J-10 Thread IV

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
View attachment 53937

Real or fake double launcher?

Regards
I wonder why the PLAAF hasn't yet developed a triple rack launcher. That would give it much more flexibility in terms of payload. 3 missiles, or 2 missiles and a drop tank/bomb/ASCM, etc.

Like this:
https___s3.amazonaws.com_the-drive-staging_message-editor%2F1529959362261-dk1x.jpg
That F-15 could load 12 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders, and 3 drop tanks with this setup.

Boeing is actually now testing a quadruple rack (the AMBER):
Benitez-6-3-19-figure-9.png


A J-10 with 2 triple racks and 4 single racks could load 6 MRAAMs, 2 SRAAMs, and 3 drop tanks, or 8 MRAAMs, 2 SRAAMs, and 1 drop tank. Facing an incoming saturation cruise missile attack, that would be alot of firepower to defend with.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Senior Member
Registered Member
Thrust to weight would make such a J-10 or J-11 a very thirsty and difficult to handle fighter. Even fully loaded with the currently available arrangement of a maxed out air to air package, I suspect the J-10 and J-11 series sacrifice some considerable range and maneuverability. I think the F-15 may be able to do a bit better at most but shoving it full of AMRAAMs in such a way, must take away enough range that drop tanks become a total necessity, robbing it further of any agility it has left.

If the idea is just to get them up and launch all their AMRAAMs, it'll still take longer and burn more to reach optimal altitude and launch speeds compared to an F-15 which hasn't doubled up on AMRAAMs. That's time and fuel, two precariously important factors during wartime. The US does not have infinite fuel. In fact fuel is one majorly ignored factor often missing in enthusiast discussions because it's not all that "sexy". This could be why the Europeans also haven't gone down this path. It isn't due to lack of ability for quad launchers or tripling up everywhere it can. Then again Typhoon and Rafale haven't exactly got that much extra total thrust to spare either.
 
This is only the first time it has been photographed, could have been deployed for years already.
Maybe? Maybe not??? in any regard if they make this standard fare, it will indeed increase the J-10's combat capability.... I'm thinking the J-10 makes an outstanding 4th gen to go with the J-20. Those F-15's illustrate that 4th Gen's partnered with 5th Gens make a very potent package.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Thrust to weight would make such a J-10 or J-11 a very thirsty and difficult to handle fighter. Even fully loaded with the currently available arrangement of a maxed out air to air package, I suspect the J-10 and J-11 series sacrifice some considerable range and maneuverability. I think the F-15 may be able to do a bit better at most but shoving it full of AMRAAMs in such a way, must take away enough range that drop tanks become a total necessity, robbing it further of any agility it has left.

If the idea is just to get them up and launch all their AMRAAMs, it'll still take longer and burn more to reach optimal altitude and launch speeds compared to an F-15 which hasn't doubled up on AMRAAMs. That's time and fuel, two precariously important factors during wartime. The US does not have infinite fuel. In fact fuel is one majorly ignored factor often missing in enthusiast discussions because it's not all that "sexy". This could be why the Europeans also haven't gone down this path. It isn't due to lack of ability for quad launchers or tripling up everywhere it can. Then again Typhoon and Rafale haven't exactly got that much extra total thrust to spare either.
Hmm, 6 PL-15s at ~150kg each is 900kg. 2 PL-10s at ~90kg each is 180kg. 2 800L drop tanks and 1 480L drop tank comes to maybe ~1,800kg(?) including the tanks. That makes everything roughly 2,900kg. Add a couple hundred kg for the racks and you're still far, far short of the J-10's (alleged) 7,000kg external stores capacity. I fail to see how this would somehow make a huge dent in the J-10's range or maneuverability. A fighter's weight limit and maneuverability really only gets tested when it's carrying large bomb loads or ASCMs, or something similarly heavy.
 

ougoah

Senior Member
Registered Member
Hmm, 6 PL-15s at ~150kg each is 900kg. 2 PL-10s at ~90kg each is 180kg. 2 800L drop tanks and 1 480L drop tank comes to maybe ~1,800kg(?) including the tanks. That makes everything roughly 2,900kg. Add a couple hundred kg for the racks and you're still far, far short of the J-10's (alleged) 7,000kg external stores capacity. I fail to see how this would somehow make a huge dent in the J-10's range or maneuverability. A fighter's weight limit and maneuverability really only gets tested when it's carrying large bomb loads or ASCMs, or something similarly heavy.
7T external capacity is supposed to put the aircraft right up to max take off weight. nearing half that with the full A2A payload mentioned is probably going to dent the J-10's range and maneuverability. By how much, meh who's to say. But considering this is about half the payload at which the plane can just take off, I'd say it'll be burning through its fuel pretty quickly if it wants to deliver those weapons at speeds and altitudes that will give them justice. How much the drag and carrying them will affect lift is going to be another hit outside of weight considerations.

Sometimes going all out and overloading your fighter with its max possible loadout is just not ideal otherwise all airforces would be doing it. Goes some way towards showing that excess load do indeed dent your range and maneuverability quite significantly. Even upgraded blocks with more and heavier electronics make them less agile and maneuverable compared to their earlier iterations using similarly powerful engines. Because a fighter can carry ASCMs or heavy bomb loads, doesn't mean they can turn anywhere near as tightly or fly anywhere near as far. But I'm no expert here.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
7T external capacity is supposed to put the aircraft right up to max take off weight. nearing half that with the full A2A payload mentioned is probably going to dent the J-10's range and maneuverability. By how much, meh who's to say. But considering this is about half the payload at which the plane can just take off, I'd say it'll be burning through its fuel pretty quickly if it wants to deliver those weapons at speeds and altitudes that will give them justice. How much the drag and carrying them will affect lift is going to be another hit outside of weight considerations.

Sometimes going all out and overloading your fighter with its max possible loadout is just not ideal otherwise all airforces would be doing it. Goes some way towards showing that excess load do indeed dent your range and maneuverability quite significantly. Even upgraded blocks with more and heavier electronics make them less agile and maneuverable compared to their earlier iterations using similarly powerful engines. Because a fighter can carry ASCMs or heavy bomb loads, doesn't mean they can turn anywhere near as tightly or fly anywhere near as far. But I'm no expert here.
You're portraying a less than half-max loadout as some kind of undue burden on a fighter. Please just stop.
 

ougoah

Senior Member
Registered Member
You're portraying a less than half-max loadout as some kind of undue burden on a fighter. Please just stop.
Well you have to admit this all depends on how one considers "undue burden". I'm saying it is a burden and it is up to you to prove otherwise. How much of a burden I've already admitted I do not know but based on the fact that few airforces bother with even existing max storage let alone expanding number of storage points, it goes to show that this so called undue burden is quite a consideration. Don't tell others to stop when you haven't shown how they are wrong. Especially on a public forum where none of us can be described as experts in the field.

Can a J-10 take the drag and weight penalty for an air to air mission by carrying the load you described earlier which takes it to about half its max take off weight? That depends on the details. Of course it'll fly and try to do its job but the entire calculus changes with every extra kilogram it carries. It's not some discrete binary issue where beyond a certain point, it either can or cannot. Where they decide the acceptable limits lie is a mystery to us but no doubt that curve is a continuum. And certainly at some range/point, it makes little sense for most missions and adding two or more pylons for deploying more missiles is just not going to be worth the effort to implement.
 
Last edited:
Top