Bro.This is referencing the meme where the J-11B was hyped as a CAS monster before being added, but after its release, it turned out it could only carry 4 Kh-29T, with one pylon occupied by a pod.
1 Like
All dual missile pylons in the Chinese tech tree have aerodynamic drag issues. Taking the J-10A as an example, each PL-12 missile reduces the maximum speed by 0.02 Mach.
I hope this is even half true.
Chinese fixed wing cas is limited
1 Like
in dev server, laser GB3 is already there, 2 triple pylon, 2 in inner pylon, and 4 on body, 2*3+2+4=12
1 Like
I saw this, I mean IRL it don’t
gaijin doesn’t model pylon drag
The thickest one has less drag, what a circus
1 Like
lmao, same thing as a2a weapon drag
not same, Cd0 is the parameter concerning drag increase level with speed, the cxk of missile, is used as an adjust parameter
in old time, the heavier missile usually has smaller cxk, but now the rule is broken
Let me refine my previous point. Initially, I assumed the Cd0 was based on a separate reference area, but I now realize it actually uses wing area as the reference. Considering the J-10C and the Eurofighter have similar fuselage lengths, the J-10C—due to its single-engine design—has a smaller cross-sectional area and features a more pronounced “waisted” fuselage design. Therefore, its fuselage drag in the transonic regime should generally be lower than that of the Eurofighter. Given the difference in reference area (37 m² for the J-10C vs. 51.4 m² for the Eurofighter, excluding ailerons), the peak Cd₀ for the J-10C should be below 0.0194, whereas the current value is 0.0204.
Furthermore, a more suitable reference for wing comparison is actually the JAS 39 Gripen, as they share similar wing sweep angles and canard positions relative to the wing. Considering the J-10 has no wingtip pylons and incorporates wingtip design similar to the F-15’s clipped tips, the wing Cd₀ of the J-10C should not exceed the JAS 39’s peak of 0.0112, yet the current value is 0.0123.
8 Likes
Just asking is there a point (any) for asking for the 5EII on J10C?
Also the 70 degree search on the radar sucks a lot.
PL-5 and PL-8 has almost no difference in actual battle.
as the 70 degree search, it’s the common data for all fixed AESA, and irl same, over 60 degree the e-scan power begins to have significant attenuation
To be precise, it is an AESA radar that is not an electromechanically mixed scan (mechanical scanning + electronic scanning) type. The Typhoon’s 90° and 100° scan capability is achieved because its Captor-E radar incorporates an additional mechanical scanning structure. Future radars for aircraft like the JAS 39E and Su-35 also feature a similar architecture .
I am more talking about a 120 degree wide scan pattern not really the 70 degree scan capability.
Also are we still standing on any solid evidence asking for FN-5 engines?
it’s still a capable not actual equipped, unless we can find this
I remember it’s the UEC or Saturn’s financial/stock report
It seems China did not purchase the 31FNS5 engine. Currently, in the game, the 31FNS3 engine has a thrust of 13 tons, and the reported 13.5 tons is a misinformation ( Arcade mode). However, some players have tested this engine in the game, and its performance doesn’t appear to be particularly poor. If an engine replacement were to happen, switching to the WS-10B seems more likely. But Gaijin stated “Subject to change,” so whether it will actually be replaced, I have no idea.
taking a break from J-10C stuff, heres an image of a PESA possibly one fitted on J-10B, from NRIET’s website back in 2003
2003? or do u mean 2013?