J-10 Thread IV

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
My reply was to:-
"Weapon payload is a big drawback on J10, do you guys think J10CP getting any improvement on the hardpoint?
It would be nice to have the inner drop tank hardpoint to have weapon capacity."

It was poorly phrased, but I believe what minime was suggesting was whether J-10CP would have a hardpoint that would allow carriage of the external fuel tank and weapons -- i.e.: not having to give up fuel tank capacity for the sake of carrying weapons.
I.e.: something similar to what the F-15 has.


The answer, in that case, would be no -- no such system is in development to our knowledge.


8kUYaQt.png
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I would like to see J-10 have wingtip weapon stations one day.

They are not going to crop the delta just for two more pylons for PL-10s (or whatever SRAAMs). This would require re-engineering the FCS and the entire manufacturing line for the wings.

What is this fascination for carrying as much as an aircraft can take off with?

J-10 has about the same payload capability as F-16. They both feature similar performance engines. The F-16 is slightly smaller and lighter but as an F-16 is armed to the brim, it cannot fly anywhere near as well, anywhere near as far, anywhere near as long, and will impart much less energy on its weapons, compared to the same F-16 loaded optimally

There is an optimal payload configuration for each fighter (plus propulsion) and for something like the J-10/F-16 size with a F110/ WS-10B level engine, the optimal payload level is where the J-10 has it, NOT where a marketing driven F-16 photo-op has it.

An F-16 carrying 4 more MRAAMs than a J-10C is going to waste an extra four MRAAMs.

Noobs everywhere talking about payload levels without even the most rudimentary understanding of basic high school physics.

The J-10's aerodynamics are no lesser than F-16's. Delta canard has better high altitude high speed instantaneous (generally) while F-16 would have superior sustained rates. Similar lift and drag ratios for both overall ... being competent heavy thrust 4th gen designs and all etc etc.

J-10 can carry like crazy if they wanted to. It would just be a stupid risk and stupid waste. How noobies around the internet still don't get this, can only conclude there are many children talking about military topics, all about being armed to the teeth like in their video games.

The maths and science illiteracy among humans is... disappointing. I mean to even have these conversations on payload where the answers to why are very clear and obvious.

Weapons are expensive. Not using them properly means wasting them. Carrying more just to waste is one way to lose a battle/war. Having the option to use the inner pylons for missiles though is another matter. Can only say CAC and PLAAF didn't even think it necessary to equip those inner pylons with A2A missile capability (unless they rejig the electrics allegedly which simply takes too long to not be worth it). PLAAF has determined the J-10's best A2A loadout considering its level of energy and propulsion to be three tanks + 4 MRAAMs, + 2 SRAAMs. An F-16's optimal loadout for A2A would be not too different. At most another 2 MRAAMs since its pylons are wired to allow. Tanks quipped depend on mission profile, ranges, support, tankers etc. J-10 can missile up those pylons for wing mounted tanks if missile profile shifts the calculus of what's optimal.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
A light weight to medium weight fighter armed to the brim wouldn't be able to do 10 laps of the airfield it took off from. Drop tanks are used by everyone for a reason. If you want range without drop tanks (for 4th gens) look at Flankers and consider the volume difference. Combat range with weapons is notoriously low for fighters like Mig-29. F-16 benefits from having a better engine and being lighter but to carry around weapons with any realistic mission, it would need three drop tanks. Carrying more missiles just means wasting the first few you fire off before dropping those tanks away. At these typical ranges, the missiles fired just have such low energy you may as well not carry them up there in the first place only to waste.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Actually the tendency has been to modify those fighters to carry more fuel. Recent versions of the F-16 typically come with conformal fuel tanks. The MiG-29M now has an extra fuel tank behind the pilot to increase the range too.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
They are not going to crop the delta just for two more pylons for PL-10s (or whatever SRAAMs). This would require re-engineering the FCS and the entire manufacturing line for the wings.

What is this fascination for carrying as much as an aircraft can take off with?

J-10 has about the same payload capability as F-16. They both feature similar performance engines. The F-16 is slightly smaller and lighter but as an F-16 is armed to the brim, it cannot fly anywhere near as well, anywhere near as far, anywhere near as long, and will impart much less energy on its weapons, compared to the same F-16 loaded optimally

There is an optimal payload configuration for each fighter (plus propulsion) and for something like the J-10/F-16 size with a F110/ WS-10B level engine, the optimal payload level is where the J-10 has it, NOT where a marketing driven F-16 photo-op has it.

An F-16 carrying 4 more MRAAMs than a J-10C is going to waste an extra four MRAAMs.

Noobs everywhere talking about payload levels without even the most rudimentary understanding of basic high school physics.

The J-10's aerodynamics are no lesser than F-16's. Delta canard has better high altitude high speed instantaneous (generally) while F-16 would have superior sustained rates. Similar lift and drag ratios for both overall ... being competent heavy thrust 4th gen designs and all etc etc.

J-10 can carry like crazy if they wanted to. It would just be a stupid risk and stupid waste. How noobies around the internet still don't get this, can only conclude there are many children talking about military topics, all about being armed to the teeth like in their video games.

The maths and science illiteracy among humans is... disappointing. I mean to even have these conversations on payload where the answers to why are very clear and obvious.

Weapons are expensive. Not using them properly means wasting them. Carrying more just to waste is one way to lose a battle/war. Having the option to use the inner pylons for missiles though is another matter. Can only say CAC and PLAAF didn't even think it necessary to equip those inner pylons with A2A missile capability (unless they rejig the electrics allegedly which simply takes too long to not be worth it). PLAAF has determined the J-10's best A2A loadout considering its level of energy and propulsion to be three tanks + 4 MRAAMs, + 2 SRAAMs. An F-16's optimal loadout for A2A would be not too different. At most another 2 MRAAMs since its pylons are wired to allow. Tanks quipped depend on mission profile, ranges, support, tankers etc. J-10 can missile up those pylons for wing mounted tanks if missile profile shifts the calculus of what's optimal.
In any case, some fanboy extreme load could mean dropping weapons before landing... If a fighter have time to shoot 4 mraam and 2 sraam in combat, he's in a big mess or have total air superiority and shooting an-2 for fun.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
The way I heard it is to put weapons in the inner most pylons requires disassembly of panels on top of the wings to get to the electrical connections. So it's possible but a pain in the ass and not worth the bother in peace time. In peace times PLAAF just leave the drop tanks on those pylons.
In wartime too, probably - it's only ~3.9t of fuel(for a lot of weight/drag) this way.
It's great for an intercept (scramble from the ground) with minimal drag(2 PL-15+2PL-10, for example), but probably not for much else.
 
Last edited:

minime

Junior Member
Registered Member
Found something interesting.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to this article, for the inner pylon, it's too much of a hassle to switch back&forth between AGM and fuel tank.
It's not designed to carry AAM due to the lack of sufficient electrical interface(AGM ok) for the launcher & smoke inhale risk to the engine.
 

Attachments

  • c5LR-hfvkitw7592256.jpg
    c5LR-hfvkitw7592256.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 26
  • 8yAg-hfvkitw7591706.jpg
    8yAg-hfvkitw7591706.jpg
    11.6 KB · Views: 26
Top