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.
Actually, if we look at the hardpoints for the F-16, they look like this:
So basically 250lbs at the wingtips and outer hardpoints, 2,500lbs at the middle hardpoints, 3,500lbs at the inner hardpoints, and 2,200lbs at the centerline hardpoint. Converted into kg it would be ~110kg, 1,100kg, 1,600kg, and 1,000kg. Dividing J-10's hardpoints and 7,000kg external stores capacity would result in something like 200kg (outer), 1,200kg (middle), 1,600kg (inner), and 1,000kg (centerline). You can already see that the middle hardpoint could easily load an ASCM like the YJ-83 (700kg?) and the inner hardpoint could easily load another YJ-83 (or even a 1,000kg LGB) along with 2 PL-15s in triple racks.
With a current 4 LGB or 4 ASCM loadout or 2 LGB/ASCM + 2 drop tanks (3 total), the J-10 would have no ability to defend itself from an enemy fighter attack except with 2 short-ranged IR missiles. Even with just 2 LGBs or 2 ASCMs, the J-10 would have to make a tough choice between PL-15s or drop tanks. With triple racks however the J-10 could be assigned to hybrid CAP/strike or strike/CAP missions while carrying large amounts of ordinance and/or fuel, as it would be able to load 4 large pieces of ordinance/drop tanks AND simultaneously load 4 PL-15s on top of that (along with the 2 PL-10s and centerline 480L drop tank, both of which are essentially constants). As I implied originally, a triple rack would in fact be a significant force multiplier and would in fact expand the scope of J-10's missions, though please don't put words in my mouth about "paradigm shifts", whatever you mean by that.
It is a position premised on “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. The question therefore revolves around whether the weapons loadout that is on the F-15 is necessarily suitable or even possible on the J-10. Given that performance data or details on the J-10 is rather limited, it would be impossible to conduct any technical assessment to make an objective determination. However, the science of aerodynamics and in particular drag coefficient is universal and we can make some reasonable judgement based on deductive reasoning.
A key set of data associated with drag coefficient is the drag index and the driver of the index is the wing area of a plane. In reality every store item and its associated drag index on a F-15 will be different to another plane that has a different wing area. For example, the wing area of a F-15 is 608 sq. ft but the J-10 has a wing area of 360 sq. ft. How significant is this of the relative drag of an identical store item? We cannot answer this directly given that we are comparing US and Chinese weapons. However, we can reasonably adopt a surrogate in the form of the F-16 as it has a wing area of 300 sg. ft and in the same class as the J-10.
You initially posited a loadout of “12 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders, and 3 drop tanks”. I will use this configuration to compare the drag index between the F-15 and the F-16.
.....
While the weight associated with the 12 AIM-120 is approximately similar between the F-15 and the F-16, the DI between the two is significantly different i.e. 116 vs. 22.8 and that is 5 times.
You clearly did not read my post closely. That 12 AMRAAM loadout was for the F-15, NOT the J-10. My very specific statement for the J-10 was 6 PL-15s, 2 PL-10s, and 3 drop tanks (2 800L and 1 480L), or 8 PL-15s, 2 PL-10s, and 1 drop tank (480L).
It does otherwise it would be backwards compatible. Missiles need a link to the host planes electronics. This is why the Amber racks only appeared after earthed modifications to the wing set.
I would have assumed you would google AMBER before trying to be firm on your claims:
The Multiple Advanced Missile and Bomb Ejection Rack (AMBER) Carriage System which divides an existing standard electrical/mechanical interface at an aircraft pylon for communication with multiple AA or AG store types utilizing on-board carriage avionics. This requires no physical mechanical or electrical modification/retrofit to existing aircraft interfaces. Additionally, the Multiple AMBER Carriage System is configurable to accommodate multiple AA or AG stores utilizing a common carriage structure and ejector racks. Larger stores may require forward and aft staggering of the ejector racks which the Multiple AMBER Carriage System can accommodate.
AMBER carriage system eliminates the requirement for multiple non-UAI wiring harnesses and provides increased flexibility in stores mounting to the aircraft pylon is provided with electrical power and signal connections from the aircraft central computer. A power connection and signal connection are provided through the pylon. A second power connection a and second signal connection are provided through the pylon to the AG BRU. A carriage for the multiple AMBER carriage system mechanically interfaces with the AG BRU on the pylon thereby allowing retrofit of an aircraft for carrying a plurality of air to air (AA) and air to ground (AG) stores without substantial structural modification or addition of power and data wiring to the aircraft. The carriage may carry AMBER ejectors for either AA stores or AG stores. Alternatively, the carriage may carry AA LAUs for AA stores compatible with the existing aircraft wiring. Finally, the carriage may carry AA stores or AG stores which are compatible with direct connection through the AG BRU with AG ejectors.
From
