J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Hyperwarp
Captain
Theoretically, it could carry 8x AAM if you get rid of the drop-tanks and yes, the outermost pylon carries PL-8 or PL-10 - ,
Here is another really old model with AAM under the intake -
So essentially we're looking at a max optimal air to air loadout with 1 x MRAAM under each wing on individual pylons with 2 x MRAAMs on dual rack pylons, making it 6 x MRAAMs total under wings. One centreline fuel tank. 2 x SRAAMs under wings. 2 x MRAAMs on front fuselage. So in total, 8 x MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs with one drop tank?
If the above is correct, that's one seriously good air to air payload. With the fuel tank, it should give the J-10 enough altitude, range, and energy to really effectively supplement the twin engined fighters. Of course range will still be shorter than a flanker fighter but that makes the J-10 a perfect regional fighter that can out-turn heavy weights within a certain radius of operation. No wonder USAF and PLAAF have emphasised these cheaper single engined fighters.
I have never seen the inner wing pylons carry AAMs though, only fuel tanks and larger ordinance or bombs. I also find it hard to believe the two front fuselage pylons are both support two heavy medium range missiles like PL-12 to say nothing of PL-15, while also clearing the landing gear without protruding in front of the intakes too much. I think these two pylons are reserved for smaller bombs and pods only while the rear fuselage pylons are bombs only.
Look at this picture. The SRAAMs can give an idea how long a PL-12 would be. Given the position of the pylons, a PL-12 will probably either block the landing gear or disrupt airflow into the intakes. I'm not sure how much that'll really affect the intake's performance though.
I think it's probably far more realistic for the J-10 to max out at 6 x mraams total or 4 x mraams + 2 x sraams. Inner pylons are probably not compatible with AAMs. Unless I'm mistaken there, in which case, add 2 mraams and drop fuel volume.
Look at this picture. The SRAAMs can give an idea how long a PL-12 would be. Given the position of the pylons, a PL-12 will probably either block the landing gear or disrupt airflow into the intakes. I'm not sure how much that'll really affect the intake's performance though.
I think it's probably far more realistic for the J-10 to max out at 6 x mraams total or 4 x mraams + 2 x sraams. Inner pylons are probably not compatible with AAMs. Unless I'm mistaken there, in which case, add 2 mraams and drop fuel volume.
Exactly !
I really am glad that the pilot, the most valuable "component" on the aircraft is safe.
I mourn the deaths of 3 who were in the Transport Heli.
I hope that WS-10 could be installed with vigor on newer J-10s.
The SCMP article by the "esteemed" Minnie Chan( I have some reservations about the newspaper, but damn it, this is the only source that reported it. Don't shoot the messenger, I guess) goes -
accident happened eight days later on the Tibetan Plateau where a J-10 fighter jet on a low-altitude flying drill crashed into the mountain.
“Fortunately, the pilot ejected safely in time, but the J-10 crashed into the mountain,” said an informed source, who requested anonymity since no official announcement about the accident has been made.
“Preliminary investigations indicated that the accident had something to with the Russian-made AL-31 engine on board the J-10,” the source said.
Last edited:
SinoSoldier
Colonel
J-10B TVC demonstrator
Minnie Chan. Enough said.
Succinct. Saves me time reading unreliable source