J-10 Thread IV

by78

by78

General
A very nice magazine scan of a J-10C, taken during an OPFOR exercise in the northwest.

50793013181_611edc97bb_k.jpg
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The J10 has intake pylons for pods.

The PLAAF has never really been obsessed with hanging as many missiles as possible on their planes. Even Chinese flankers are rarely seen carrying a full missile load.

Chinese pilots have pretty much always trained to fight opponents who are at a minimum equipped equivalently, and usually with better equipment. In those kinds of fights, you very rarely would get a chance to use anything like double digit missiles. So best case all those extra missiles carried is just a waste of fuel and worst case, the needless performance penalties from carrying so many missiles might turn out to the difference between life and death when the margins are already razor thin between opposing forces.
 
P

pesoleati

New Member
Registered Member
crash8pilot said:
EnkHjx0XUAEDrfs.jpg

Posted a couple months ago - chances are J-10Cs already have the ability to have four PL-15s using dual rack pylons on each wing. Center pylon most likely reserved exclusively for additional external fuel tank and/or targeting pods.
Click to expand...
the dual rack is not an ideal solution as they took up spot that can be used for land attach/Anti-ship weapons. The central fuel tank is small anyway and it can be replaced by making the other 2 fuel tanks larger (as on Mirage 2000). If they can do that, it allows J10 to carry 2 fuel tanks, 2-3 PL15, 2 PL10 and 2 large ground/ship attacking weapon without changing the air frame too much.
 
crash8pilot

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
pesoleati said:
the dual rack is not an ideal solution as they took up spot that can be used for land attach/Anti-ship weapons. The central fuel tank is small anyway and it can be replaced by making the other 2 fuel tanks larger (as on Mirage 2000). If they can do that, it allows J10 to carry 2 fuel tanks, 2-3 PL15, 2 PL10 and 2 large ground/ship attacking weapon without changing the air frame too much.
Click to expand...
Dual rack only takes up 1 pylon, so it doesn't take up any additional hardpoint. In addition the J-10 will most likely be rocking three external fuel tanks, much like the Rafale and Eurofighter (heck even the F-15s rocked up with 3 tanks in Southern Watch), to long range/duration operations.

Unlike other countries, the PLA has the luxury of not requiring one fighter to do every job. A fighter that does every job ends up being a jack of all trades but a master of none anyway. The J-10 is a capable air-to-air platform, but if the PLAAF needed to clear up the skies, chances are they'd send in the J-20 (dedicated air superiority fighter) and J-11 (larger missile loadout) instead of the J-10. As for strike, well the J-16 (a dedicated strike fighter that can hold a boat load of bombs and munition) and to a certain extent older JH-7s have a greater striking capability than the J-10.

As such the J-10 primarily serves as a multirole fighter to conduct counterair (basically air patrol), AEW/tanker/mobility escort, fighter sweep, a limited strike mission, and perhaps SEAD (lightweight airframe makes it ideal for dodging SAMs and AAA). That's why there isn't a need for the J-10 to have a truck load of BVR missiles. When the J-10 was designed as a lightweight fighter, more missiles and munitions would only add additional weight and drag, which takes away its advantage/selling point.

Counterair operations, no-fly zone enforcement, and escort loadout:
  • 2x PL-10
  • 4x PL-15
  • 3x External fuel tanks
Anti-ship or strike loadout:
  • 2x PL-10
  • 2x Precision guided bomb or 2x YJ-9
  • 3x External fuel tanks
  • Targeting pod
In other words, the J-10C still packs quite the punch and has very impressive capability. Why else do you think all the Pakistani fanboys have been crying for its procurement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top