J-10 Thread IV

[ougoah]

Why is it these inboard hardpoints are not (allegedly) designed to carry other guided ordinance (not just LGBs) or air to air missiles? Did the designers know the J-10 will almost certainly need these hardpoints for extra fuel?

 

[by78]

Why is it these inboard hardpoints are not (allegedly) designed to carry other guided ordinance (not just LGBs) or air to air missiles? Did the designers know the J-10 will almost certainly need these hardpoints for extra fuel?

They are allegedly not designed to carry air-to-air missiles because we've never seen them being carried at those hard-points. That's a flimsy conclusion assumption at best, because an absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence.

 

[Brumby]

That's not what I meant. The person I was replying to was very specific about the inboard wing hardpoints not being wired for data at all and only suitable for "dumb" bombs. I was merely pointing out that laser bombs aren't dumb free-fall bombs, and furthermore, there has to be some data exchanged prior to release, such as the armed state of the laser bombs and maybe whether they have achieved a lock on the beam, and so on. A very rudimentary data exchange, yes, but data exchange nonetheless.

In that case going by your definition of data exchange, even dumb bombs would require some form of priming and arming prior to weapon release - isn't it?

 

[SinoSoldier]

Does anyone else think that the lack of wingtip pylons puts it at a slight disadvantage compared to the IAF Rafales in the payload category?

Is this a technical limitation or just a lack of need?

 

[Blitzo]

In that case going by your definition of data exchange, even dumb bombs would require some form of priming and arming prior to weapon release - isn't it?

This is ridiculous.
The original discussion was about the those pylons only being able to carry dumb bombs.
Laser guided bombs are not dumb bombs.

Stop playing these semantic games, consider this a formal warning.

Also, to make it clear, this strand of discussion is being issued a warning as well. Including by78 and xyqq, knock it off and move on now please.

 

[Blitzo]

Does anyone else think that the lack of wingtip pylons puts it at a slight disadvantage compared to the IAF Rafales in the payload category?

Is this a technical limitation or just a lack of need?

At a system of systems level, the difference in wingtip pylons is probably not that significant, if anything it's probably trivial.

If one wants to compare every characteristic of the two different aircraft, sure, it could be called a "disadvantage".

 

[Inst]

Does anyone else think that the lack of wingtip pylons puts it at a slight disadvantage compared to the IAF Rafales in the payload category?

Is this a technical limitation or just a lack of need?

Not in the same class; the Rafale is roughly F-18 class while the J-10 is roughly F-16 class.

 

[ougoah]

Does anyone else think that the lack of wingtip pylons puts it at a slight disadvantage compared to the IAF Rafales in the payload category?

Is this a technical limitation or just a lack of need?

Not in the same class; the Rafale is roughly F-18 class while the J-10 is roughly F-16 class.

It's not about weight class. The F-16 also has three underwing pylons and a wingtip pylon due to cropped wings. J-10's wing's are not cropped to preserve better performance. The F-15's are not either and only have one underwing pylon with everything else being carried around the fuselage. The JF-17's are cropped but only have two underwing pylons. The J-10 designers must have realised cropping the wings would just result in unacceptable performance reductions. The J-10's payload is rather commensurate with its overall thrust ratings anyway and the four extra fuselage small hardpoints are there I guess.

For A2A loads, the middle underwing pylon can have dual racks. Even assuming the inboard point can't take A2A missiles, that's still at least 6x PL-12/PL-15s with three drop tanks for range and energy (or 4x MRAAMs + 2x SRAAMs). The Rafale and F-16 can do 2x SRAAMs better with drop tanks. Pods are mounted on the forward fuselage pylons. That's not terrible for the J-10 since drop tanks are almost always taken and necessary for actual combat missions at some distance from the airfield, the J-10 designers and the PLAAF probably didn't bother with giving these pylons the full fittings since they're commonly going to be used for drop tanks anyway.

PLAAF needs a fighter/heavy aircraft for BVR missile lobbing only like the new F-15s which are supposedly going to carry over a dozen MRAAMs. Maybe something for the J-11D to consider or the JH replacement. It'll become quite useful to have a dedicated long/medium ranged missile lobber. It doesn't need to have much turning performance as long as it can fly high and fast and turn around to escape once missiles are active homing. The rest of the kinematically capable fighters do the usual. Those F-15s are probably going to be highly effective. I wonder if PLAAF will use the next gen JH for such a role or develop a flanker (maybe with WS-15s one day ) to for missile truck role.

 

[by78]

J-10S is a good looking bird. The enlarged bubble canopy gives her a more graceful look.

 

[by78]

Re-posting some lost images of J-10S performing in-flight refueling.