crobatoThat was the intent of my original query, that the AIM-9x could differentiate between the shapes of different airframes.. so far there’s no conclusive answer based on the responses received. there’s some conjecture thatthe missile can actually target specific parts of an aircraft such as the cockpit, for example.. if true, then identifying a aircraft’s shape shouldn’t be a problem.. Obviously, it can’t discriminate nationality but neither can radar..
If the missile can go LOAL (okay for those who might ask, Lock On After Launch), the missile should have some built in NCTR or you’re in trouble. You need LOAL type missiles if you are going to put missiles into interior weapons bays ala F-35 or F-22. I hope that answers your question. I kind of wonder though what can you recognize among different aircraft with only a 128×128 pixel image.
Of course the missile does not have to operate that way with other aircraft, with target recognition right from the aircraft if the missile operates in the normal lock before launch manner, whether its helmet or radar cued. Worked this way, the missile doesn’t need aircraft recognition, only needs to differentiate between a valid aircraft heat signature and a flare.
crobatoWhat has CFTs got to do with this? An F-16 with a draggy and loaded CFT isn’t in its optimal A-A form. And 1.3 tons of excess weight can still matter in an A2A fight.
Let me repeat to you again, I don’t think the J-10 holds 4.3 tons of internal fuel. If the plane is holding 4470kg of internal fuel, plus 590kg of missiles (2 PL-8 and 2 PL-12), it amounts to nearly 15000kg plus pilot and ammunition weight for the guns. With a 12,500kg thrust engine and 9750 empty weight (which is also too much and over that of an old J-8II), the TWR falls to a paltry below 0.85. That is way below F-16 levels which is known to get 1.0. So you think 1.3 tons of weight does not matter? Less 1.3 tons, and you are looking at just over 0.9. That’s looking a lot better but still less than an IDF or FC-1.
If you have a combat weight of 13,000 and with the 12,500kg engine, you are at least reaching the TWR of the F-16C with the PW F100-220E, which is regarded as the slowest F-16 variants of the family (the lowest TWR ratios of them all). Assuming the J-10 has a 9000kg empty weight, that puts the internal fuel at a much more reasonable and believable 3400kg, which is actually more in line with what the F-16 has internally too. For that matter the FC-1 is 2200kg internally.
crobatoBut have you seen F-16 with CFT *and* fuel tanks too? CFT is a form of external fuel tanks and is meant to replace external under the wing fuel tanks so you can free up pylons for weapons.
Nearly 4.5 tons of fuel internally plus combat load for a single AL-31F engined fighter is rather excessive. Not too mention very heavy and the plane’s performance suffers. If the plane is caught with a full fuel tank load it would be a sitting duck, because it cannout punch out the excess fuel in a jiffy in an external fuel tank. Remember that a Flanker with 9 tons of fuel for 2 AL-31F engines plus typical combat load is quite excessive, and the Flanker itself does not perform quite well until it only has 60% of fuel or around 5.6 tons of fuel left, out of 9.4 tons it can hold internally.
You only need to hold as much internal fuel so that your aircraft can perform close to its optimum performance when you jettison the tanks.
For this reason, I believe the J-10 with full internal fuel plus four AAMs (2 PL-8, 2 PL-12) won’t weigh more than 13,000kg.
crobatoYeah but I don’t think the Chinese would cancel it. They would tolerate it like the lateness they had on the last Sovremanny order. If China was converting more KJ-2000s from their civil and transport IL-76 fleet, you would need those 38 orders to fill the gaps that was created.
crobatoThat could more due to the factor those AAMs are SARH rather than ARH, means the fighter as long as it can finally outturn from the FCR’s tracking, it could escape the SARH AAM’s catch. However, for the ARH AAM, the final 20kms is non –escapable. Actually, because of this limitation, the Fighter firing SARH AAM has to come much closer to the target than the one firing ARH AAM.
Still I find it hard to believe the PL-11 could out turn a PL-8, which is said to be rated for a maximum overload of 35G, unless you have some revised numbers.
crobatoThe J-10 has still to prove/show its flying capabilities at an international airshow. The Russians were very convinced of that from their MiG-29/Su-27 and showed that in the 80s.
Guessing pictures is not very serious! Been tested can still be years away from operational readiness/use.
Planes are clearly deployed into regiments, and with the large numbers of engines ordered, suggest at least the planes may be out of IOC or if they’re in IOC, then in the final stages. J-10s entered IOC around March of 2003 when they were first deployed around the Beijing MR in the FTTC. In addition to testing, training, use as aggressors, this trial unit is also tasked with the air defense of Beijing. About this time, this is when forums began hearing reports of J-10s kicking butts of J-11s and Su-30s. I suspect this is a factor that seriously chilled China’s appetite and favoritism for Flankers, hence the cancelation of Su-30MK2 program after only one regiment is delivered (original plans called for 3), the stop of Su-30 purchases in the PLAAF, and what appears to be a temporary halt in the production of J-11s. Since then, an additional two or three regiments in different regions have acquired J-10s.
Please give your data of J-10 about wingload!
Not without an actual empty, payload and a sample of operational weight to work on. But its definitely clear that the J-10 has much greater wing area than an F-16, looks to me that delta wing and canard has a combined surface area of 38 to 44 square meters vs. 28 for the F-16.
crobatoWith 128×128 resolution vs a big blue sky, you probably can’t tell an F-16 from an FC-1, a J-10 from a Rafale or Typhoon, plus a few other things. NCTR, and IFF is generally best done in the plane’s FCS. And you always need that last line unthinkable option of possibly killing a friendly that has gone rogue.
crobatoYes, right underneath the plane at the bottom of the intake tunnel.
crobatoI find that hard to believe, because the Aspide is based on the AIM-7F, and Sparrow shots are being evaded by MiGs in Vietnam. For comparison, the R-27, which seems like a more maneuverable design than the Sparrow, can be evaded by an aircraft turning more than 8G.
SD-10 shown in expos were mockups. There were mockups of things there that were not produced, like the F-7MF. I would think that both missiles are the same airframe but differences are in their seekers.
crobatoOne thing is for sure nobody is going to complain his AAM can withstand too much of overload, You got smaller draggy canards in the front is intended to allow your missile travel faster rather than you can compromise the G load. That’s why we see AIM-120, aerodynamically more similar to PL-12 than R77, has a massive 50G overload, the PL-11( Aspider) is 42g, and SD-10 is 38g, and I doubt PLAAF will accept anything lower than what they already has
PL-12 got bigger diameter than SD-10, bigger antenna as a consequence and more powerful seeker, better and more Propellant to give better thrust and range and of course heavier.
PL-11 42G, where did you get that? As far as the PL-12 vs. SD-10 goes, the missiles that were shown with the J-10 photos does not appear to be bigger, longer, or wider than the SD-10 mockups shown with the FC-1 mockups. I don’t know about the seeker.
crobatoExcept that those specifications up there are quoting nearly half of the Flanker’s internal fuel load with half the number of engines.
That’s one massive internal fuel, and if you have that much fuel inside, you probably don’t need external tanks like the Flanker. Yet J-10 photos often show a lot of tanks,
Another thing is that I don’t think the J-10 has the wingspan, wing area or the weight close to a J-8II either.
crobatoThe missile you show there looks more like a MICA and a BVRAAM rather than a close range AAM like the IRIS-T and AIM-9X.
crobatoWhile not in length, two M88 are definitely bigger in summed up frontal surface area and definitely weighs than one AL-31FN. That will lead to a larger fuselage diameter. Add the components to that. The Rafale might be shorter but its also thicker and stubbier.
I certainly don’t think the J-10 has the bomb load of an Su-27SK either, which has two AL-31F engines.
crobatoI don’t know and I don’t think so. The PL-11 is still based on the Sparrow airframe. You got large draggy canards in the front, which also is used for controlling surfaces. The new generation of BVRAAMs have their controlling surfaces at the tail, including the AMRAAM and R-77. That goes with the PL-12/SD-10 too. They try to reduce their mid body drag as much as possible. Having controlled surfaces in the front may give you better instant turn rates, but having less drag will help you better in the sustained turns.
crobatoWe have a thorough review of that article in other forums, and the general view is that the J-10 specs listed are much too big and likely exaggerated a bit, too big in size, payload, weight, fuel capacity, etc,. Only the engine thrust has any basis for validity.
Sign In
