J-10 Thread IV

sequ · Apr 29, 2023

siegecrossbow said:
Yes. Keep in mind that J-10C's AESA can't exploit PL-15's potential to the same degree J-20 and J-16 can.

Is there any indication whether the J-10C radar is GaAs or GaN based?

by78 · Apr 29, 2023

Self-explanatory.

Gloire_bb · Apr 30, 2023

siegecrossbow said:
Yes. Keep in mind that J-10C's AESA can't exploit PL-15's potential to the same degree J-20 and J-16 can. For J-10C PL-15 is used for first shot advantage and if the bogey managed to evade the PL-15 shot, J-10C would've closed the distance enough to keep it within PL-12's envelope.

1; can't it really?
I mean, this will mean this radar is horrible. Strictly speaking, even good modern digital slotted arrays have enough range, with nowhere near AESA beam specs.

Rafale's significantly smaller array serves longer-ranged engagements just fine. also, no one cares it can't really exploit everything out of meteor, because even longer ranges for this fighter are probably only useful for commercial promotion.

(strictly speaking, not unprecedented, Japanese f-2 "advanced" AESA is exactly this sort of horrible; but that was 20< yrs ago)

All in all, i outright don't believe it. J-10c array by all measures and expectations is a decently powerful array.

2.PL-15 is significantly energetically superior at shorter ranges, too. Plus it has a more modern bi-directional datalink, seeker, etc.
there are no practical merits to carrying older and newer, much better, weapons of the same class and type.

3.Datalink launch is still a thing in any case.

Blitzo · Apr 30, 2023

Gloire_bb said:
1; can't it really?
I mean, this will mean this radar is horrible. Strictly speaking, even good modern digital slotted arrays have enough range, with nowhere near AESA beam specs.

Rafale's significantly smaller array serves longer-ranged engagements just fine. also, no one cares it can't really exploit everything out of meteor, because even longer ranges for this fighter are probably only useful for commercial promotion.

(strictly speaking, not unprecedented, Japanese f-2 "advanced" AESA is exactly this sort of horrible; but that was 20< yrs ago)

All in all, i outright don't believe it. J-10c array by all measures and expectations is a decently powerful array.

2.PL-15 is significantly energetically superior at shorter ranges, too. Plus it has a more modern bi-directional datalink, seeker, etc.
there are no practical merits to carrying older and newer, much better, weapons of the same class and type.

3.Datalink launch is still a thing in any case.

siegecrossbow said:
Yes. Keep in mind that J-10C's AESA can't exploit PL-15's potential to the same degree J-20 and J-16 can. For J-10C PL-15 is used for first shot advantage and if the bogey managed to evade the PL-15 shot, J-10C would've closed the distance enough to keep it within PL-12's envelope.

Yeah, I don't really understand where this claim is coming from about J-10C's AESA is coming from.

A more powerful FCR of course is always beneficial (assuming everything else is held constant), but being able to "exploit PL-15's potential to the same degree J-20 and J-16 can" really needs to be substantiated in a bit more detail.
That is to say, A2A missile ranges are already highly dependent on the kinematic conditions of the launch platform and the target (let alone things like VLO/RCS, EW of the defending target) -- but there's a difference between an aircraft's FCR and datalinking capability being able to open up more tactics versus whether an aircraft's FCR and datalinking capability is able to support the maximum range of a missile against the spectrum of expected target conditions.

I wouldn't be surprised if J-20 and J-16 could have the ability to open up more tactics in the use of PL-15 for a variety of reasons (including their larger radars), but I would be surprised if J-10C were unable to support PL-15's maximum range against the full spectrum of maneuvering target conditions it would be expected to be used against, RCS and EW etc held constant of course.

====

As for the answer for why the J-10C was carrying a PL-12 and PL-15 --- my answer is why not?
For all we know the PL-12s have been flown multiple times and are maybe on the tailend of their airframe life, so for a relatively low risk situation carrying one PL-12 and one PL-15 rather than two more valuable PL-15s might be useful.

Certainly, I wouldn't perceive it as reflecting anything about PL-15 stocks being limited, anymore than if we saw a J-10C carrying only PL-15s would make me perceive PL-15s have wholesale replaced all PL-12s.