J-10 Thread IV

[manqiangrexue]

You don’t waste a live missile to simulate a miss.

We need to remember that these are entertainment programmes first and foremost, so often editors will splice in unrelated footage just to spice things up a little or to make up the numbers if they didn’t get enough/any actual footage from the event they are reporting on.

So if there was no live missile fired (which there should not be), then what was the PL-10 miss about? A simulated miss by computer calculation?

 

[Blitzo]

So if there was no live missile fired (which there should not be), then what was the PL-10 miss about? A simulated miss by computer calculation?

This post:

J-10 Thread IV

At 1:47, the landing angle seems a bit too steep and i think the J-10's rear touched the runway a bit. Looks about right when comparing it to this. The high frontal perspective of where the video footage was taken would also make it seem as though the nose was pitched higher than it actually is...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

 

[lcloo]

I watched the video twice, I didn't see any missile being fired. The simulation was all electronic, including line of fire displayed on the HUD. That line of fire that shot down the J16 shown on J10C HUD was gun fire, not missile flight path. There is no question that any missile was fired and missed.

 

[plawolf]

So if there was no live missile fired (which there should not be), then what was the PL-10 miss about? A simulated miss by computer calculation?

Most likely it’s not saying the PL10 missed, but rather that you haven’t got any more PL10s left. The system could easily be programmed to automatically default to gun track mode once you are out of short range missiles. That both saves precious time for the pilot, and also gives him an unmissable visual/audio cue that he is out of missiles and down to guns so you can adjust tactics accordingly. As in the heat of the moment, it’s entirely possible for a pilot to miss more subtle cues about him being out of missiles. That may be why the PL10 selection is still showing on the HUD even though the system is clearly in gun track mode.

That would also imply that there were simulated PL10 shots that missed. Although that should not necessarily be taken as any indication of the performance of the missile itself, since the PLAAF have been known to deliberately tune down the efficacy of weapons in training to force pilots to get used to being able to transition straight into backup plans rather than get used to a guaranteed kill as soon as they shoot a missile. That’s also why PLAAF DACT end up in dogfights so often.

 

[crash8pilot]

That would also imply that there were simulated PL10 shots that missed. Although that should not necessarily be taken as any indication of the performance of the missile itself, since the PLAAF have been known to deliberately tune down the efficacy of weapons in training to force pilots to get used to being able to transition straight into backup plans rather than get used to a guaranteed kill as soon as they shoot a missile. That’s also why PLAAF DACT end up in dogfights so often.

With the modern day Fox-2 missiles (regardless of NATO or Chinese) having high off-boresight capabilities, it doesn't take much "skill" to maneuver for the kill, especially with helmet mounted cueing - the nose doesn't necessarily have to be pointed at the bandit to maximize the probability of a kill. That's why fighter pilots (regardless of American/NATO and PLA) train for the gunfight during BFM drills because it actually takes skill and a bit of luck to maneuver the nose to get a guns track kill, while also learning to maximize the performance and limitations of their respective platforms should they ever end up in the visual merge. The line of thinking being that if one can kill someone with the gun at close range, he/she should be more than capable of getting the kill in a Fox-2 fight.

 

[PiSigma]

Does this explains why when I was a kid all the Air China flights seemed to have super rough landings?

Rough landing and fast takeoffs. Ex military pilots always takeoff at a higher angle on Chinese flights. Even with retraining, some habits are hard to break. Civil pilots definitely flys a bit more comfortably. But the ex military pilots definitely respond to emergencies better. The pilot that was flying the Chengdu airlines 737 with the broken windshield was a ex PLAAF pilot.

 

[latenlazy]

Rough landing and fast takeoffs. Ex military pilots always takeoff at a higher angle on Chinese flights. Even with retraining, some habits are hard to break. Civil pilots definitely flys a bit more comfortably. But the ex military pilots definitely respond to emergencies better. The pilot that was flying the Chengdu airlines 737 with the broken windshield was a ex PLAAF pilot.

Now that you mention it I remember the super high angles too. You could feel the Gs in Air China take offs, and the rate of climb caused my ears to congest and pop really badly. Hated that lol

 

[silentlurker]

Rough landing and fast takeoffs. Ex military pilots always takeoff at a higher angle on Chinese flights. Even with retraining, some habits are hard to break. Civil pilots definitely flys a bit more comfortably. But the ex military pilots definitely respond to emergencies better. The pilot that was flying the Chengdu airlines 737 with the broken windshield was a ex PLAAF pilot.

Absolutely, compare the Cockpit recordings of ex-airforce pilots vs civilian pilots in accidents. Civilian pilots simply don't have as much training dealing with high-stress situations.

 

[crash8pilot]

Absolutely, compare the Cockpit recordings of ex-airforce pilots vs civilian pilots in accidents. Civilian pilots simply don't have as much training dealing with high-stress situations.

As a civilian pilot I disagree, commercial line flying is a completely different thing. We deal with non-normals and emergencies differently, especially compared to the single-seat fast jet mentality. One of my former instructors would say, flying is more than stick and rudder skills because if it is planes would be flown by monkeys. Case and point there were twelve of us on my assessment day for a certain major European airline, two of them ex-military (one was 2IC of an A330 MRTT squadron, the other was a Eurofighter pilot... basically more stick and rudder skills than I'll ever have). Only two of us that day passed and got the job... and the two ex-military guys didn't make the cut. In any case any landing you walk away from is a good landing in my books, much rather someone who lands firm in the touchdown zone over someone floating halfway down the runway to get that greaser of a landing.

Either way we're really getting off the topic thread, lets stick with discussing the J-10 before the mods get on our case

 

[A.Man]

Naval J-10 new top gun training video: