Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[kungfugymnast]

Of course they can, the 3rd underwing pylon can carry BVRAAM.
And they can hold up to 12 AAM with dual racks.

Total they have 10 pylon (8 underwing, 1 underbelly, and 1 other near engine intake)
I don't know about underbelly pylon and near engine intake pylon, can carry AAM too or not. Mostly they carry External Tank and Laser Pod/ Electronic Jamming Pods.

Usually they carry 3 External Tanks in Long Distance Combat Mission.

View attachment 675146

There is no pylon near fuselage other than centerline pylon reserves for small 150 gallon fuel tank, ECM or targeting pod. The way you explained sounds not convincing because you've never seen it carrying dual rack nor air to air missiles on innermost underwing pylons

 

[Deino]

There is no pylon near fuselage other than centerline pylon reserves for small 150 gallon fuel tank, ECM or targeting pod. The way you explained sounds not convincing because you've never seen it carrying dual rack nor air to air missiles on innermost underwing pylons

You are wrong, there are altogether 4 small pylons - two under the air intake and two on the rear fuselage.

 

[Baloch Pakistani]

Of course they can, the 3rd underwing pylon can carry BVRAAM.
And they can hold up to 12 AAM with dual racks.

Total they have 10 pylon (8 underwing, 1 underbelly, and 1 other near engine intake)
I don't know about underbelly pylon and near engine intake pylon, can carry AAM too or not. Mostly they carry External Tank and Laser Pod/ Electronic Jamming Pods.

Usually they carry 3 External Tanks in Long Distance Combat Mission.

View attachment 675146

These 4 bvr seems to be attached to the dual rails. Can you please show us any picture of J10 with its full air superiority load? I have suspicions.

 

[LKJ86]

As far as i know J10 can only carry 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles without dual rails. Inner most pylons and fuselage pylons cannot carry BVR's. They can carry fuel tanks or pods only.

If PAF requires that J-10C's Inner most pylons and fuselage pylon should carry BVR AAMs, do you think that CAC would face technology limitations?

Analogously, USAF's F-16 doesn't have CFT.

 

[kungfugymnast]

You are wrong, there are altogether 4 small pylons - two under the air intake and two on the rear fuselage.

View attachment 675196

Those 4 small pylons could only carry small bombs ordnance, not air to air missiles. Pylon for air to air missiles required longer rail with fast release especially for launching short range IR guided missiles.

 

[Deino]

Those 4 small pylons could only carry small bombs ordnance, not air to air missiles. Pylon for air to air missiles required longer rail with fast release especially for launching short range IR guided missiles.

You are funny!

I and several know this since years and we also know since years that only the two outmost pylons are capable to use AAMs. At least in operational use I know not a single image showing an AAM mounted on the inner pylon know and the one, but You were saying "There is no pylon near fuselage other than centerline pylon reserves for small 150 gallon fuel tank, ECM or targeting pod" and that is wrong.

That these smaller ones cannot hold AAMs is also well known since years and was never in question.

 

[kungfugymnast]

You are funny!

I and several know this since years and we also know since years that only the two outmost pylons are capable to use AAMs. At least in operational use I know not a single image showing an AAM mounted on the inner pylon know and the one, but You were saying "There is no pylon near fuselage other than centerline pylon reserves for small 150 gallon fuel tank, ECM or targeting pod" and that is wrong.

That these smaller ones cannot hold AAMs is also well known since years and was never in question.

Conclusion is, the J-10C is made for ground attack role more than air to air. Its payload configuration is more towards air to ground ordnance + external fuel tanks for increasing combat radius. The J-10C is for home defense providing close air support roles aiming at taking out enemy mobile air defenses, tanks and vehicles in mind

 

[Deino]

Conclusion is, the J-10C is made for ground attack role more than air to air. Its payload configuration is more towards air to ground ordnance + external fuel tanks for increasing combat radius. The J-10C is for home defense providing close air support roles aiming at taking out enemy mobile air defenses, tanks and vehicles in mind

No it is not, otherwise You would see much more often J-10s loaded with air to ground ordnance. IMO the J-10 is a decent multirole fighter with surely a limited weapons load given by the number of AAMs seen, but it does not need to have ... for more - more AAMs and more range - there is always the J-11 and also you have to keep in mind for what the J-10 was originally developed: To replace the J-7-series, which carried even less.

 

[UKBengali]

No it is not, otherwise You would see much more often J-10s loaded with air to ground ordnance. IMO the J-10 is a decent multirole fighter with surely a limited weapons load given by the number of AAMs seen, but it does not need to have ... for more - more AAMs and more range - there is always the J-11 and also you have to keep in mind for what the J-10 was originally developed: To replace the J-7-series, which carried even less.

I also think like @LKJ86 that should another country want to buy J-10C then it could be configured to be able to carry 8 or even more air-to-air missiles. The modifications should be minor as there are 11 hard-points already on the J-10C.

You are right that China itself sees no need as it has the J-11-series fighters that can carry much more air-to-air missiles.

 

[lcloo]

If 4 J10s can shoot down half a squadron of enemy jets, why would it need more missiles?

No squadron leader would want to fight on if he lost 8 of his pilots in a single battle.

This is not WW2 Battle of England. Today's air battles are decided by electronics and tactical moves, carrying a dozen missiles does not mean one has an upper hand.

Check up the latest air battle in 21st century, it was between Pakistan and India this February. Did they fired dozens and dozens of missiles at each other?

 

[UKBengali]

If 4 J10s can shoot down half a squadron of enemy jets, why would it need more missiles?

No squadron leader would want to fight on if he lost 8 of his pilots in a single battle.

This is not WW2 Battle of England. Today's air battles are decided by electronics and tactical moves, carrying a dozen missiles does not mean one has an upper hand.

Check up the latest air battle in 21st century, it was between Pakistan and India this February. Did they fired dozens and dozens of missiles at each other?

There is a flaw in that as one missile is unlikely to kill one jet.

More likely you will need 2 and that is why BVR missiles are usually
"ripple fired" in salvos of 2.

 

[lcloo]

There is a flaw in that as one missile is unlikely to kill one jet.

More likely you will need 2 and that is why BVR missiles are usually
"ripple fired" in salvos of 2.

The cold truth is that J10A/B/C's inner "fuel tank only" inner wing pylon has been wired for weapons and electronic pods, and there are photos to support this. It is just that they do not release many photo as normal training sortie has no requirement for armed to the teeth weapon configuration, and China is not in war time operational deployment like US and NATO.

Chinese normally do not do as the West do. In the West, the aircraft manufacturer will show off the best of what they can offer, sometimes even over-stated, in order to compete with each other to sell their aircraft and weapons, in a dog eat dog world. Chinese normally chose not to disclose their full potential as the main customer is domestic. They don't have to do hard sale.

Thus with-out the dual rack pylon, a J10 can carry up to 4 BVRAAM, or 6 if dual rack is used. For 4 J10, that is 16 to 24 BVR missiles. More than enough to kill a full squadron of 16 aircraft as normal kill rates of modern missiles is around 80% or more if the targets are in the kill zone.

Chinese BVRAAM has range beyond 250km, with latest PL-20 and PL-21 said to have range of >350KM and >400KM, though it is unclear what is the kill zone range.

I suspect even the outer most pylon normally fitted with WVRAAM can accommodate BVRAAM, but it is unwise to do so as with-out WVRAAM, one is very likely to lost in a dogfight with gun only.

Also, saying a dual rack is flimsy is just a personal opinion based on shape of the rack with-out actual fact on the material used. You cannot use a household rack or office rack to compare with a rack made of military grade reinforced metal alloy. (example commercial grade aluminium vs aircraft grade aluminium). Also the fact that flight phase of before and during launching of BVRAAM rarely involved vigorous high G regime.

 

[UKBengali]

The cold truth is that J10A/B/C's inner "fuel tank only" inner wing pylon has been wired for weapons and electronic pods, and there are photos to support this. It is just that they do not release many photo as normal training sortie has no requirement for armed to the teeth weapon configuration, and China is not in war time operational deployment like US and NATO.

Chinese normally do not do as the West do. In the West, the aircraft manufacturer will show off the best of what they can offer, sometimes even over-stated, in order to compete with each other to sell their aircraft and weapons, in a dog eat dog world. Chinese normally chose not to disclose their full potential as the main customer is domestic. They don't have to do hard sale.

Thus with-out the dual rack pylon, a J10 can carry up to 4 BVRAAM, or 6 if dual rack is used. For 4 J10, that is 16 to 24 BVR missiles. More than enough to kill a full squadron of 16 aircraft as normal kill rates of modern missiles is around 80% or more if the targets are in the kill zone.

Chinese BVRAAM has range beyond 250km, with latest PL-20 and PL-21 said to have range of >350KM and >400KM, though it is unclear what is the kill zone range.

I suspect even the outer most pylon normally fitted with WVRAAM can accommodate BVRAAM, but it is unwise to do so as with-out WVRAAM, one is very likely to lost in a dogfight with gun only.

Also, saying a dual rack is flimsy is just a personal opinion based on shape of the rack with-out actual fact on the material used. You cannot use a household rack or office rack to compare with a rack made of military grade reinforced metal alloy. (example commercial grade aluminium vs aircraft grade aluminium). Also the fact that flight phase of before and during launching of BVRAAM rarely involved vigorous high G regime.

That is an interesting theory but I am not quite convinced.

For once, since 2019 China has been trying to sell the J-10C to other countries and so it gives them an incentive to show off the full missile carrying capability of the J-10C.

Also I have been googling shots of the J-11B and while I have not found a single shot of any J-11B carrying more than 4 AAMs, I have seen a pair where one was carrying two BVRAAMs in-between the engines and another was carrying two under the inner wing pylons.

It is quite possible that the J-10C can only carry only 4 missiles and so far China has felt little need to wire any more than 4 of the 11 hard-points to carry missiles. Strange if that is the case as you never know, especially over Taiwan but there you go. J-10Cs cannot always rely on J-11Bs being around to help if they are facing new Taiwanese F-16Vs that that may be able to carry up to 16 AIM-120D AMRAAMs.

PS - I have no idea where you got the 80% kill rate of modern BVR missiles from.
AMRAAM has a 46% kill rate and that is against 3rd rate fighters and the US had all the advantage of AWACs etc. Let us be more conservative and assume 50% even with missiles with the calibre of PL-15. You cannot always wait till you are in the "no escape zone" before firing as the other guy may "ripple fire" at you and hope to kill you first with multiple shots.

 

[serenity]

These 4 bvr seems to be attached to the dual rails. Can you please show us any picture of J10 with its full air superiority load? I have suspicions.

I think there is some mix of information here so far.

J-10 has always been known by the fans as only equipping missiles on the two outer pylons like Deino said. The maximum PL-12 or PL-15 missile carriage by each J-10 is 4. Most wing end pylon so far has never been seen with medium range missile so only for short range due to weight most likely. Maybe they can carry PL-12 but at least it's never photographed.

Middle wing pylon can carry dual missiles and the drop in performance is not as much as you suggested. If mission require as many PL-15 as possible, dual missile is fine and performance at medium range is okay because very close range kind of turning is not necessary in medium range launch until further into merge.

Rafale is capable of carrying 8 medium range and Typhoon carries about the same for recommended air superiority mission. Typhoon's maximum air superiority mission is 6 medium range and 2 short range with fuel tanks. Rafale's maximum air superiority mission is usually 4 medium or long range Meteor depending on definition of long range and 2 short range with fuel tanks.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/

Fuel tanks are always carried in real life and they are dropped when fighting becomes closer ranged or if the plane needs to make very quick turns. They can carry more missiles but if you just want to carry as more missile than your enemy, then the Su and the F-15X will be better.

Definitely agree with you that just 2 medium range is not enough. This is why J-10 can carry 4. If you look at performance of engine compared to Rafale and the weight of each, the J-10 performance when carrying 4 PL-15 is still at better thrust to weight than Rafale with 6 missiles. Of course the Rafale with 6 missiles and three tanks still has 2 more missiles and much better range but it is not a problem and limit of performance with dual missiles.

I really think the J-10's engine and wing can easily deal with 6 medium range and three tanks in total but the performance will definitely not be as good and the wing life may be reduced a lot so even if it can carry just like Rafale can carry 8 or more Meteor and Typhoon can carry 10 AIM-120 but they don't due to fuel tank and performance degradation.

 

[casual]

That is an interesting theory but I am not quite convinced.

For once, since 2019 China has been trying to sell the J-10C to other countries and so it gives them an incentive to show off the full missile carrying capability of the J-10C.

Also I have been googling shots of the J-11B and while I have not found a single shot of any J-11B carrying more than 4 AAMs, I have seen a pair where one was carrying two BVRAAMs in-between the engines and another was carrying two under the inner wing pylons.

It is quite possible that the J-10C can only carry only 4 missiles and so far China has felt little need to wire any more than 4 of the 11 hard-points to carry missiles. Strange if that is the case as you never know, especially over Taiwan but there you go. J-10Cs cannot always rely on J-11Bs being around to help if they are facing new Taiwanese F-16Vs that that may be able to carry up to 16 AIM-120D AMRAAMs.

PS - I have no idea where you got the 80% kill rate of modern BVR missiles from.
AMRAAM has a 46% kill rate and that is against 3rd rate fighters and the US had all the advantage of AWACs etc. Let us be more conservative and assume 50% even with missiles with the calibre of PL-15. You cannot always wait till you are in the "no escape zone" before firing as the other guy may "ripple fire" at you and hope to kill you first with multiple shots.

Chinese radar tech is just as good as US. Very doubtful that US has any AWAC advantage as Chinese AWACs platforms are newer. Anyways, low missile load can be addressed by sending more planes on missions. J10 is not a heavy fighter.