J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[plawolf]

There is no reason the fuselage hard points cannot be used for AAMs.

We have seem plenty of pictures of all 4 loaded with bombs, so they can obviously take the load.

The front pair should easily have enough length to take two WVRAAMs, even big fat buggers like the PL8/9. They should even be able to take a pair of PL12s if a little of the missile protrudes in front of the intake. And before anyone say that will present airflow problems for the engines, just take a look at flankers with R27s under their intakes.

The rear fuselage ones are more questionable because of the placement of the air breaks. A PL12 could easily fit there, but the lower air breaks cannot be used when the PL12 is there. Still can be done, software could easily be written into the FBW system to disable the lower air brakes (and have other flight controls compensate for the uneven force when only the upper air brakes are deployed) when certain loads are carried on the rear fuselage hard points and just settle for slightly less breaking speed. It shouldn't be much of a problem since the BVR PL12s should be shot long before the air breaks need to be fully used. Once the missiles are gone, all the air breaks can be used as normal again.

But a J10 with 4 x PL12s on two dual racks, another 2 x PL12 on the front fuselage station, 2 x PL8s on the outboard station and you still have room for the customary 3 drop tanks. That is 6 x PL12s and 2 x PL8s, and 8 AAMs is the most the likes of the Rafale or Typhoon would typically carry on an operational mission anyways.

As for the landing gears, its not that CAC do not know how to put landing gears in the wings like the Typhoon for example, its because of the balance of the plane, and range.

If they designed the J10 with the landing gears retracting into the wings, the landing gears would need to be at least half a meter, if not a a meter or two further back than where it is now. That is going to seriously mess with the balance of the plane.

The wings are also much narrower than the fuselage, so if you retract the gears into the wing, they need to fold with wheels flush against the wing to fit instead of perpendicular as they do now. That is only to use up a huge amount of space in the wings that would normally be used for fuel. More so than the current arrangement, and that is going to cut down on range.

When you consider the J10 would have been designed for a Taiwan scenario, and when you look at how far the majority of PLAAF air bases are from Taiwan (just a hint, they are not all clustered along the coast, only a few small ones are) you start to appreciate why the PLAAF would place such a premium on the range of their fighters, and why the J10 is photographed with 3 drop tanks so often.

But as I have already shown before, the J10 as it is now is perfectly capable of carrying at least 2 PL12s on its fuselage hardpoints. 4 if they are willing to accept some temporary limitations in breaking speed when the rear hardpoints have missiles on, and that is how many extra missiles you can get with conformal carriage. The only benefit conformal carriage has over the current J10 would be reduced drag. But that is not really worth the loss in balance and range.

 

[johnqh]

As for the landing gears, its not that CAC do not know how to put landing gears in the wings like the Typhoon for example, its because of the balance of the plane, and range.

If they designed the J10 with the landing gears retracting into the wings, the landing gears would need to be at least half a meter, if not a a meter or two further back than where it is now. That is going to seriously mess with the balance of the plane.

...

When you consider the J10 would have been designed for a Taiwan scenario, and when you look at how far the majority of PLAAF air bases are from Taiwan (just a hint, they are not all clustered along the coast, only a few small ones are) you start to appreciate why the PLAAF would place such a premium on the range of their fighters, and why the J10 is photographed with 3 drop tanks so often.

...

Sorry, J-10's landing gears are almost exact copy of F-16's. All the issues you talk about can be fixed. Actually, folding into the wings make thing easier because the center of gravity changes less (than the current design).

And a good way is to add a bump similar to Grippen NT or F-35. The bump not only houses the landing gears, but also add internal fuel volume. It can easily replace the external fuel pods.

The issue is compromise. CAC paid a lot of attention to aerodynamic details. Note the area rule. The bumps would break the area rule and thus increase trans-sonic drag. AL-31F may not be powerful enough for CAC to feel comfortable about that.

BTW, you cannot carry short range missiles under the body because they require rails (instead of being ejected). SD-10/PL-12 are too long with the current landing gears.

Even 4 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 is not enough. F/A-18 can carry 8 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9 + 3 fuel pods. F-16 can carry 4 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9 + 3 fuel pods without using combo rails, same as Grippen with combo rails. No matter how you look at it, J-10's weapon carrying ability is weak.

On the other hand, if Chinese designers want to try underbody hard points for A2A missiles, they should first try on J-8II.

 

[Blitzo]

^ But how often do F-18s carry that kind of full load out?

Depending on whether the fuselage hardpoints can carry missiles, J-10 should be able to carry anywhere from ten missiles maximum with 3 fuel tanks or six missiles with 3 fuel tanks. Either way it should be enough for a combat scenario.

 

[johnqh]

^ But how often do F-18s carry that kind of full load out?

Depending on whether the fuselage hardpoints can carry missiles, J-10 should be able to carry anywhere from ten missiles maximum with 3 fuel tanks or six missiles with 3 fuel tanks. Either way it should be enough for a combat scenario.

Fuselage hardpoints cannot carry missiles. The two outside points can only carry two PL-8's. So we have four wing points left.

So, it may carry 10 missiles with one small center-line fuel pod, or 6 missiles with 3 fuel pods.

The biggest issue is when you use J-10 for striker role. Only four wing hardpoints can carry large weapons or fuel tanks. If you carry three fuel pods + two C-803, you can only have two PL-8 for defense. That's pretty weak. This severely limits the usefulness of J-10 as multi-role fighter.

 

[Blitzo]

Fuselage hardpoints cannot carry missiles. The two outside points can only carry two PL-8's. So we have four wing points left.

So, it may carry 10 missiles with one small center-line fuel pod, or 6 missiles with 3 fuel pods.

The biggest issue is when you use J-10 for striker role. Only four wing hardpoints can carry large weapons or fuel tanks. If you carry three fuel pods + two C-803, you can only have two PL-8 for defense. That's pretty weak. This severely limits the usefulness of J-10 as multi-role fighter.

I'm sorry but I'm not willing to call whether the fuselage points can carry missiles or not yet.

I don't think J-10 will carry C-803 or KD-88 type missiles for strike but rather smaller ones like LT-2/3, the FT series and LS-6 series of bombs which have types that can definitely go on the fuselage hard points. Firing C-803 and KD-88 and those type of weapons seems to be for JH-7/As.

And if J-10 was to carry C-803 or the like and they did want greater self defense (remember C-803/KD-88 are meant to be stand off weapons) they could always just ditch the two wing fuel tanks and go with the single one. Depending on the mission you compromise.

We've also seen air tunnel models of the plane with CFTs so in the future that will free up at least two pylons from external fuel tanks.

 

[johnqh]

I'm sorry but I'm not willing to call whether the fuselage points can carry missiles or not yet.

I don't think J-10 will carry C-803 or KD-88 type missiles for strike but rather smaller ones like LT-2/3, the FT series and LS-6 series of bombs which have types that can definitely go on the fuselage hard points. Firing C-803 and KD-88 and those type of weapons seems to be for JH-7/As.

And if J-10 was to carry C-803 or the like and they did want greater self defense (remember C-803/KD-88 are meant to be stand off weapons) they could always just ditch the two wing fuel tanks and go with the single one. Depending on the mission you compromise.

We've also seen air tunnel models of the plane with CFTs so in the future that will free up at least two pylons from external fuel tanks.

First, I didn't say it is not possible for whatever strike role you described.

However, in any role, the carrying ability is lacking. Take a look at Gripen NG. Look at the weapons it carries. J-10 can hardly keep up with Gripen NG.

Back to the fuselage points - no missiles! As I said, there aren't enough room for mid-range missiles (at least 4m is needed. J-10 has about 3m in front and behind the landing gear doors). Short-range missiles launch on rails and thus have to be on wing points.

 

[latenlazy]

First, I didn't say it is not possible for whatever strike role you described.

However, in any role, the carrying ability is lacking. Take a look at Gripen NG. Look at the weapons it carries. J-10 can hardly keep up with Gripen NG.

Back to the fuselage points - no missiles! As I said, there aren't enough room for mid-range missiles (at least 4m is needed. J-10 has about 3m in front and behind the landing gear doors). Short-range missiles launch on rails and thus have to be on wing points.

It's possible that the J-10 will be equipped with a more powerful engine in the future?

 

[johnqh]

It's possible that the J-10 will be equipped with a more powerful engine in the future?

Of course it can, and will.

We just don't know when ;-)

 

[Blitzo]

First, I didn't say it is not possible for whatever strike role you described.

I never said you did, but what I'm saying is the strike role you described will not be allocated to the J-10. I do not believe J-10 will be used for carrying large powered cruise missiles.

However, in any role, the carrying ability is lacking. Take a look at Gripen NG. Look at the weapons it carries. J-10 can hardly keep up with Gripen NG.

First, Gripen NG is still under development and is seeking foreign revenue for said development. You'd obviously put as much weapons on it as possible to make it look impressive. How practical it is, is another matter.
But if you want J-10 to match this...

Well okay then. J-10 can fit one targeting pod onto a forward fuselage station, check. It can fit two SRAAMs, one on each outboard wing station, check. With the PL-12 dual rack it can fit four MRAAMs, two on each middile wing station, check. Dual PGM rack -- well we haven't seen the existence of a dual rack for PGMs yet but we have seen dual racks for unguided bombs, and LS-6, LT-3, FT series missiles are all capable of being fitted in such a manner. So I'm going to check that off too, assuming there is a dual PGM rack in existence. The big problem is the carriage of two cruise missiles under the fuselage. We've seen no evidence of a dual cruise missile rack yet, so I will say that J-10 can only carry on cruise missile under the centerline station. That leaves a difference of one cruise missile.

With that loadout J-10 would carry one less cruise missile but would still have three additional fuselage stations free for either bombs or AAMs, depending on cleararnce.

Again I say that kind of loadout is not very useful and gives little time on station not to mention you're putting all those eggs (bombs and missiles) into one basket (aircraft). I'm not going to claim that PLAAF doctrine prefers to arm aircraft lightly -- we may be seeing only 10% of the photos. But I am going to say that a loadout like that Gripen NG is just for show.

Back to the fuselage points - no missiles! As I said, there aren't enough room for mid-range missiles (at least 4m is needed. J-10 has about 3m in front and behind the landing gear doors). Short-range missiles launch on rails and thus have to be on wing points.

Hmm PL-12 is under four meters long. Depending on how much clearance is needed, I think they should be able to fit them on the four smaller fusealge stations like so. Yes I know they require rails but depending on clearance there should be enough space, if not for MRAAMs then definitely for SRAAMs (maybe the future PL-10, as that has smaller diamter than current PL-8)

A mirage carrying missiles in a similar fashion to what I imagine. There's another better picture with fuel tanks and the like out there but I haven't found it yet.

J-10 should be capable of similar carriage on all fuselage stations apart from the one next to the gun. If those stations do not have the clearance to carry PL-12 then PL-8 should work. PL-10, with its much smaller diameter should definitely fit. The problem as I see it is that there is not a rack that has been designed for the fuselage yet. Whether this is due to structural strength or PLAAF doctrine or whatever is up in the air. But there's definitely the space for it.

 

[johnqh]

^
Gripen NG doesn't use combo rack for the underbody hard point. It actually have TWO hard points, each able to carry a large weapon(1t each?). There is no evidence that the J-10 underbody points (even the center one) can carry heavy weapons. The center line one can probably carry 500kg. There is no evidence that the other four can carry more than 250kg each.

And, Gripen is a 1/3 smaller and lighter than J-10. It is a JF-17 class fighter. Yet, J-10 cannot compare even if all your assumptions are true.

And again, let me repeat, PL-8 requires a rail. By which, I meant the rocket fires first, pushing the missile off. So PL-8 cannot fit under the body.

Mid-range missiles get ejected first before the rocket fires. The eject path has to avoid hitting any other external weapons/fuel pods. French style (Mirage 2000 and Rafale) have the racks sticking out, creating drag. British and US use conforming racks or have the missile half-buried to reduce drag.

Even with French style, one key is to align the front and rear missiles on a straight line. Due to the front landing gear and gun, J-10 will need the front missiles to be far apart. Yet due to the area rule, J-10's rear body is much narrower. In addition, the missile must be ejected straight down to avoid hitting the fuel pods. You will see this will be a very awkward arrangement.

Now, there is a modest design change to make it to work - move the gun to the side of the intake or the wing root. That would give room to place two front missiles closer next to the front landing gear, and two right behind them. The main landing gears may still need re-design to move out of the way.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Gripen is a better fighter than J-10. I am saying Chinese designs often place flight performance higher priority than weapons. As a air superiority fighter, J-10's current (4M+2S+3 fuel tanks) configuration is fine, and Chinese may want to stick to JH-7 and J-11 for striking role. However, if J-10 wants an export market, it is unavoidable that the customers want a true multi-role fighter. Then the weapon load and flexibility get much more important.