J-10 Thread IV

[Iron Man]

Well you have to admit this all depends on how one considers "undue burden". I'm saying it is a burden and it is up to you to prove otherwise. How much of a burden I've already admitted I do not know but based on the fact that few airforces bother with even existing max storage let alone expanding number of storage points, it goes to show that this so called undue burden is quite a consideration. Don't tell others to stop when you haven't shown how they are wrong. Especially on a public forum where none of us can be described as experts in the field.

Can a J-10 take the drag and weight penalty for an air to air mission by carrying the load you described earlier which takes it to about half its max take off weight? That depends on the details. Of course it'll fly and try to do its job but the entire calculus changes with every extra kilogram it carries. It's not some discrete binary issue where beyond a certain point, it either can or cannot. Where they decide the acceptable limits lie is a mystery to us but no doubt that curve is a continuum. And certainly at some range/point, it makes little sense for most missions and adding two or more pylons for deploying more missiles is just not going to be worth the effort to implement.

ROFLMAO how in the holy hell is it up to ME to prove your baseless speculation? Is it not up to YOU to prove that it is a "burden", whatever the hell you mean by that? You are actually saying nothing at all here, just throwing up a bunch of smoke while admitting you have no numbers, no knowledge of aerodynamics, no nothing, to back up your claims, which are so nebulous as to lack any kind of substance.

Here's what happened: I asked why didn't PLAAF didn't develop a triple pylon, then I laid out a theoretical maximum J-10 air-to-air loadout using triple pylons, then you chimed in because you thought it would be too heavy (but you didn't actually work the math out before you posted), then I worked the math out for you, then you started your slipping and sliding spindoctoring because you realized it wasn't actually that heavy but you didn't want to be perceived as wrong, then I asked you to just stop this silliness, and now here you are trying to split hairs between "burden" and "undue burden".

 

[ougoah]

ROFLMAO how in the holy hell is it up to ME to prove your baseless speculation? Is it not up to YOU to prove that it is a "burden", whatever the hell you mean by that? You are actually saying nothing at all here, just throwing up a bunch of smoke while admitting you have no numbers, no knowledge of aerodynamics, no nothing, to back up your claims, which are so nebulous as to lack any kind of substance.

Here's what happened: I asked why didn't PLAAF didn't develop a triple pylon, then I laid out a theoretical maximum J-10 air-to-air loadout using triple pylons, then you chimed in because you thought it would be too heavy (but you didn't actually work the math out before you posted), then I worked the math out for you, then you started your slipping and sliding spindoctoring because you realized it wasn't actually that heavy but you didn't want to be perceived as wrong, then I asked you to just stop this silliness, and now here you are trying to split hairs between "burden" and "undue burden".

Bravo... your "maths" proved it very convincingly

 

[azretonov]

Fuel economy would be the most likely reason, I believe. A more fitting comparison could be with F-16V and only recently, did Lockheed Martin introduced a triple-rails missile pylon on a conceptual CGI for their newest F-16V Block 70/72, which was prepared for the Indian bid. Block 70/72 employs GE Aviation F110 / P&W F100 respectively on customer's choice. Both engines (no bias) are quite well known for their technical advantages, reliability and efficiency. So, I don't see much to dig in here as long as we're unfamiliar with J-10's pre-flight planning.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I fail to see how this would somehow make a huge dent in the J-10's range or maneuverability.

Well, for starters, unduced drag is not the only form of drag.
Thus yes, such a load will absolutely kill all the specs possible.

Most of those overloaded missile trucks(not all) are more of demonstrations of capability(or magnetos for easy gulf dollars). Yes, you can do it. No, it's largerly pointless to do so, especially on lighter fighters.

P.s. to my knowledge, there is only 1 type of a mission, where such missile trucks are really needed. It's LACM intercept.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well, for starters, unduced drag is not the only form of drag.
Thus yes, such a load will absolutely kill all the specs possible.

Most of those overloaded missile trucks(not all) are more of demonstrations of capability(or magnetos for easy gulf dollars). Yes, you can do it. No, it's largerly pointless to do so, especially on lighter fighters.

P.s. to my knowledge, there is only 1 type of a mission, where such missile trucks are really needed. It's LACM intercept.

That's right, and while its NOT Iron Man's job to prove Ougoah wrong, Ougoah is obviously right here, loading any aircraft up with a full load of external ordinance and fuel will make ANY aircraft a PIG! That's just life! when an airplane is at max gross, (Iron Man's fantasy load-out would put it "over gross"), aircraft maneuverability goes in the "krapper", and yes fuel consumption goes way up as the engines will of necessity be operated at much higher power settings, number one to just get off the ground, also climb and service ceiling suffer greatly!

All aircraft suffer at max gross, and drag goes way up with external stores, and maneuverability and G limits suffer the most.

 

[by78]

Re-posting a lost image.

(2000 × 1333)

 

[Iron Man]

Well, for starters, unduced drag is not the only form of drag.
Thus yes, such a load will absolutely kill all the specs possible.

Most of those overloaded missile trucks(not all) are more of demonstrations of capability(or magnetos for easy gulf dollars). Yes, you can do it. No, it's largerly pointless to do so, especially on lighter fighters.

P.s. to my knowledge, there is only 1 type of a mission, where such missile trucks are really needed. It's LACM intercept.

That's right, and while its NOT Iron Man's job to prove Ougoah wrong, Ougoah is obviously right here, loading any aircraft up with a full load of external ordinance and fuel will make ANY aircraft a PIG! That's just life! when an airplane is at max gross, (Iron Man's fantasy load-out would put it "over gross"), aircraft maneuverability goes in the "krapper", and yes fuel consumption goes way up as the engines will of necessity be operated at much higher power settings, number one to just get off the ground, also climb and service ceiling suffer greatly!

All aircraft suffer at max gross, and drag goes way up with external stores, and maneuverability and G limits suffer the most.

What is J-10's "max gross", do you even know? Is it one-half of its external stores capacity? One-third? Whatever number makes it convenient to make the argument that its specs will be "killed" with such a load? Do you even know that this theoretical loadout will kill any specs, and how would you even demonstrate this to us? I'm all ears.

 

[ougoah]

Well since there is no way for us to quantify at what payload weight ranges the J-10's performance starts to "degrade" where the specs are "killed". We can just leave this to a failure to understand what each other mean when we use these non-specific terms. All I am trying to suggest is that there definitely is some payload combo that makes the PLAAF consider it not worthy of strapping a few more pylons to a fighter that doesn't have a clear thrust to weight advantage over other 4th generation fighters, single or twin engined. So to answer the question of why don't more airforces consider doing what the F-15 is doing wrt extra pylons, there is this consideration.

If there was room for extra pylons and they can afford the extra weight and drag penalties on performance, then why on earth would an airforce completely avoid adding more pylons? It's definitely always better to have the ability and option to fire a greater number ordinance than you could otherwise. So what possible restrictions may exist here? Correct only the two; space availability and performance penalty.

 

[Iron Man]

Well since there is no way for us to quantify at what payload weight ranges the J-10's performance starts to "degrade" where the specs are "killed". We can just leave this to a failure to understand what each other mean when we use these non-specific terms. All I am trying to suggest is that there definitely is some payload combo that makes the PLAAF consider it not worthy of strapping a few more pylons to a fighter that doesn't have a clear thrust to weight advantage over other 4th generation fighters, single or twin engined. So to answer the question of why don't more airforces consider doing what the F-15 is doing wrt extra pylons, there is this consideration.

If there was room for extra pylons and they can afford the extra weight and drag penalties on performance, then why on earth would an airforce completely avoid adding more pylons? It's definitely always better to have the ability and option to fire a greater number ordinance than you could otherwise. So what possible restrictions may exist here? Correct only the two; space availability and performance penalty.

You could also ask why Boeing didn't develop its quadruple AMBER rack until now. I also find the excuse that such devices only serve to stroke the peni- I mean egos of ME generals to be a facile argument, insulting the intelligences of generals in those countries and lacking any actual weight of evidence.

 

[Gloire_bb]

p.s. sorry

What is J-10's "max gross", do you even know? Is it one-half of its external stores capacity? One-third? Whatever number makes it convenient to make the argument that its specs will be "killed" with such a load? Do you even know that this theoretical loadout will kill any specs, and how would you even demonstrate this to us? I'm all ears.

Don't get agitated.
Just for example, F-16(same class with J-10) has very notable maneuvering restrictions simply from uneven load of AMRAAMs(i.e. after firing one). and that's single amraams.
And here you want to have a flying rocket hedgehog.

Next, while i saw no open intercept/air superiority flight profiles for J-10, there are such documents for many other 4th gen fighters.
Just for example, look at the loads(and here example is somewhat larger twin-engine fighter).

Spoiler

Spoiler