It's easier to understand that what you're proposing comes at a great cost to efficiency and loiter time. Carrying more while every other factor is equal? What don't you understand about all this?
Take an F-16 and J-10 where former is loaded with three tanks (to get that range up) and 6 MRAAMs with 2 SRAAMs and a J-10 with 4 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs, if we assume the kinematic characteristics and engines are the same, the former loadout is going to go bingo sooner. If there is an engagement, the former loadout is slower to climb, accelerate, and turn. Those two first missiles fired are going to be fired at far less favourable parameters to the point that such a fighter is really better off maximising weapons capabilities with a bit more speed and altitude and closer distance. The net effect is essentially slightly greater wastefulness of former approach in exchange for minuscule advantage.
4 MRAAMs J-10 can beat 8 MRAAMs J-16 in BVR. With relative ease. This isn't all about muh missile load. You totally ignored performance degradation from extra weight and drag. This degradation combined with the minimal effectiveness of first salvo means the optimal point (differs for each fighter) is at a very simply calculated point. For F-16, it may be 6 medium range missiles and three tanks but for J-10 it's 4 MRAAMs and three tanks. This of course does depend on mission profile as I've mentioned. It depends at what range you're engaging and what you are engaging. Like I said, F-16 doesn't perform better than J-10 kinematically. It doesn't have a significantly better engine. The optimal loadouts for these two are in reality quite similar. While an F-16 can carry more, it shouldn't. The J-10 simply doesn't even go for overcapacity for marketing. It just hits optimal and stays there with 3 tanks, 4 PL-15, 2 PL-10, and possibly one gun and pod on side fuselage pylons. Giving the J-10 another set of PL-15s while it can be done if CAC and PLAAF want it (obviously), they've both determined that this is less than ideal and optimal. Hence they don't. Isn't this easy to understand. It's so simple for CAC to get another two pylons and install triple missile pylons. They don't do it because it's a waste of missiles when the platform is carrying a much heavier load than ideal and launching them at less than idea parameters. All while the platform itself will have lost energy due to unnecessary excess load.
BTW to others. It's almost never a 1 vs 1. It's stupid to say ahh PLAAF with the J-10 will only have 4 MRAAMs in the air. Nope. They could have 40 and all those are launched at far higher energy parameters with higher PK and better NEZ due to launch parameters.
If it's determined that some J-10s are required to counter 10 F-16s with 60 MRAAMs in between them, then PLAAF could overcome the "missile deficiency" by sending 5 more J-10s. Just the five more J-10s are going to equal the total missile number and all those PLAAF missiles are going to be higher energy since those J-10s have equal performance but are flying with two missiles less weight and drag. Of course this all assumes J-10 is equal in performance and engine performance to F-16 which is not exactly the case. Each have their comparative strengths and weaknesses but overall these two fighters are very equal in their category.
Last edited:
