J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I’m just nitpicking at this point, but to be precise “JHMCS” refers to a specific model of helmet mounted display made and used by the US, which this (most likely) is not.
Fantastic picture nonetheless, I hope they showcase this more.
ETC J-10C (WS-10) participating in the Joint Sword Exercise in Taiwan Strait on April 8th. It is interesting to note that standard practice is to carry one PL-15 and one PL-12 with two PL-10s on the outer pylons. This contrasts with the J-16, which carries full PL-15 load. I wonder if there is tactical consideration involved in this.
More confidence in letting the J-10 be more forward compared to the flankers? (it should have quite the smaller RCS)
How is the J-10 in terms of maneuverability in comparison to the flankers?
J-16 radar make them probably more capable to use all the capacity of the PL-15. Making them better of the two at long range.
The distance of Taiwan from the mainland is covered quite fast. The range benefit of PL-15 will be probably rapidly eaten if the J-10C are using for closing in, J-16 can be used for support covering their advance.
J-10 with AL-31 is superior in ITR but worse in STR. Not sure about WS-10B but supposedly it is a monster.
A bit of additional information for non-native Chinese speakers: picture 1 is a comparison of “B-value” curves between su-30 and J-10. The graph only vaguely describes it as a measurement of overall maneuverability, so the information it conveys is best taken with a grain of salt since we have no idea how this value is computed.
I think it is fascinating that the ROC does not distinguish between different types of J-10 to this day in their ADIZ reports despite the fact that different blocks have vastly different capabilities and should be easily distinguishable via radar signature.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Should and could are less commonly the same than one would reasonably expect, especially when it comes to the RoC and their corruption riddled ways.