J-10 Thread IV

[Mohsin77]

If you wanna have a missile truck, get a heavy fighter with dual-motors.

But if you try and turn a Porsche into a pickup truck, you're doing it wrong.

 

[FishWings]

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.

Agree with this +1. There is a limit to how much J-10 can be armed with for either A2A, which as you said, is the 4+2 combination (and similar limits for A2G, though arguably more lenient). Due to how it is relatively small, and that it often needs to lug around those 3x additional fuel tanks in order to get to the battle in the first place, it will never be the 'missile truck' that we all hope for it to become.

In this instance, the advantage of 'heavyweight' fighters become clear. While J-16s are rarely seen armed to the teeth any more than J-10s (that is, with 4x PL-15 and 2x PL-10), other similar planes such as Su-35S are often seen carrying up to 10x R-77 or various R-27, which are comparable to PL-15 in weight and dimensions. Of course, known J-16 hardpoints indicate it can carry up to 8x, or possibly 10x, PL-15 in addition to the 2x PL-10 if it is ever needed.

For this reason, 'heavyweight' fighters will continue to be relevant into (and possibly past) the fifth generation of fighters, to be used as flying arsenals if anything. as one of the greater weaknesses of fifth generation fighters is that the payload is limited by the dimensions of IWBs. With that, it is easy to imagine J-10, and in fact most 'lightweight' or even 'mediumweight' fighters, falling out of service in nations with large airspaces.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Agree with this +1. There is a limit to how much J-10 can be armed with for either A2A, which as you said, is the 4+2 combination (and similar limits for A2G, though arguably more lenient). Due to how it is relatively small, and that it often needs to lug around those 3x additional fuel tanks in order to get to the battle in the first place, it will never be the 'missile truck' that we all hope for it to become.

There is a way to interpret this in the opposite way (and, in fact, it's the former mainstream way).

The longer fighter stays within the engagement area - the more vulnerable it is, be it to enemy attack, counterattack, or ambush. Hence, the right way is a single attack under external guidance, at highest energy state possible, as fast as possible, as short as possible. After the attack, disengage ASAP.

J-10 is very suitable for this approach - with just enough missiles&single supersonic tank under centerline - it's sleek, fast, highly agile at low Mach numbers - delta canard at its best. Yes, it won't outlast heavy fighters - but it will engage them equally (or even under advantage) for a while.

 

[Maikeru]

There is a way to interpret this in the opposite way (and, in fact, it's the former mainstream way).

The longer fighter stays within the engagement area - the more vulnerable it is, be it to enemy attack, counterattack, or ambush. Hence, the right way is a single attack under external guidance, at highest energy state possible, as fast as possible, as short as possible. After the attack, disengage ASAP.

J-10 is very suitable for this approach - with just enough missiles&single supersonic tank under centerline - it's sleek, fast, highly agile at low Mach numbers - delta canard at its best. Yes, it won't outlast heavy fighters - but it will engage them equally (or even under advantage) for a while.

Agreed, but how many targets can J10C engage at a time? If>4 there's an argument for more PL15 carrying capability.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Agreed, but how many targets can J10C engage at a time? If>4 there's an argument for more PL15 carrying capability.

A 4+ fighter that take time to shot 4 bvr missiles is surely detected and have probably missiles going for him... not sure having more is interesting.

If they are head to head at 50km and near supersonic, they are in short range to visual combat in no time. They will be in short range before knowing if they shutdown the others fighters.

 

[Schwerter_]

There is a way to interpret this in the opposite way (and, in fact, it's the former mainstream way).

The longer fighter stays within the engagement area - the more vulnerable it is, be it to enemy attack, counterattack, or ambush. Hence, the right way is a single attack under external guidance, at highest energy state possible, as fast as possible, as short as possible. After the attack, disengage ASAP.

J-10 is very suitable for this approach - with just enough missiles&single supersonic tank under centerline - it's sleek, fast, highly agile at low Mach numbers - delta canard at its best. Yes, it won't outlast heavy fighters - but it will engage them equally (or even under advantage) for a while.

Seconding this. I guess with the relatively small area of Pakistan (no offence intended), the possible "drawback" of a low time on station (as you mentioned) becomes even less of an issue. Take off with minimal drag armed with enough fuel and weapons to perform engagement, get in fast, do combat, disengage fast, etc. To me this sounds like an excellent way for intercept or defensive air superority missions.

 

[plawolf]

Agreed, but how many targets can J10C engage at a time? If>4 there's an argument for more PL15 carrying capability.

High multiple target engagement capabilities are just marketing gimmicks that won’t do jack in real world scenarios against anything other than airliners, maybe.

Unless your enemies lack RWR, they will split formation as soon as you start locking on to them and you have just wasted a lot of missiles if you shot at all of them since even with AESA, your radar can only beam steer so many angles before you loose LOS and your missiles goes dumb.

 

[Maikeru]

High multiple target engagement capabilities are just marketing gimmicks that won’t do jack in real world scenarios against anything other than airliners, maybe.

Unless your enemies lack RWR, they will split formation as soon as you start locking on to them and you have just wasted a lot of missiles if you shot at all of them since even with AESA, your radar can only beam steer so many angles before you loose LOS and your missiles goes dumb.

Even with active AAMs like PL15?

 

[AndrewS]

Even with active AAMs like PL15?

How much range does a PL-15 radar actually have? Plus how long does the radar battery last?

 

[Maikeru]

How much range does a PL-15 radar actually have? Plus how long does the radar battery last?

Well, I am as dependent on Huitong as anyone else here for this sort of information. He says:

"A major improvement of the missile is a new a dual pulse rocket motor which could extend its kinetic range up to 200km. Its two-way datalink+INS+Beidou+active radar seeker onboard will give it an excellent ECCM capability against severe jamming."

So, the battery presumably lasts long enough to power a datalink receiver then INS/Beidou and then terminal radar.