J-16 & J-16D
View attachment 896683
Via @洋务先驱张之洞 from Weibo
Is there any information on the Weight of the pods? The wingtip ESM pods (name?) and the RKZ-930 pods jamming pods. Not sure if it’s two different types of jamming pods?
Could these pods or a smaller (J-10’s max carrying capacity is 5800 kg while the J-16 is 9000 kg) export variant be put on the J-10 for Pakistan. One squadron could be a force multiplier, and allow these planes to be part of the strike package (over land and at sea) all the way to striking the target.
P.S.
IF a WS-15 engine version of the J-10 be developed, it’s thrust to weight ratio can be increased 27-30%, possibly meaning it would be able to carry the pods as is, or at least a set of
three jamming pods and two wingtip pods instead of
four jamming pods and two wing tip pods. This could be made more easier if CFT are used, freeing up space for four weapons; possibly PL-15 derived HARM style missiles and two YJ-91 missiles or two Chinese equivalent to the AARGM-ER long range HARM missiles. Besides a new engine, CFTs and wingtip station for the ESM pods, no other real structural changes would have to be made to a twin seat J-10.
We have to remember that the EA-18G Growlers have a max capacity for 8000 kg, and that they carry 3 jamming pods. So the difference is one pod and 1000 kg between the J-16D and the Growler.
A WS-15 equipped J-10 that can carry 7500 kg of fuel and ordinance should presumably be able to also carry 3 jamming pods (high, medium, and low bands) and two wingtip ESM pods and 4 weapons.
The goal being that the capability of the jamming pods not be reduced so that as small a strike package can be used in a time of war. Pakistan does not have the luxury of numbers so needs to maintain its qualitative edge.