There is here the most important aspect of your fantasies, you think the Rafael engineers did not think about self attrition and of course the PL-9 is a smart missile that won`t kill J-10s.

The Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) is the first thing that indicates to the missile where to direct its head seeker, since the Python seeker has a wider range of view it can scan and survey 220 degrees, or +110 and – 110, however if it wants to go beyond that it needs a databus system that indicates the target position with respect the Python carrier, full LOAL capability is only available to aircraft with a MIL-STD 1553B databus to transfer IMU alignment to the missile, using cues from the aircraft radar, a helmet-mounted sight, or off-board targeting data, the Python 5 can thus undertake engagements in a 360º radius around the launch aircraft. The IMU is also sensitive enough to adjust to the wing-twist effect suffered by the wingtip launchers on the F-16 and to align the missile for an optimum angle of attack on launch, in that the HMS still is used as several other sensors include off board ones , so it is not only one system but several.
The AIM-132 is the same in the Panavia Tornado that databus is absent so the Panavia Tornado of the RAF only can engage targets in a 180 degrees engagement angle .
This is not the same in the RAF Typhoon or in the Australian F-18s which can engage rear aproaching targets

The Russians also use the RWR to direct rear firing R-72 missiles as well rear looking radars.

To be honest you really don’t know what the f*k you are talking about. RWRs only tell you a hostile warning in the plane’s rear hemisphere. However, it does not distinguish targets per se. If a friendly and a hostile is within the same hemisphere, good luck.

What a load of crap. Do you go around with a PC logo that says “Idiot Inside”?

Recommendation? and ur not going to fight over the top of airbase.

and Flanker can turn on afterburner to go into high speed and altitude into the fight. once u lose fuel tanks u cannot get back them. Flanker can turn off the afterburner

What a load of BS. I have never heard of anyone in any airborne tactical exercise trying to deliberately lose fuel by using his afterburners.

so these are test round missiles?

Yes.

it wont make a difference when u have external load out and fuel tanks. and Airforce which can afford Flanke can also afford decent Ground radar. ur non-stealth J-10 cannot hide.

What a load of bull. Anyone with a J-10 can also afford any ground radar. That ground radar can also be jammed or destroyed by SEAD.

but R-27 have bigger motor and more fuel and being heavier will go considerable distance.

Not the R-27R, only the ER, but the ER’s distance is not proportional to its weight. Inefficient. Even at the edge of its range, the R-27 would be flying so slow and low in energy that it is practically useless, compared to a more aerodynamic missile.

for those who say the Kfir is a complete clone of the Mirage III

Here all this idiot goes on to show is how the Kfir line by line is exactly similar to the Mirage V. Try to do the same thing on the Lavi and the J-10 you will not get the same thing both top and bottom.

energy is mass into velocity. read about MIG-31 vs Su-27. and Su-27 consumes most of fuel during takeoff stage. In actual combat it will be no more than 6 to 7 tons. which will give Su-27 greater than 1 TWR.

No fighter or any plane consumes most of its fuel because of takeoff.

it is very minor when ur carry external weopons and fuel tanks and u have

When you carry external weapons your RCS increases, that’s why the F-22 and F-35 uses internal bays. So does F-117 and B-2.

seen the amount of smoke generated in J-10 promot video from missile firing. and it was wvr missile.

LOL there is no video of any J-10 smoking ever. The AL-31F is a smokeless engine.

radar paint was used on MIG-21Bison during 90s. it is not a factor.

Radar paint does not make a Bison a stealth fighter.

R-27 is heavier missile and it is most likey having greater speed and range than R-77/PL-12 class missile just like semi-active AA-9 Amos.

The R-27R definitely does not have greater range and speed. The R-27ER does but its not proportional to its weight. Unfortunately the R-27 has a draggy fin design and poor aerodynamics.

PLA daily would tell you different. Actually, most account of J-10 vs flankers say that flankers simply can’t shake off J-10. And besides, why do you need to carry 6 BVR missiles when 2 is enough to shoot the other guy down? Radar is bigger, but the tracking range of J-10 is greater than that of MKK. TWR of flanker is not better. For J-10 with WS-10A, it’s 13.5 tonne/11 tonne.

Carrying too many BVR missiles actually put the plane into an immediate tactical disadvantage due to the drag and weight of the missiles.

Why does J-10 need Meteor or python v to beat earlier mig-29s and su-27s? Those 27sk we got can’t even fire R-77. They can’t even beat PL-12 equipped J-8F.

PLAAF later Su-27UBK and J-11s can fire R-77 (circa received and made from year 2000 and so on). Just the early Su-27SK and UBKs don’t.

Man all you do is post a bunch of copyright material and think you’re smarter somehow.

Yeah yeah Crobato let us analize your fantasies

[B]The third generation PL-9 is better than the fifth generation Python V, the 70Gs hold by the Python V are not an advantage compared to the 35Gs or 40gs hold by the PL-9, the Python V and Python IV`s 180 degrees and 220 degrees field of view are not an advantage compared to the PL-9`s 120 deg.

And you have no idea that 70Gs are redundant, and you know what redundant means in the English language huh? Around 35 to 40G is enough to deal with a 9G turn.

And once again, something that Sens is not addressing, because the IFF capability is not in the missile but in the plane. You are not able to exploit the full off boresight of your missile if your IFF does not match that FOV.

Crobato you have to swallow the truth, the PL-9 is a more primitive missile, it is not better and to jamm the seeker or the data link is not easy,

Whether or not it is easy or not that is not the issue. The issue that it has been DONE.

the IFF recievers also do recieve information from several sources and in a dogfight the J-10 shape is different to an F-15 or F-16`s and what the pilot

If another plane is in the position to IFF a target, it would also be in a position to shoot it down, making the rear aspect shot redundant.

The J-10’s shape is not much different from an F-16 on the side.

of an F-16 only needs to do is turn his head, lock on with the Helmet mounted sight fire the missile and that is it, the Python V allows to its pilot more freedom in terms of cueing even without pointing the airplane nose at the intended target.

And how far can you turn the head? Want to demonstrate to us your alien ability to turn it completely around?

And once again, you don’t address the issue. You certainly have a pathetic foolish notion of geometry and don’t know what degrees are. An HMS is still limited by the limitation of the human neck, which cannot pivot backward.

And you have no idea that the PL-8/9 are also helmet cued.

Now can a J-10 win some dogfights? probably yes, will it win more often than it loses? probably not if it faces the Python V or IV.

Lol. In NATO exercises with F-16s vs. MiG-29 aggressors using the R-73 missile, the ratio wasn’t certainly overwhelming, despite the AIM-9L only having 25 degrees off bore while the R-73 has 60 degs and an HMS. Once the initial surprise was worn out, experience gained, and tactics adjusted, the favor went further to the F-16.

In PLAAF exercises, pilot that are not using HMS, limiting the boresight of their missiles and yet they still frequently gain victories over pilots that do use HMS. And this phenomenon is not local to the PLAAF as I gave you the NATO examples.

The advantage is in the side that has fifth generation missiles not in the side it has third generation missiles。

Excuse me? “Generation” does not really give a flying f*ck. When you are 60 degrees or 90 degrees, it matters much less.

To explain what is happening above, is that you seemed to have no idea that by far the most common encounter between two aircraft is the “merge”, when both are coming in at each other head on. The vast share of “kills” will happen here and having WOBS at 60 deg or 90 deg or 180 deg matters little here. Maybe you like to find out why AAMs and SAMs don’t bother with high WOBS? At these circumstances, an F-15 with Sparrows has as good a chance as hitting an F-15 with AMRAAMs. Following that, the next most common encounter is having one plane behind the other for a tail shot.

The rest is typical Flogger tactic of bringing in irrelevant material to obscure the issue. You never address the true problems of targeting sideways to the rear autonomously. Tell me where the hell can an HMS allow you to target backward of the aircraft?

More excuses Crobato to claim the J-10 is almost an equivalent, however operational experieces show that difference of 2/3 in the head seeker`s field of view can mean victory of defeat, the PL-9 barely has 120 degrees in the head seeker`s field of view the Python IV has 180 deg and the Python V has 220 deg of field of view.

Bull. There is something called diminishing returns. It may make a big difference between 30 to 60 deg, but over 60 deg, the benefits compared to the cost of implementation began to seriously diminish especially because the human head, as well the field of view of the radar’s pivot, cannot do the same turn.

The PL-9 is limted to frontal attacks always with the J-10 nose in front of the target,

Shows you how little you know of missiles. The PL-9 is an all aspect missile, which means it attacks from every direction. Previous to the AIM-9L, all IR missiles are rear aspect, which means every old missile is capable of attacking from any part of the rear quarters.

the Python V or IV carrier can always fight and down any enemy that has just over passed and failed to launch a missile before it gets a good oportunity once more and gets the J-10 with its nose pointing at the Python V or IV carrier but of course this is something that in your fantasies you can not see.

The only fantasy here is the way how you portray missiles to fight, without addressing IFF concerns or the limitations of radar and human head rotation.

Data link is not an inconvinience as you claim since the Derby has its own head seeker and modern aircraft use data link to lock on and cue targets via other sources today`s Gripen can do it.

LOL. Datalinks can be jammed, and if another aircraft has one bogie in its radar, that second aircraft would already be attacking the target in the first place, making rear aspect missiles tactically redundant.

The Derby can even be enslaved to the HMS

Wow, you’re talking as if this is a new innovation. Maybe you don’t know, or even read the old Su-27SK manual, but the R-27s—old missiles—can also be enslaved through the HMS.

You conviniently also forget the J-10 also has a radar and this can be jammed and having no data link or Lock on after launch limits it more than the F-16s with Derby or Python IV or V, in fact data link allows the fighter to swith off its own radar

More bull from you. The J-10 has a datalink, you can see the large antenna right behind the pilot. So yes, it can do what you say. As a matter of fact, even the J-7s have datalinks. Datalink technology is really old; the Soviets use them to vector fighters under ground control.

By the way the Python can hold 70Gs more Gs than what the PL-9 can hold in fact twice the Gs

Another useless feature. Once your missile can attain 30 to 40G, it can already more than enough to lead target aircraft maneuvering at 9G.

In few words crobato that difference of 60 deg or 100 deg means the J-10 either needs to point the nose at the target and maneuvre and lose speed or over pass the target and being hit by a missile lauched at it

More Flogger idiocy and technical incompentence. The ability to harness over 60 degrees of off boresight is limited by the FOV of the human head and vision, the wings blocking the view of the aircraft, the FOV of the radar, and the FOV of the IFF instruments.

If missiles are so wonderful, figure out why even today, future aircraft are being designed for maximum pointability. Even on the Red Flag exercises, it has been deduced that WOBS and HMS are not the silver bullets they claim to be, that aircraft positioning and pointability are still kings, and that ACM training still has its place.