J-10 Thread IV

[Blitzo]

Why are the wing tips different on each side?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505214307193262084

My unsolicited advice:

For these kind of questions, when something doesn't seem right, always ask "is what I am seeing really representative of the actual object in question".

In this case, is it likely that the wingtip of the real airframe is actually asymmetrical, given what we know about aircraft and about J-10s and that it makes no sense for J-10s or any other aircraft to have a random wingtip cut off or removed like that?

Or, is it more likely that it is some sort of result of the picture being taken or the image being edited post take?


In this case, it is the latter, and likely a result of the aircraft not fully being in frame for some reason, and they happened to have duplicated and reversed the original image to produce the picture of "two" J-10s in the image, when in reality it was only one airframe, but simply duplicated and rotated.

 

[lcloo]

Why are the wing tips different on each side?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505214307193262084

Whenever things like this happened, my first reaction is to go through all my photo collection of this particualr aircraft type.

Answer is the are no difference between the two wing tips of J10CE. The photo posted is done with one wing tip cropped either accidentally or intentionally.

 

[by78]

A few more images from Pakistan.

 

[Deino]

Concerning the dissimilar aerial combat training flights between J-10A and J-11s in the early 2000s - I think 2006 or even a bit earlier - do we have any reliable reports other than that the outcome was a huge surprise for the PLAAF since the J-11s lost?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Concerning the dissimilar aerial combat training flights between J-10A and J-11s in the early 2000s - I think 2006 or even a bit earlier - do we have any reliable reports other than that the outcome was a huge surprise for the PLAAF since the J-11s lost?

Said report contains the name of the pilot involved, I think it is pretty credible. Do you want additional details on the confrontation?

 

[Deino]

Said report contains the name of the pilot involved, I think it is pretty credible. Do you want additional details on the confrontation?

Yes please !!!!

 

[siegecrossbow]

Yes please !!!!

Originally the simulated engagement was supposed to be 2 vs 4 but the J-10 pilot’s wingman had to drop out due to technical difficulties. During the engagement, neither the J-10 nor the J-11A had support from ground based radar and the J-10 avoided using the radar as much as possible as the J-11As tried to corner it from four sides. J-11s deployed ECM and used radars extensively to sweep for the J-10, which managed to avoid radar tracking through a series of maneuvers. Since the J-10 could pin point the location of enemy radar, it allowed the pilot to target the J-11s one by one and take all of them down.

 

[Deino]

Originally the simulated engagement was supposed to be 2 vs 4 but the J-10 pilot’s wingman had to drop out due to technical difficulties. During the engagement, neither the J-10 nor the J-11A had support from ground based radar and the J-10 avoided using the radar as much as possible as the J-11As tried to corner it from four sides. J-11s deployed ECM and used radars extensively to sweep for the J-10, which managed to avoid radar tracking through a series of maneuvers. Since the J-10 could pin point the location of enemy radar, it allowed the pilot to target the J-11s one by one and take all of them down.

Thank you so much but do you have the original report at hand and the source too?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Thank you so much but do you have the original report at hand and the source too?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He has retired this year.

 

[ougoah]

Notching move against J-11A probably effective since they used some old pulse doppler based radar but the real surprise (or not) is that the J-10 is a little bit more LO than many give it credit for. In European exercises, it was often claimed that the Gripen exploits its smaller size, smaller RCS, and "special" EW suite to get in real close to larger fighters with powerful radars.

Radars don't work as "perfectly" as they do in movies. Many 4.5 gen fighters have extremely reduced RCS compared to 3rd gens and most 4th gens that have made no effort to reduce RCS. It might be a J-10A in those exercises and the J-11A's radars probably are barely up to scratch even for 1990s standard but it does go to show that air combat isn't simply looking at a circle with a line sweeping around it and a dot coming up every time it gets a bounce back from a target. With AESAs everything's changed and the spoofing or countering domain has moved far into the digital and electromagnetic front.

Exploiting terrain would be part of every fighter pilot's repertoire. J-11A choosing to actively use radar to scan for the J-10 they're hunting just gave their positions away. In this case the J-10 chose to keep radar off and so J-11A's huge RCS is moot for the purpose of this particular exercise. It's unlikely such a move even by a J-10C would do anything to fool an AESA using fighter in the J-11A's position. Unless of course they weren't directing their radars into searching the right space.