J-10 Thread IV


plawolf

Brigadier
Guys, does anyone know how many pylons J-10s have? Wiki and many other websites say it has 11 (5 under fuselage), but I can only see 9 (3 under fuselage).
The two rear fuselage hardpoints have not been seen loaded with anything other than iron bombs, and are extremely rarely seen used at all. Although with dual missile pylons, it’s not a huge issue

Also, why J-10 don't have any wingtip pylon? If I'm not mistaken JF-17 that the PAF use is partially developed by Chengdu, which is also the developer of J-10, and it has wingtip pylons. If they can, retrofitting the wiring and adding some strengthening to the wingtips in exchange for 2 more pylons for AAM sounds like a good deal for me.
Aerodynamics. The J10’s wingtips are shaped to generate strong vortices in flight to greatly increase the lift generated by the wings (you can see the vapour trails during airshows sometimes) and also aid in making the wing control surfaces much more effective and thus the plane more agile and responsive.

The wingtip vortices may also have complex interactions with the canard generated vortices over the main wings to magnify the benefits of both.

I think it’s safe to say that the round a big of ‘magic’ with that layout, because the J20 also uses the same underlying aerodynamic design principles.

As such, you will likely be sacrificing a fair amount of the aerodynamic performance of the J10 by clipping its wings and adding launch rails, far out of proportion to the actual wing surface area sacrificed.

The JF17 was designed as per PAF specs to be as close to an F16 as one can get given the cost limitations. It uses very different design and aerodynamic design principles.

It’s just not a good trade-off for the PLAAF from their doctrine and with the likely adversaries of they are most likely to face.

The PLAAF have never been obsessed with the max possible number of missiles they can hang on their fighters.

Similarly, Chinese fighter radars have never tried to push for excessive multi-target engagement capabilities like some Western and Russian radars, I have a feeling Chinese fighter radars put the most priority on raw power. This will aid both counter stealth and jamming burn-through characteristics, which would be what is most valuable to the PLAAF.

We know from the recent Indian-Pakistan air clashes that Chinese jammers are superb, so it stands to reason that Chinese radars’ ECCM capabilities are similarly advanced if they are being measured by performance against Chinese jammers.

The design choices made by Chinese fighter and radar designers are all in line with their likely opponents. When faced with enemy forces with equipment on par or even superior to your own, your priority is to eek out every last bit of performance from your designs to maximise your chances of winning the engagement.

Western air forces have enjoyed unchallenged air dominance for so long that their designers are now taking that for granted. As such, they are focusing more on cost efficiency rather than raw performance. Having to win the fight almost doesn’t factor into their considerations any more, it’s just assumed as a given, and not only that, but they are taking it for granted they will win air dominance for zero loss. As such, their primary design focus is apparently now on how many targets their planes can kill in a single sortie.

I personally think that is a massive strategic mistake on the part of the west.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
We know from the recent Indian-Pakistan air clashes that Chinese jammers are superb
Do you know where I can read a good article or watch a lecture about that engagement? A lot of the stuff is nationalist chest-thumping.
Western air forces have enjoyed unchallenged air dominance for so long that their designers are now taking that for granted. As such, they are focusing more on cost efficiency rather than raw performance.
Given the cost overruns endemic to America's MIC, I had a good chuckle at that.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
The two rear fuselage hardpoints have not been seen loaded with anything other than iron bombs, and are extremely rarely seen used at all. Although with dual missile pylons, it’s not a huge issue



Aerodynamics. The J10’s wingtips are shaped to generate strong vortices in flight to greatly increase the lift generated by the wings (you can see the vapour trails during airshows sometimes) and also aid in making the wing control surfaces much more effective and thus the plane more agile and responsive.

The wingtip vortices may also have complex interactions with the canard generated vortices over the main wings to magnify the benefits of both.

I think it’s safe to say that the round a big of ‘magic’ with that layout, because the J20 also uses the same underlying aerodynamic design principles.

As such, you will likely be sacrificing a fair amount of the aerodynamic performance of the J10 by clipping its wings and adding launch rails, far out of proportion to the actual wing surface area sacrificed.

The JF17 was designed as per PAF specs to be as close to an F16 as one can get given the cost limitations. It uses very different design and aerodynamic design principles.

It’s just not a good trade-off for the PLAAF from their doctrine and with the likely adversaries of they are most likely to face.

The PLAAF have never been obsessed with the max possible number of missiles they can hang on their fighters.

Similarly, Chinese fighter radars have never tried to push for excessive multi-target engagement capabilities like some Western and Russian radars, I have a feeling Chinese fighter radars put the most priority on raw power. This will aid both counter stealth and jamming burn-through characteristics, which would be what is most valuable to the PLAAF.

We know from the recent Indian-Pakistan air clashes that Chinese jammers are superb, so it stands to reason that Chinese radars’ ECCM capabilities are similarly advanced if they are being measured by performance against Chinese jammers.

The design choices made by Chinese fighter and radar designers are all in line with their likely opponents. When faced with enemy forces with equipment on par or even superior to your own, your priority is to eek out every last bit of performance from your designs to maximise your chances of winning the engagement.

Western air forces have enjoyed unchallenged air dominance for so long that their designers are now taking that for granted. As such, they are focusing more on cost efficiency rather than raw performance. Having to win the fight almost doesn’t factor into their considerations any more, it’s just assumed as a given, and not only that, but they are taking it for granted they will win air dominance for zero loss. As such, their primary design focus is apparently now on how many targets their planes can kill in a single sortie.

I personally think that is a massive strategic mistake on the part of the west.
What?? Even supposing Chinese jammers in particular are responsible for the supposed successful jamming of Indian aircrafts, sensors, and whatever C4ISR, that's hardly indicative of Chinese jammers being superb. EW edge on India flying Su-30MKI and Mirage 2000s should not be considered thoroughly impressive.

What does unchallenged dominance have to do with designers taking things for granted. Huge assumptions there. They are so focused on cost efficiency they fielded the F-22 and F-35 as their most recent fighters? I'd say they've gone even further into raw performance, at least for the F-22. The F-35/22 don't focus on huge A2A payloads at all! This post is one dimensional and inaccurate. If the primary design focus (assuming newer designs like Raptor and Lightning 2) are focused on targets killed per sortie in terms of carried ordinance, then all the facts show otherwise. If you're talking about propositions for the F-15 and micro missiles, many of those are to intercept A2A missiles and even super loaded F-15s are still useful. There is utility in being able to carry huge A2A or A2G payloads in any case.
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, jamming 5th gen fighter AESAs would be beyond "superb," that would be top tier. I doubt even the USAF can successfully jam its own Raptor/F-35s radars... Perhaps @Brumby can advise?

The broad frequency blasts required to jam the best AESA radars requires a ton of energy... not sure if any airborne platform has that much power at present.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
LO
Do you know where I can read a good article or watch a lecture about that engagement? A lot of the stuff is nationalist chest-thumping.
I did not find any single authoritative and comprehensive piece on the engagement, but pieces together the information from various sources and judgement calls on what I find credible. But as a general rule, anything the Indians have to say about it publicly I tend to take with a truck load of salt


Given the cost overruns endemic to America's MIC, I had a good chuckle at that.
Haha, point. I was talking more about cost effectiveness per sortie rather than per airframe.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
What?? Even supposing Chinese jammers in particular are responsible for the supposed successful jamming of Indian aircrafts, sensors, and whatever C4ISR, that's hardly indicative of Chinese jammers being superb. EW edge on India flying Su-30MKI and Mirage 2000s should not be considered thoroughly impressive.
So what would be impressive by your standards?

What does unchallenged dominance have to do with designers taking things for granted. Huge assumptions there. They are so focused on cost efficiency they fielded the F-22 and F-35 as their most recent fighters? I'd say they've gone even further into raw performance, at least for the F-22. The F-35/22 don't focus on huge A2A payloads at all! This post is one dimensional and inaccurate. If the primary design focus (assuming newer designs like Raptor and Lightning 2) are focused on targets killed per sortie in terms of carried ordinance, then all the facts show otherwise. If you're talking about propositions for the F-15 and micro missiles, many of those are to intercept A2A missiles and even super loaded F-15s are still useful. There is utility in being able to carry huge A2A or A2G payloads in any case.
No one in their right minds would consider the F22 recent.

The F22 is pretty much the last western fighter designed with raw performance being the number one and uncompromising consideration.

The F35 has followed the same development path as pretty much all US fighters since to gain significant weight, at the expense of agility, to gain better air to ground strike capabilities at the expense of air to air.

That is an undeniable fact, and you only need to look at the specs and performances of any late block multirole version US teen series fighter compared to their Air superiority originals to see the truth in that trend.

Just look at all the bulges and lumps on current block F35s compared to the prototypes and I dare to to say those aren’t compromises to sacrifice some stealth for more internal volume to better facilitate strike.

The J10 is pretty much one of the very few families where the latest version has retained or even improved upon the raw kinetic performance of the original, while adding in better sensors, weapons and jammers to give an overall better air combat fighter in all areas. The only other example I can think of where this has happened is the Su35, and funny that of all of Russia’s offering, that is the only new fighter China has bought from them in decades.

In all other instances, any improvements in terms of sensors and engines are more than offset by increased weight and bulk to give fighters that are better at strike missions, but nowhere near the full true potential they could have attend had the focus of their upgrades been kept on air combat.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
The J10 is pretty much one of the very few families where the latest version has retained or even improved upon the raw kinetic performance of the original, while adding in better sensors, weapons and jammers to give an overall better air combat fighter in all areas.
How has the J-10 managed to buck that trend?

Edit: Nvm, I missed this
In all other instances, any improvements in terms of sensors and engines are more than offset by increased weight and bulk to give fighters that are better at strike missions, but nowhere near the full true potential they could have attend had the focus of their upgrades been kept on air combat.
Mission focus and stopping feature creep.
 

banjex

New Member
Registered Member
Well, jamming 5th gen fighter AESAs would be beyond "superb," that would be top tier. I doubt even the USAF can successfully jam its own Raptor/F-35s radars... Perhaps @Brumby can advise?

The broad frequency blasts required to jam the best AESA radars requires a ton of energy... not sure if any airborne platform has that much power at present.
And even then, you become the brightest Christmas ornament on the tree and every missile is now pointed at you.
 

Top