Isn’t J-10B PESA?
Well, according to this source it is AESA.
I personally think it’s an PESA.
In the context of War Thunder it won’t matter too much anyway, since Gaijin seems to model them the same.
IDK cause they did say the PESA had worse range performance than PD, which could very possibly happen as seen by N004 vs ANAWG9. I am just sceptical about the fact that there are no sources on how it even performs, which means if Gaijin so decide to screw it up there’s nothing we can do about it.
Well, some dedicated fan might be able to dig up something, I’m still not the most well-versed PLAAF watcher, so…
I think it’s really hard, as a plane that only productid few dozens, we can’t even know its rader’s name, information about it’s a PESA, is get from the blurry image.
Well… One could try the source I posted… I doubt it could be accepted, but idk.
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1589895811513978775&wfr=spider&for=pc
Gaijin does estimate radar performance off of known characteristics… We know that J-10B’s radar has around 1200-1300 transmit/receive module, general size of the radar, as well as a general decription of the modules. So it wouldn’t hurt to bring attention to it and hopefully they don’t make the radar bad.
By all accounts, I don’t think the J-10B radar would be bad if the J-10B could easily defeat J-11B in BVR, it would need to jam 1493, which is a pretty powerful PD radar.
If all else fails… Maybe someone can try and get membership access to sinodefenseforum, It’s full of people that know much more than me, certainly.
That picture I thought was nice, but it could well have been J10C since the over exposure in the background. Any other way than the antenna on the back to separate them?
It is hoped that the CAS capabilities of the J-10B will be about the same as that of the JAS-39C, with at least four FnF missiles.
1 Like
You just kinda have to take source at face-value, which state that it is a photo of J-10B.
Also, ngl early J-10 flight demos are much more aggressive than now
Might be because of that mid-air collision back in 2016 that they decided to tone it down.
2 Likes
So has anyone attempted to find hard numbers for the Cd0 of the J-10? I just find it wild that it has so much more drag at mach 1+ than every single top tier delta wing in the game.
3 Likes
Yeah, seems wrong cause it just doesn’t follow any consistent pattern. I also doubt that the decrease will be so small past Mach 1.5 considering it particularly had a number of supersonic optimising measures.
Classic gaijin nerfing a Chinese jet for no reason just because they’re better than Russian jets
2 Likes
IIRC, Gaijin changed the drag numbers past mach 1 because of an interview with a test pilot on chinese state tv, where the pilot claimed that the aircraft started vibrating concerningly past mach 1.4 at some altitude (I cannot remember the exact claim). So in response to this information about potential overspeed damage to the airframe, they completely neutered the ability of the J-10 to accelerate past mach 1 at all altitudes.
1 Like
That is not a reliable source though for two reasons according to Gaijin’s own standards: 1. It was an ‘experimental’ jet, a prototype rather than a real J10, so we can not conclude that the same would happen to the production version as up to now there are no reports on similar circumstances with any of the serving J10s from 2005 to now, 2 decades. 2. It was said to start vibrating concerningly or what ever wording he used, but that does not indicate the drag need to be increased at supersonic speeds, as we know vibration is not caused by drag or at least not directly.
Gaijin also never publicly admitted to the fact that this is the source they used, since CCTV interviews and stats are not considered good enough for any bug reports anyways.
1 Like
Well that was the hearsay at the time AFAIR.
1 Like
Well yeah, so there are no known sources suggesting J10 actually has those issues in production blocks, so IDK why Gaijin did it.
2 Likes
How do u play F16A MLU? Just asking. So bad.