 are in "similar" weight class but then why does F-16 have a bigger payload than J-10? Shouldn't it be at least equivalent?

The F-16 has already went through almost 3 decades' worth of upgrades. The max weapons load, fuel capacity, and operational range of the late-model F-16's cannot be compared fairly to the first generation J-10's.

As for actual combat load, I'd point to this example:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Flying in the air defense role, the F-16AMs at Amendola each carried four AMRAAMs, two external fuel tanks and a Northrop Grumman ALQ-131 ECM pod. In addition four of the eight aircraft also carried two Raytheon AGM-65G Maverick air-to-ground missiles each.

(This was an actual combat mission over Serbia, where the lead F-16 engaged and shot down a Serbian MiG-29).
 
Last edited:

panzerkom

Junior Member
we have definitely seen pictures of racks that hold multiple AAMs.

hey, i'm sold. sczepan just posted this pic on the jh-7a thread -- very impressive triple rail launcher. now if that could be cleared for stations # 2 and 10 on the J-10, i'd go on a 4 hour TARCAP mission in a J-10 any day of the week.

actually, if they can make that re-fueling probe retractable, i'd fly that mission twice on the weekend :D
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
hey, i'm sold. sczepan just posted this pic on the jh-7a thread -- very impressive triple rail launcher. now if that could be cleared for stations # 2 and 10 on the J-10, i'd go on a 4 hour TARCAP mission in a J-10 any day of the week.

actually, if they can make that re-fueling probe retractable, i'd fly that mission twice on the weekend :D

That's a space issue. These things aren't hard to develop. It's all about whether the original design accounted for this or not. The modified J-10 might see built in IRST + retractable IFR, since they are actually redesigning it.

As for wanting to see triple rail launcher on J-10, you are concerned with something that's really very trivial here. PLAAF has obviously determined what the best configuration for J-10 is. It has it's own doctrine and rule of engagement. There are far more areas that you can improve on that are more critical.
 
Top