Your image links don't work. Also, maneuverability issues due to weight imbalances aren't the same thing as maneuverability issues due to increased total weight. Maneuverability issues to aerodynamic imbalances are also not the same thing as maneuverability issues due to aerodynamic drag that is increased but balanced.p.s. sorry
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).
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
In the case of the AMBER racks it’s a matter of the wing and the wiring. Older F15 had a weaker structure. F15E was built for high performance at low level placing more stress on the aircraft demanding a stronger wing box. Changes in manufacturing over the decades eventually reached th point where there was enough internal space where they could add the extra wiring to mount on the racks.
The question then becomes one of structural engineering of the wings.
The question then becomes one of structural engineering of the wings.
I'm pretty sure one of the main selling points of AMBER is that it does NOT require extra wiring in the fighters' wings.
The J-10 has been designed from inception around a very specific weapon and fuel load. Most fighter aircraft are likely able to carry a full weapons load-out and full fuel at gross weight, but not all, there may need to be a reduction in either fuel or weapons to prevent an over gross condition. In practice most aircraft depart with sufficient fuel and weapons for the mission at hand, reducing weight increase aircraft performance and improves aircraft handling as demonstrated by the flight displays at the Paris Airshow or RIAT
Those flights are flown at a very light weight, and aircraft performance and margins go way up, fill that same aircraft with fuel and passengers and those maneuvers would not be possible or safe.
When we see the F-15 adding pylons and stacking weapons, we should recall that the F-15 was designed for an air superiority mission, and extremely high performance. As such the air frame and power plants were below max capacity, when the F-15 was retasked as multi role, an additional cockpit and weapons stations were added up to that extra capacity....
An E model will not perform nearly as well at the much lighter and more agile C model when its loaded to gross, but drop that load back to near the C's gross weight and that performance comes back.
The J-10 may well carry additional fuel or weapons as desired with design modifications, but unless lift and thrust are increased, performance and maneuverability will "drop off"....
This is like saying if you give me 25 lbs to carry instead of 20, I will slow down. Well, yes.
How much, though? This is the key issue that everyone responding is bumbling about with because everyone here knows that nobody on this forum can answer this question.
Here's this conversation so far:
If J-10 had a couple triple racks it could carry moar missiles.
Adding a triple rack will be too much!
How do you know?
Because adding more missiles = more weight and more drag!
Yes, but how much more?
Enough to not be worthwhile!
Are you sure?
Yes!
Prove it.
blablablablabla
I don't know if you guys can wrap your heads around the fact that I'm actually only talking about the added weight of 2 triple racks instead of 2 double racks and 2 extra PL-15s. That's maybe 350kg more, tops. The extra pilot and cockpit for a J-10S should already easily exceed this, and I don't see any of you guys dropping bricks about that.
Last edited:
No doubt the J-10S weight exceeds your proposal, and with that in mind the extra cockpit will move the center of gravity forward. I believe I stated that the second cockpit of the F-15 E does indeed impact performance and maneuverability.
the J-10 is also a smaller lighter single engine aircraft, so the additional weight will have a greater impact than it would on a larger heavier fighter aircraft.
So if the PLAAF adds a triple rack to the J-10, we will give you full credit for suggesting it? LOL
Guys think about what a J-10 is designed to do first.
What is the point of having triple racks on a maneuverable dogfighter? That’s like judging a sports car on how much baggage it can carry.
Most of China’s planes are “multirole” in the sense that they have good sensors and integration, which let them do precision strike. But the real mission in mind was never to lug a large amount of bombs. The air to air mission has always been prioritized, even on a “strike” fighter like J-16.
What is the point of having triple racks on a maneuverable dogfighter? That’s like judging a sports car on how much baggage it can carry.
Most of China’s planes are “multirole” in the sense that they have good sensors and integration, which let them do precision strike. But the real mission in mind was never to lug a large amount of bombs. The air to air mission has always been prioritized, even on a “strike” fighter like J-16.
We're talking PL-15s right now, so not sure what your point is.
But even if a J-10 is loaded with bombs, then by definition its mission wouldn't be air superiority in the first place. It's like you're saying the J-10 is designed for air superiority so let's just forget about any other missions the J-10 could be tasked to do. No let's not. The J-10 could fulfill a myriad of roles better with triple racks like interdiction, close air support, maritime strike, cruise missile defense, etc., none of which require significant maneuverability from the J-10. Triple racks would more easily permit hybrid missions, such as CAP after dropping your primary ordinance (e.g. strike/CAP or CAP/strike), be it an ASCM, LACM, LGB, etc. Many things open up with triple racks that are otherwise constrained in terms of the ways in which a J-10 could be used.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Let's not forget that triple ejector racks would need to distribute the max load of a hardpoint, and the J-10's weapons payload is significantly less than that of its Western contemporaries like the Typhoon, Rafale, or even later F-16 blocks. We can forget about the J-10 lugging cruise- or anti-ship missiles at this point. Even bombs would be limited to SDBs or 250/500-lb-class munitions in terms of weight.
So while Biscuits overlooked the advantages of carrying a larger # of AAMs or ARMs on a J-10, he is not entirely incorrect in saying that triple ejector racks won't significantly expand the scope of the J-10's mission nor will they cause a paradigm shift in the PLAAF's doctrine with respect to the aircraft.
Ugh it seems like that's an entirely different question. I was thinking adding another set of double or triple pylons or expanding existing pylons to go triple or quad launch. That's a lot more than 2 more PL-15s. Essentially letting the J-10 fly at max which will no doubt slow everything down. Maybe not slow it down enough to make much difference to performance, we don't know. Certainly it'll be better to have this than not.