J-10 Thread IV

[Deino]

61261 What missile is on your plane? Pl-15 ?

look at the canted rear fins, it’s clearly a PL-12

 

[siegecrossbow]

61261 What missile is on your plane? Pl-15 ?

This looks like PL-12.

 

[Chavez]

It look like some sortbof simulator fornmock air to airbcombat training.

 

[sndef888]

Just something I've been wondering, are smaller fighters naturally better at anti air missions due to smaller RCS, or do larger fighters still have an advantage because they can fit larger radars?

 

[SteelBird]

View attachment 86291

61366:


Might be the last time you will see those, as 5th air brigade is converting to J-20

@huitong

Is that an external fuel tank (the grey one)? How long is it? my eyes tell me it is at least 5 to 6 meters.

 

[Jason_]

Just something I've been wondering, are smaller fighters naturally better at anti air missions due to smaller RCS, or do larger fighters still have an advantage because they can fit larger radars?

Among 4th gen none stealth fighters the smaller RCS is marketing BS. External weapons and fuel tanks eliminate any RCS advantages.

 

[Strangelove]

 

[ThatNiceType055]

Just something I've been wondering, are smaller fighters naturally better at anti air missions due to smaller RCS, or do larger fighters still have an advantage because they can fit larger radars?

Larger is always better, except larger means more expensive.

 

[gongolongo]

Among 4th gen none stealth fighters the smaller RCS is marketing BS. External weapons and fuel tanks eliminate any RCS advantages.

Well to some degree. Old flankers and other old 4th gen have incredibly high RCS by several fold and that dictates how early it can be detected and weapons locked. Difference in detection isn't that big. But cutting down on maximum effective range on AA missiles is actually something that does happen (unless the offensive fighter is using radars on par to current fifth gen fighters).

For example, in CMO, a J-16 can fire on most fourth gen planes with the PL-15 at near max effective range. But if you take the Rafale, it has to get about 10 nm closer before locking on and firing. (*CMO used for illustration and is not an end all be all)


Once you hit that near 2-3mm^2 number, the differences are not terribly large and most modern fourth gen hit that number.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Among 4th gen none stealth fighters the smaller RCS is marketing BS. External weapons and fuel tanks eliminate any RCS advantages.

(1)low-drag loadouts shall be taken into account. They often aren't just low drag, since they drastically reduce number of bright "angles".
(2)Angle of exposure matters. 4th gens may use lower altitudes, like we see in Ukraine, again, limiting exposure of suspended weaponry(hiding them behind the plane). Furthermore, detection ranges against ground clutter are lower in general.
(3)EW better hides smaller signatures rather than larger ones, on all steps(from initial asquisition to deciding effectiveness of towed decoy).
(4)Even for most modern radars sector matters. Actually, it's especially true for modern AESA arrays, which often lack mechanical scan(or use cheap substitute like swashplate). Things you'll see in the main lobe won't necessarily be seen in side lobes.
(5)There are more parameters in play than just simple question "will the target be detected&locked with given probability at a given range"?
For example, how much time it will take to gather enough reflection, process it, and then filter out the targets. And what that probability actually is (against calculated).

All in all, it's complex. And since 1980s it was known to 100% worth it to invest into sig reduction even for 4th gen planes.
Surviving early 4th gen families actually went through massive reductions of "sore spots" in the last decade, so they won't be such Christmas trees anymore.