I know. I’m just saying that they get used very infrequently. A gun will see functionally zero use under the new doctrine unless they are intercepting cruise missiles.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
I know. I’m just saying that they get used very infrequently. A gun will see functionally zero use under the new doctrine unless they are intercepting cruise missiles.
Actually, that is very incorrect. Only special people (officers, machinegunners, etc.) are issued pistols, at least in the USA/USMC. Let's be honest, if a soldier is using a pistol on the battlefield instead of their issued primary arm, then they're in very deep trouble. The same goes for the PL-10 vs. PL-15/16/17, the jet shouldn't be in a position to be forced to use it in the first place. Most of the time, the PL-10 is dead weight, better used by other munitions.
Since when do most soldier carry a handgun?
Well that's why they carry 2 of them. Because they are not meant to be used as primary weapons.
All jets carry only 2 IR AAM to use as secondary weapons.
It would be a huge mistake to move away from them since modern IR AAM are touching medium range. Having the space to employ these missiles will come in handy.
Last edited:
SRAAMs would always have its use case where it outperforms every other weapon in a jet’s arsenal, but whether that use case is realistic or likely to occur on the present-day battlefield is another matter altogether. If the J20 pilots think they’re pretty much dead weight that’s most likely from combat experience in large scale exercises like Red Sword, in which case it would be pretty well justified.
Also on a side note, in a vacuum having SRAAMs is always better than not having them (more options for a fight, less likely to be caught with your pants down and all that), but one has to consider the space and weight requirements of side weapon bays, and the weight of the missile themselves. Once you add these up, the comparison becomes a lot less clear-cut, and some very good arguments for not carrying SRAAMs in dedicate bays can be made. Especially considering how one of the areas of development for modern and future BVRAAMs is the ability to use them effectively in short range.
Last edited:
if I’m not very much mistaken those are recon units or spec ops belonging to the Armed Police, so not exactly rank-and-file soldiers.
Besides, the handgun analogy is a rather poor one because carrying SRAAMs internally (in dedicated bays) has very substantial space and weight penalties, while carrying an extra handgun and say 2 spare mags on a leg holster is like 2.5 kg tops and takes up very little space (holster on an otherwise empty thigh and small bags for spare mags on the belt or chest rig). So the price one pays to carry them are not nearly the same.
edit: I second johncliu88’s opinion and will stop the army soldier topic. The point on SRAAM still stands imo since that should be considered on topic for this thread?
Last edited:
OK, let's end this army thing here or I (we) will be warned and suspended. Sorry, all my fault.
I think we'll get a clearer view of the answer the Chinese designers have come to when we get more details of the J-50/J-XDS.
I initially thought the J-20 would be the last Chinese fighter to have dedicated bays for SRAAMs, owing to its development starting back many years ago and as a counterpart to the F-22 with much the same combat doctrine, but the suspicious side bays of the J-50 have cast doubt on this.
A new thought I've had recently is that SRAAMs may no longer be primarily backup weapons for the Merge, but dedicated weapons to kill intervening "chaff" in contested environments (e.g., CCAs) where you need to preserve BVRAAMs to strike down multiple higher-priority targets (manned fighters, AWACs etc.). If the target is too fast for a gun, as the US has recently proved drones are with their failed attempt to gun one down, but not as evasive/protected as a fighter (that would require a long-range BVRAAM), then a truncated PL-10 may be sufficient. A small missile of such description may be able to fit into those small sidebays of the J-50.
The advent of unmanned close combat aircraft means the battlespace will get a lot more crowded, even at high altitudes. Fighters that need to get in close will need to be able to deal with this. It may not be economically practical or even practically feasible to expend expensive PL-15s and PL-17s (which I imagine are carried internally in the J-36) on CCAs. The J-36 probably avoids this by using its massive radar to identify priority targets and snipe them from afar, but the J-50 probably goes with the "get in close and kill everything" methodology so it'll need ways to efficiently kill CCAs.
The analogy is closer than you think.
Pair of PL-10 + ancillary bay equipment may be about 500kg which is maybe 3% of a J-20 empty weight.
Pistol right of 2.5kg on a 80kg soldier is also about 3% of weight.
A person who claims it's only 2.5kg has never looked up at the 3rd ridgeline of the day while carrying 50% of their bodyweight in gear. We've even actually thrown away extra food ... simply because we couldn't throw away gear.
The PL-10 on a J-20 is an age old debate on air superiority fast jets over many different forms ... not a pound for air-to-ground and then guns on modern jets. The equivalent of the infantryman debating whether a bayonet is still de rigueur.
One thing though. This comment, to me, is very indicative of what the J-20's pilot is letting on as to the intended (official?) role of a J-20.