How Good is the J-10?

[f-22fan12]

There are many different opinions on how good the J-10 is compared to modern well known fighters like the Su-27,F-15C,Su-30. How does the J-10 match up in manuverability, avionics, and lethality.:unknown

Sorry if this thread is posted somewhere already, just tell me. :)

[Izzy1]

Hard to say in comparison to those you list, especially given the West's lack of credible information on the J-10.

However, here is one of the better links on the web in regards to the J-10.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

[f-22fan12]

Went to the site before, thanks though. :)

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[XaNDeR]

I think what I'm impressed with is the improvements the PLAAF has done in terms of missile technology.

1 word : Russia

Mod Edit: Path: Please avoid posting one-liners.

[Schumacher]

1 word : Russia

I guess some just need to find comfort in the wish China didn't develop the tech itself. Hey, if it works for you ... why not ? :)

[yess]

according to American sources, in terms of maneuverability J-10 out performs technological superior F-18 Super hornet! maneuverability is the only fear that Americans face.
Pakistan is the only J-10 customer so far. PAF is also planning to upgrade this plane with western technology and thrust vectoring engine, pakistan should then be apposing a threat to indian Su-30 mki. :D

[f-22fan12]

according to American sources, in terms of maneuverability J-10 out performs technological superior F-18 Super hornet! maneuverability is the only fear that Americans face.
Pakistan is the only J-10 customer so far. PAF is also planning to upgrade this plane with western technology and thrust vectoring engine, pakistan should then be apposing a threat to indian Su-30 mki. :D

I believe you are right about it being able to out maneuver a F-18 Super Hornet. Read this before. I believe it too. However in a BVR combat situation the Hornet would win for sure. It DOES have better tech.

Thanks for all the responses :)

[kickars]

1 word : Russia

Oh, I see. So from your logic which word should be used on US, then? Without the British there won't be any F-22s. Coz there won't be any jet engines. And without the British there won't be Nimizs. Coz CAT won't be invented. I guess without the Italian there won't be any USN subs, either. So if you use one word to describe PLA: Russian, then I shall give you at least two words for US: British and Italian! Wait a minute... who invented gun powder at the first place???

Sorry for being off the topic. I think from an interview with the chief designer of J-10. He said J-10 is a working progress. It will be improved over the years (just like any western and Russian fighters). So the very first J-10s shouldn't be that 'good'. But I'm sure it'll get improved gradually. Just give you reference point that the very first J-10s should be similar to F-16B/C (that's what the official said).

[f-22fan12]

1 word : Russia

Russia gives everything good they have to ANYONE who will pay them $. China is no exeception. I think the J-10 tech. + design came from either Israel (Lavi) or Pakistan. (F-16) If they didn't get help, in time they would have developed it anyway. Their defense budget has grown very quickly to become the 2nd largest in the world and they would have had the money for the R&D because of this. :)

[Dr Phobus]

I really do think it will sell well internationally, but it will have a slow start.

I did not know the PAF ordered or plan to order the J-10, of course, i know the thunder was ordered, can anyone throw some light on this one for me.

[f-22fan12]

Oh, I see. So from your logic which word should be used on US, then? Without the British there won't be any F-22s. Coz there won't be any jet engines. And without the British there won't be Nimizs. Coz CAT won't be invented. I guess without the Italian there won't be any USN subs, either. So if you use one word to describe PLA: Russian, then I shall give you at least two words for US: British and Italian! Wait a minute... who invented gun powder at the first place???

Sorry for being off the topic. I think from an interview with the chief designer of J-10. He said J-10 is a working progress. It will be improved over the years (just like any western and Russian fighters). So the very first J-10s shouldn't be that 'good'. But I'm sure it'll get improved gradually. Just give you reference point that the very first J-10s should be similar to F-16B/C (that's what the official said).

We are allies, we like to help for common defence. Russia sells for the MONEY they don't really want to help China. Don't forget the Sino-Soviet split.

Enough with the off topic stuff I'll stop now. :)

[meh]

I really do think it will sell well internationally, but it will have a slow start.

I did not know the PAF ordered or plan to order the J-10, of course, i know the thunder was ordered, can anyone throw some light on this one for me.

Well as far as I know Pakistan has ordered about 30-36 of these fighters so fas and can order more if needed. But what upsets me is that the j-10 will not have the data link capability like the F-16s and eventually the JF-17 because Sweden and China refuse to work together:(

And can comeone tell me how good the avionics of the aircraft are?

[f-22fan12]

I don't know about the avionics either, but my guess is that they will be around the level of the early F-16's or present mig 29s. And you are right about the data links. Nothing to feel sad about though.

[XaNDeR]

J-10 is not state of the art , there are much better planes out there and it can certainly not compare to Eurofighter

[Izzy1]

J-10 is not state of the art , there are much better planes out there and it can certainly not compare to Eurofighter

True. But I think your missing the point.

J-10 is a huge leap in capability for the PLAAF. Remember, its only 15 years ago that they stopped producing the F-6 - a very bad Mig-19 copy. Now they have a piece of kit that can challenge early-model F-16. At such pace, what next?

15 years ago, we were still developing Eurofighter. China has effectively skipped a generation of design with the J-10.

[crobato]

Hard to say in comparison to those you list, especially given the West's lack of credible information on the J-10.

However, here is one of the better links on the web in regards to the J-10.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

That website is considered unreliable, and it's Venik's. The article is a hodge podge of articles plus a whole lot of invented speculation. If you like the information where US military papers and articles from think tanks often footnote to, go to Hui Tong's Chinese Military Aviation or to Sinodefence.

[crobato]

True. But I think your missing the point.

J-10 is a huge leap in capability for the PLAAF. Remember, its only 15 years ago that they stopped producing the F-6 - a very bad Mig-19 copy.


J-6s are actually perfected MiG-19. In that respects they are better than the originals. They carry heavier armament, as much as 3 cannons; had more powerful engines with twice the life; were more robustly built; better armed, wired for Atoll, Sidewinder and Magic clones.

[XaNDeR]

True. But I think your missing the point.

J-10 is a huge leap in capability for the PLAAF. Remember, its only 15 years ago that they stopped producing the F-6 - a very bad Mig-19 copy. Now they have a piece of kit that can challenge early-model F-16. At such pace, what next?

15 years ago, we were still developing Eurofighter. China has effectively skipped a generation of design with the J-10.

agreed

Mod Edit: Path: Don't post if you have nothing significant to say. Read the rules about one-liners. Next one will result in temporary ban.

[Schumacher]

True. But I think your missing the point.

J-10 is a huge leap in capability for the PLAAF. Remember, its only 15 years ago that they stopped producing the F-6 - a very bad Mig-19 copy. Now they have a piece of kit that can challenge early-model F-16. At such pace, what next?

15 years ago, we were still developing Eurofighter. China has effectively skipped a generation of design with the J-10.

The 'talk' is that the next upgraded/modified/modernized version of J-10 will fly next year & the next generation 'stealthy' will fly around 2015.

[crobato]

There are many different opinions on how good the J-10 is compared to modern well known fighters like the Su-27,F-15C,Su-30. How does the J-10 match up in manuverability, avionics, and lethality.:unknown

Sorry if this thread is posted somewhere already, just tell me. :)

The one thing we are regularly sure of is that the J-10 regularly beats both the Su-27SK and Su-30MKK in exercises. (The kill ratios were allegedly ranges from 5:1 to 8:1). This is something the PLAAF has admitted. Thus no surprise that China stopped J-11 production and Su-30MKK purchases. The key question people like to know is how the J-11B would fare against the J-10. I don't think this is biased to the "local boys" because the J-11 is considered a local boy also; a major part of the aviation chinese military industrial complex is heavily devoted to the J-11 effort, and that means considerable CCP/CMC/PLA/PLAAF officials are onboard too.

One of the last major DACT exercises the PLAAF conducted towards the end of 2006 was the J-10s of the 44th Division, based in Kunming, going against the J-11s of the 19th Division, under the Jinan MR command. The J-10s were playing "Blue Army" while the J-11s were "Red Army".

[meh]

Do you have a link crobato I would like to read more about what the out comes were of the exercise.

[tphuang]

Sorry for being off the topic. I think from an interview with the chief designer of J-10. He said J-10 is a working progress. It will be improved over the years (just like any western and Russian fighters). So the very first J-10s shouldn't be that 'good'. But I'm sure it'll get improved gradually. Just give you reference point that the very first J-10s should be similar to F-16B/C (that's what the official said).
It's not that good compared to what? The issue here is that J-10s main opponent in the coming years will be F-22, F-35 and super hornets. At the moment, it has a decent chance against super hornet and not much against the other two. So in that way, it's not that good. But compared to the flankers way have, it may not have the range/payload, but it's a superior A2A platform.

Well as far as I know Pakistan has ordered about 30-36 of these fighters so fas and can order more if needed. But what upsets me is that the j-10 will not have the data link capability like the F-16s and eventually the JF-17 because Sweden and China refuse to work together

And can comeone tell me how good the avionics of the aircraft are?

how can J-10 not have datalink? the situation awareness on J-10 is supposed to be much better than that of JF-17 (especially with the upgrades they are making to it right now). As for datalink, the Y-8 AEWs should be equipping PAF earlier than the Erieye.

As for the ratio in the J-10 to su-30 mock combats, the ratio went anywhere from 4 kills to 0, 10:1 kill ratio and a bunch of other stats. Either way, all sources indicate J-10 dominated the encounters. One of the recent speculations is what happened between J-10 and J-11B. I guess we will know soon enough.

[Izzy1]

J-6s are actually perfected MiG-19. In that respects they are better than the originals.

Perfected...

Yes I suppose anything can be classed as that, 20 years after the Soviets stopped producing the original. J-6 build quality was generally regarded as bad, the PAF for instance had to virtually rebuild their's before letting them go into operational service.

That website is considered unreliable, and it's Venik's.

According to who? You??

Trade websites like Defence Industry Daily are using it as reference, so it must have some reliability.

[crobato]

Perfected...

Yes I suppose anything can be classed as that, 20 years after the Soviets stopped producing the original. J-6 build quality was generally regarded as bad, the PAF for instance had to virtually rebuild their's before letting them go into operational service.

The original MiG-19 was never a quality aircraft to begin with, in fact, none of the Soviet era aircraft ever were. So comparing crap with crap, you don't have a reliable standard of measurement when it comes to build quality. But you can go ask some of the private MiG importers in the US that they have a higher opinion of the Chinese stuff as opposed to the Russian stuff. But one thing for sure is that the J-6 has more features than the MiG-19. I also forgot to mention later models have an extended wingspan to help agility and reduce landing speeds.

The Soviets stopped building the MiG-19 because first of all, it was a complex beast to maintain, compared to the single engine MiG-21. And second it was a difficult plane to fly. And third it had little room for radar.

Its sheer maneuverbility comes at a price: it is borderline stable to fly with. The Chinese did a lot to fix the first part. In the second part, the MiG-19/J-6 is always a beast to fly, but when mastered it is said to out turn and out fly even a MiG-21. When you weigh less than 5800kg empty and powered by two 3,900kg thrust engines (nearly 8,000kg thrust), you got a TWR better than MiG-21s. The Chinese did quell down the J-6's instability with the Q-5 design; the nose structure added weight in the front that increased stability, but at the slight expense of agility and weight.



According to who? You??


LOL finally found someone who actually never heard of Venik's reputation. 'nuff said. Maybe you need to ask around.




Trade websites like Defence Industry Daily are using it as reference, so it must have some reliability.

LOL. This is even funnier. Venik is the guy that ran a website tracking the alleged (and extremely doubtful) US/NATO/Allied/Coalition losses on Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq based on highly dubious Russian reports with the supposed intention there is a media conspiracy going on in the West to hide the truth in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/yugoslavia/index.htm

[f-22fan12]

J-10 is not state of the art , there are much better planes out there and it can certainly not compare to Eurofighter

True, it can't compare to the Eurofighter or Rafale. Maybe it could compare to the Gripen. what do you think of that?

[nero]

True, it can't compare to the Eurofighter or Rafale. Maybe it could compare to the Gripen. what do you think of that?

.

does the J-10 have super-cruise ???

if yes then it can be compared to the best that the europeans have to offer.


.

[swerve]

.

does the J-10 have super-cruise ???

if yes then it can be compared to the best that the europeans have to offer.

.

Are you saying that Chinese avionics & control systems are as good as the best that Europe can produce? Or do you think that only the airframe & engine matter?

[Titanium]

LoNg time lurking around, I have a very quick question
Is there need for all the new advanced fighter aircraft, with all the performance enhancement? I mean , if we Furnish all the modern avionics in Mig 21 or any light fighter things like AESA Radar, IRST, Modern interface, BVR Missiles Etc, how does it compare in battle field to advanced fighters?


Also, considering new Electronic radars and possibilities of miniaturisation don't you think light fighters with their low RCS are better than more heavy fighters in point defence? what are the chances that a modern aircraft can evade a AAM than a Mig 21?

As the saying goes what difference does Aircraft make when you are facing each other BVR Missile?

[nero]

Are you saying that Chinese avionics & control systems are as good as the best that Europe can produce? Or do you think that only the airframe & engine matter?

.

the chinese aveonics has improved a lot in the last 4 years...

i only meant to know whether the J-10 has Super-cruise technology or not.

if yes then we can proudly say that chinese engine technology is at par with the europeans...

.

[Thery]

No, J-10 cannot super-cruise, since both AL-31FN and WS-10A were not designed to super-cruise at the first place. I believe with current technology it is improbable for a single engine aircraft to achieve super-cruise.

[f-22fan12]

.

does the J-10 have super-cruise ???

if yes then it can be compared to the best that the europeans have to offer.


.

No, it doesn't only the Raptor and Eurofighter have supercruise.

[f-22fan12]

The one thing we are regularly sure of is that the J-10 regularly beats both the Su-27SK and Su-30MKK in exercises. (The kill ratios were allegedly ranges from 5:1 to 8:1). This is something the PLAAF has admitted. Thus no surprise that China stopped J-11 production and Su-30MKK purchases. The key question people like to know is how the J-11B would fare against the J-10. I don't think this is biased to the "local boys" because the J-11 is considered a local boy also; a major part of the aviation chinese military industrial complex is heavily devoted to the J-11 effort, and that means considerable CCP/CMC/PLA/PLAAF officials are onboard too.

One of the last major DACT exercises the PLAAF conducted towards the end of 2006 was the J-10s of the 44th Division, based in Kunming, going against the J-11s of the 19th Division, under the Jinan MR command. The J-10s were playing "Blue Army" while the J-11s were "Red Army".

I believe it yet I don't understand it. The Sukhoi MKK is one of the best fighter airplanes the Russians produce. And it wasn't downgraded when it was sold to China. So how could an indeginous Chinese fighter defeat one of Russia's best? How do you know they just don't favor the J-10? If the J-10 could really defeat a Sukhoi 30 MKK or Su-27 WOW! What about in BVR combat. There I think the Sukhoi would have a better chance. It probobly has a better radar/electronics. Don't you think? Overall I think the J-10 could beat the Sukhois in a dogfight only.

Thanks for great participation in this thread. :)

[Marsh]

Looking at the info available, it might end being a latter-day Mig-21 on the export market. Generally inferior in its early versions to the larger and more expensive fighters but still a danger if employed correctly in the right hands.

[XaNDeR]

I believe it yet I don't understand it. The Sukhoi MKK is one of the best fighter airplanes the Russians produce. And it wasn't downgraded when it was sold to China. So how could an indeginous Chinese fighter defeat one of Russia's best? How do you know they just don't favor the J-10? If the J-10 could really defeat a Sukhoi 30 MKK or Su-27 WOW! What about in BVR combat. There I think the Sukhoi would have a better chance. It probobly has a better radar/electronics. Don't you think? Overall I think the J-10 could beat the Sukhois in a dogfight only.

Thanks for great participation in this thread. :)

No in BVR China wouldnt stand a chance against Russia's 30's

In dogfight sure it could have defeat Su-30 but dogfight is mostly about the pilot , so its not certain that J-10 is better.
Looking at the specifications overall J-10 is quite impresive, but if i had to choose i would put my money on the Su-30 still , that test didn't mean anything.

[EnigmaNZ]

I understood the J-10 was available in 3 models, budget version with chinese avionics and radar, which they were hoping to market for about $15 mil or so. An intermediate model with russian gear for about $20 mil, and one with western gear for $25 mil or so. Mind you its been a while since I read that, and I can't remember where.

[T-95]

Final word: Whatever!

Because of the Python-3 tech transfer to China in case you were wondering. And what was the point of your post exactly?:rolleyes:

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The one thing we are regularly sure of is that the J-10 regularly beats both the Su-27SK and Su-30MKK in exercises. (The kill ratios were allegedly ranges from 5:1 to 8:1). This is something the PLAAF has admitted. Thus no surprise that China stopped J-11 production and Su-30MKK purchases. The key question people like to know is how the J-11B would fare against the J-10.

I have a hard time believing the kill ratio's in exercises show the true combat capabilities of a fighter, IF they are indeed true. There are allways ROE that are inteded to have a sertain result, that how you train for particular scenario's. So just because the PLAAF states that its first ever locally designed and built fighter gets 8:1 (or whatever) kill ratio's over one of the best fighters the russians have ever designed, doesent make it so IMO.

I don't think this is biased to the "local boys" because the J-11 is considered a local boy also; a major part of the aviation chinese military industrial complex is heavily devoted to the J-11 effort, and that means considerable CCP/CMC/PLA/PLAAF officials are onboard too.

One of the last major DACT exercises the PLAAF conducted towards the end of 2006 was the J-10s of the 44th Division, based in Kunming, going against the J-11s of the 19th Division, under the Jinan MR command. The J-10s were playing "Blue Army" while the J-11s were "Red Army".

Mate are you kidding me??????? You cant see the HUGE PR opportunity at having your first locally designed and built fighter be more capable than the russian design you bought, especially since you've been producing obsolete russian designs for 40 years. By having the J10 win the PLAF stating to the world and its own people "look how clever we are! the closest thing we've designed to a fighter before is a tractor and now our 1st gen attempt is better than a evolved 4th gen russian design to the tune of an 8:1 kill ratio". Your right i'm sure there was no bias toward the "local boys" in those exerscises, especially given the PRC expertise at propaganda and information manipulation. And you think the fact that the J11 is locally manufactured means there is no propaganda value in having the J10 kill it by stupid ratio's???? Please!!

Look i'm not saying the J10 is a bad platform or discounting the huge achievement the programe is for the PRC and the PLA. It is a truely remarkable acievement considering you were producing J6's not so long ago. However when i hear people stating that J10's regularly shoot down modern flankers in exercises with kill to loss ratio's of 5:1, 8:1 whatever, and therefore are more capable air superiority platforms i am slightly schepticle. Given the fact that this is PROC's first locally designed fighter, the huge propaganda value in its sucsess and the Chinese Communist parties history with information manipulation it is HIGHLY unrealistic to summise that the J10 is a more capable air superiority platform than the chinese flanker just because PLAAF's says so and has exercise kill ratio's to "proove" it.

[Chrom]

There is absolutly no reason why J-10 could reliably beat J-11/Su-30 in BVR or WVR. They T/W ratio is very close, J-10 aerodinamic couldnt be better, they avionic and WVR weapon are surery about equal, they BVR avionic and weapon also couldnt be much different - at least not SO different in the favor of J-10.
So, it looks like another wishfull chinese dream.

[crobato]

True, it can't compare to the Eurofighter or Rafale. Maybe it could compare to the Gripen. what do you think of that?

Probably not like the Gripen's datalinks. But if the J-10 has anything like the J-11B or the JF-17 defensive sensor and EW suite, then in those areas its closer to the Eurofighter and Rafale. That's a 500 signature RWR matched to an optical thermal/UV MAWS that is integrated to chaff and flares system and an electronically steering jammer that beams towards its target. There are two ports on the back behind the RWR in the J-10's tale that is identical in location and port size to the MAWS in the JF-17 and J-11B, indicating the same MAWS system. On top of the tail, you can see the EW device and its the same as that on the JF-17.

[crobato]

There is absolutly no reason why J-10 could reliably beat J-11/Su-30 in BVR or WVR. They T/W ratio is very close, J-10 aerodinamic couldnt be better, they avionic and WVR weapon are surery about equal, they BVR avionic and weapon also couldnt be much different - at least not SO different in the favor of J-10.
So, it looks like another wishfull chinese dream.


You are not the PLAAF, and no matter what, you and all the opinions on this board is irrelevant. The PLAAF seriously thinks the J-10 is better, and if you think the J-11 or the Su-30MKK is better then WHY the hell the PLAAF stopped buying the two aircraft, despite the budget increases. The PLAAF is the one deciding what they want to buy, not you.

There are many reasons why a J-10 can own a J-11 or Su-30MKK.

The transient performance is superior. According to Chinese sources, the J-10 has a roll rate of around 300 degrees a second. That's roughly around the M2000's rate---deltas tend to have a fast roll rate. The F-16 can manage as far as 325 deg/sec. The Su-27 can do 225 deg/sec.

The instant turn rate is better. Again, this is typical of deltas. The J-10 is said to have an ITR of 31 deg/sec, comparable to the Rafale and Gripen. No word on the STR. Compared to a non canard design like the J-11, the J-10 can pitch faster and with greater responsiveness due to the canards pulling at the nose. Add relaxed stability to that and a digital FBW.

The radar of the J-11 or Su-30MKK is NOT BETTER. Despite the size, twist cassegrain antenna design is at least a GENERATION behind a mechanical scanning slotted array, which itself is being outmoded by passive phase array and AESA. That makes the J-11 or Su-30MKK radar two gens behind PESA alone, even though you added modern electronics. A slotted array has superior signal gain and FOV (azimuth and elevation) compared to a twist cassegrain. The J-10 uses a slotted array, as do most modern Chinese fighters, which is pretty average standard for the West.

Smaller aircraft has an inherent advantage when it comes to WVR. Its easier to eyeball a big jet than a small jet, and that alone can be decisive

The Chinese also knows far too well of Russian sensors and EW capability, at least that of the J-11 and Su-30MKK and could have easily factored that into the J-10's sensor suites. Many top Chinese pilots are old hands with Flankers, either flying on them and against them, so they know full well the capabilities and weaknesses of the aircraft.

In any case the showdown is now with the J-11B vs. the J-10. The J-11B should equalize to better the sensors and avionics of the J-10, since it practically has the same systems, and the radar is of the same level of technology (slotted planar array) only larger. The J-11B is lighter than the J-11, has more powerful engines, plus digital FBW to boot.

[crobato]

I have a hard time believing the kill ratio's in exercises show the true combat capabilities of a fighter, IF they are indeed true. There are allways ROE that are inteded to have a sertain result, that how you train for particular scenario's. So just because the PLAAF states that its first ever locally designed and built fighter gets 8:1 (or whatever) kill ratio's over one of the best fighters the russians have ever designed, doesent make it so IMO.

Lol. These exercises have started since the summer of 2003 when the J-10s hit IOC, and goes all the way up to now. Don't tell me that for all these years, involving multiple regiments of all three aircraft in all different regions, that the ROEs are going to be the same for every encounter.

And the J-10 not the first ever locally designed and built fighter.

The original J-12 (a daylight only light fighter) got the honor of this in 1966.

Then comes the J-8Is and the J-8IIs, which is practically a different fighter from the first, with only a 30 percent commonality. And then the JH-7 which is a strike jet.


Mate are you kidding me??????? You cant see the HUGE PR opportunity at having your first locally designed and built fighter be more capable than the russian design you bought, especially since you've been producing obsolete russian designs for 40 years.

Learn more about the PLAAF aircraft. Its not the first locally designed and built fighter not by far.


By having the J10 win the PLAF stating to the world and its own people "look how clever we are! the closest thing we've designed to a fighter before is a tractor and now our 1st gen attempt is better than a evolved 4th gen russian design to the tune of an 8:1 kill ratio". Your right i'm sure there was no bias toward the "local boys" in those exerscises, especially given the PRC expertise at propaganda and information manipulation. And you think the fact that the J11 is locally manufactured means there is no propaganda value in having the J10 kill it by stupid ratio's???? Please!!


Chengdu is not considered the premier fighter company in China, at least in the eyes of the CCP and the PLA. It is Shenyang, the ones who are making the J-11. It is Shenyang that built the J-5, the J-6, reverse engineered the J-7, designed and built the J-8I and J-8II. It is a city at the north and the east, not far from Beijing, and that already means regional bias. And when something is locally manufactured, yeah, that means there are people in high places that is going to have their financial stake on it. This interest can outweigh propaganda value. And it is not as if the PLAAF has not followed up with its belief---it did. It stopped ordering both J-11 and Su-30MKK.

And what makes you think the PLAAF or the CCP favors Chengdu just because it is the "local boy". The powers at be poured tons of money into Shenyang developing the J-11B, and guess who gets the WS-10A first. The J-11B not the J-10. Shenyang certainly thinks that this is not over.


Look i'm not saying the J10 is a bad platform or discounting the huge achievement the programe is for the PRC and the PLA. It is a truely remarkable acievement considering you were producing J6's not so long ago. However when i hear people stating that J10's regularly shoot down modern flankers in exercises with kill to loss ratio's of 5:1, 8:1 whatever, and therefore are more capable air superiority platforms i am slightly schepticle. Given the fact that this is PROC's first locally designed fighter, the huge propaganda value in its sucsess and the Chinese Communist parties history with information manipulation it is HIGHLY unrealistic to summise that the J10 is a more capable air superiority platform than the chinese flanker just because PLAAF's says so and has exercise kill ratio's to "proove" it.

First of all what the PLAAF has for Flankers are not even remotely MODERN.

Its a generic Su-27 that has been slightly improved. I laugh at some people even saying it has better BVR than a J-10. The standard Su-27 does not even have the R-77, uses the R-27 SARH. The J-10 has the ARH PL-12 as its standard. If you put an F-16 with AMRAAM against an F-15 with a Sparrow, guess who is going to win.

The PLAAF J-11s are said to be modified for the R-77 and there is credible evidence to that (Jane's). However the numbers of R-77 are suspect and would probably allocated to the Su-30MKKs as priority. So R-27 equipped Su-27s against PL-12 wielding planes, the Su-27s are going to get owned. The Su-27s have better chance at WVR due to the HMS and R-73 HOBS missiles.

As for the Su-30MKK, its not that much improved over an Su-27. It lacks TVC and canards. Its not like an MKI or an Su-35 which would be considered top end. An Su-30MKK is considered low end and is primarily a strike jet.

It is Shenyang's J-11B that is at least, what you can say has the semblence of being modern---MFDs, glass cockpit, slotted planar array with microprocessor based electronics with ARH missile support, digital FBW, etc,. The Chinese have spent a lot of R/D overhauling the aircraft---700kg lighter than the standard Su-27, with an airframe that boast 10,000 flight hours (superior to the alleged J-10's 4000 to 6000 hours), plus radar reduction measures on the front edges and intake lid of the aircraft in order to lower the RCS to 3m2. The WS-10A is rated roughly at 29,000lbs each (13200kg), which is better than the 27,500lbs used on the AL-31F/FN (as used on the J-11 and J-10).

Local boy? It looks like its the J-11B being prepped as China's premier fighter. The fighter now appears to be entering an IOC/small batch production set, and so there is going to be plenty of opportunities to test the J-11B against the J-10.

The J-11B will equalize to better the radar, sensor and avionics suite of the J-10. Even if the radar is equal technology, the J-11B's larger radar would make it superior (both J-10 and J-11B's radar are from the same firm). This will provide a more even match in terms of airframe and aerodynamics. Then further down the line, the J-11B will itself be tested against uprated J-10s (with the WS-10A this time). Testing with the JF-17s will provide another interesting factor on DAC.

So this is far from over and it is growing to become a full rivalry between Shenyang and Chengdu.

[crobato]

No in BVR China wouldnt stand a chance against Russia's 30's

And how. China knows more about the R-77 than what Russia knows about the PL-12. China has both R-77 and PL-12 to compare, study and evaluate, and would have known far too well to counter the R-77.


In dogfight sure it could have defeat Su-30 but dogfight is mostly about the pilot , so its not certain that J-10 is better.
Looking at the specifications overall J-10 is quite impresive, but if i had to choose i would put my money on the Su-30 still , that test didn't mean anything.

Actually the Su-30 stands a better chance at WVR due to the R-73 vs. the PL-8.

Another thing that discounts the "local boy favoritism" theory. In one of the biggest DACT exercises last year, the J-10s were in fact, representing Blue Army. As Blue Flag aggressors, they are meant to emulate ROCAF air force, as the Mirage 2000 and F-16s are more electronically closer to the J-10, if not better. The fact the Flankers got owned is very disconcerting for the PLAAF at least, since they threw one of their best J-11 regiments facing Taiwan against Blue Flag force.

[Schumacher]

But, but, but I still absolutely refuse to believe J-10 beat Su27/30 ! :)

Amazing many know next to nothing abt the details of the aircraft involved yet have such strong opinions.
People, I think most on this forum are much more interested in the knowledge if any you have to share rather than simply stating your opinions based on what you like or don't like to believe.

[XaNDeR]

Yes it is highly unlikely that J-10 would stand a chance in a dogfight vs Su-30

[crobato]

It depends if you are beating at what level. The J-11 and the Su-30MKK are not that modern in the first place. One comment I got from a Chinese report is how many friggin switches you have to turn on in the Su-27 before you can even launch a missile. Definitely not user friendly.

J-10 against the much more modern J-11B is going to be on much more even odds. That will be more interesting to see.

Whatever your opinions are, it does not matter a single bit to the PLAAF. They have already long concluded that the generic J-11 and the Su-30MKK do not meet their requirements for future air warfare. Common sense tells you they're right. Want to put that up against a modern AESA equipped F-15? The Alaskan F-15s are being relocated to Kadena AFB as a matter of fact.

This does not comment that in general the Flanker is inferior to the J-10. Hardly. This is only Round One and Two. Round 3 will feature the modernized J-11B against the J-10. Hopefully we even get to see Russian prototypes of Su-30 and Su-35 go up against the J-10 in Peace Mission 2007. Anything better than a generic Su-27 or something made from it.

Also, PLAN's interest on the Su-33 or navalized J-11 shows the faith they have on the type at least for range and payload delivery.

[crobato]

Yes it is highly unlikely that J-10 would stand a chance in a dogfight vs Su-30

That's not what I get. Even PLAAF Aggressor pilots have nailed J-11s from J-7s. Shows you what experience and knowing the aircraft's weak spots can do.

If you have an Su-30MKI fighter, you definitely stand a much better chance against a J-10. TVC, much more modern phase array radar, etc,.

Without TVC, the Su-30 or Su-27 is hobbled by its slower roll rate, instant turn rate and transient performance. It will have its best chance if the pilot uses HMS to lock on to the J-10, if the J-10 did not use its own HMS first to lock on to the Su-30. In that case, the J-10 actually has a much better chance to do it because HMS depends so much on the visual, and being bigger makes you easier to spot and be locked on.

Another is that the Su-27/30MKK's radar antenna is not in gimballing servos whereas the J-10's is. This mean the J-10's radar will have a much greater field of view and that's going to be critical in a dogfight.

Finally, that J-10 pilots may have been J-11/Su-30 pilots once also gives the J-10 a pilot advantage. The last two deployments of J-10s have been in divisions that had J-11s and Su-30s (2nd and 3rd Division).

[Schumacher]

.............
Whatever your opinions are, it does not matter a single bit to the PLAAF. They have already long concluded that the generic J-11 and the Su-30MKK do not meet their requirements for future air warfare. Common sense tells you they're right. ........

For many here, common sense goes out the door when it's against what they LIKE to believe. :)

[wp2000]

Besides all the technical analysis on J10 and Su27sk/Su30MKK, the fact is:

J10 is being produced at a faster rate, whereas China has stopped buying Flankers from Russia except the 2 Su33 since 2003. Even the local version of Su27(J11B) production is running at a slow pace.

China's defence budget is being increased dramatically every year, yet no more Flanker purchases.

IMHO, J10 is a modern fighter that is close to F16 Block50 (still inferior though). Currently it's certainly not on par with the 4.5 Gen fighters like EF2000.

[wp2000]

In regard of China favoring J10, I think many people don't know that PLAAF, as most countries' airforce, love better and proven equipments (usually foreign ones). They once openly stated to the chinese manufacturer that only a F22 class chinese fighter would satisfy them. PLAAF has always been tagged as traitors by chinese military fans because of their obvious favorism towards Russian systems, and their sometimes exceptionally high requirements against domestic products.

I guess Indian forumers have similar feelings. In fact, some chinese fans really envy Indian Airforce's support to LCA.

Think about it, LCA only has done 700+ test flights NOW; yet the Limited Serial Production was started in 2004/5 and 20 more LCAs have been ordered already. Plus the IA officials are constantly stating LCA will be the back bone of Indian Airforce.

J10 never enjoyed such support from PLAAF until the end of 2004 after quite a few excercises were held for J10 against other planes.

[meh]

"As for datalink, the Y-8 AEWs should be equipping PAF earlier than the Erieye."

So are you saying that the Y-8 will be in service before the saab 2000 system? I thought that it was still under development stages.

[tphuang]

No, J-10 cannot super-cruise, since both AL-31FN and WS-10A were not designed to super-cruise at the first place. I believe with current technology it is improbable for a single engine aircraft to achieve super-cruise.

with improved engine and aerodynamics, J-10 will super cruise

So are you saying that the Y-8 will be in service before the saab 2000 system? I thought that it was still under development stages.

I don't know what you would call development stage, there is a prototype that's been testing for a while now. If PAF hasn't finalized and check off on the requirements, that's something it needs to get to, right?


believe it yet I don't understand it. The Sukhoi MKK is one of the best fighter airplanes the Russians produce. And it wasn't downgraded when it was sold to China. So how could an indeginous Chinese fighter defeat one of Russia's best? How do you know they just don't favor the J-10? If the J-10 could really defeat a Sukhoi 30 MKK or Su-27 WOW! What about in BVR combat. There I think the Sukhoi would have a better chance. It probobly has a better radar/electronics. Don't you think? Overall I think the J-10 could beat the Sukhois in a dogfight only.

it's simply just too difficult for mkk to defeat J-10 in either BVR or WVR. If you actually ever examined the electronics, you would see J-10's major advantage is in avionics.
I understood the J-10 was available in 3 models, budget version with chinese avionics and radar, which they were hoping to market for about $15 mil or so. An intermediate model with russian gear for about $20 mil, and one with western gear for $25 mil or so. Mind you its been a while since I read that, and I can't remember where.

there is no indication that they want to export J-10 anytime soon? Why would they? there is JF-17 for that.



No in BVR China wouldnt stand a chance against Russia's 30's

In dogfight sure it could have defeat Su-30 but dogfight is mostly about the pilot , so its not certain that J-10 is better.
Looking at the specifications overall J-10 is quite impresive, but if i had to choose i would put my money on the Su-30 still , that test didn't mean anything.

again, do you have a clue about the avionics on J-10 vs su-30? Do you know the RCS and such? Have you read what the test pilots said about the the two fighters?


I have a hard time believing the kill ratio's in exercises show the true combat capabilities of a fighter, IF they are indeed true. There are allways ROE that are inteded to have a sertain result, that how you train for particular scenario's. So just because the PLAAF states that its first ever locally designed and built fighter gets 8:1 (or whatever) kill ratio's over one of the best fighters the russians have ever designed, doesent make it so IMO.

mkk is one of the best fighters? really. it could easily be the most overrated fighter they've produced too.


Mate are you kidding me??????? You cant see the HUGE PR opportunity at having your first locally designed and built fighter be more capable than the russian design you bought, especially since you've been producing obsolete russian designs for 40 years. By having the J10 win the PLAF stating to the world and its own people "look how clever we are! the closest thing we've designed to a fighter before is a tractor and now our 1st gen attempt is better than a evolved 4th gen russian design to the tune of an 8:1 kill ratio". Your right i'm sure there was no bias toward the "local boys" in those exerscises, especially given the PRC expertise at propaganda and information manipulation. And you think the fact that the J11 is locally manufactured means there is no propaganda value in having the J10 kill it by stupid ratio's???? Please!!

As for J-10 favoured J-11? Why would they? J-11 is SAC's baby. J-10 is CAC's baby. SAC was always the big boy in AVIC1 until J-10 came along. After J-10 trouncing flankers, it was bad news for SAC. They lost orders. They had to spend extra time on improving J-11B before coming out with one with better avionics, lower RCS and reduce weight.

Why would they do promotion? They are not trying to export J-10. They are not even bringing it to peace mission 2007. They are doing this as a competition to see whether SAC or CAC get more orders.

[crobato]

believe it yet I don't understand it. The Sukhoi MKK is one of the best fighter airplanes the Russians produce. And it wasn't downgraded when it was sold to China. So how could an indeginous Chinese fighter defeat one of Russia's best? How do you know they just don't favor the J-10? If the J-10 could really defeat a Sukhoi 30 MKK or Su-27 WOW! What about in BVR combat. There I think the Sukhoi would have a better chance. It probobly has a better radar/electronics. Don't you think? Overall I think the J-10 could beat the Sukhois in a dogfight only.

I can't believe someone actually said this. Someone really needs to learn more about Flankers in general, how each model differs and their general technological levels.

[XaNDeR]

I can't believe someone actually said this. Someone really needs to learn more about Flankers in general, how each model differs and their general technological levels.

We don't know much about Flanker versions actualy , but if you care to explain we will be glad to listen ;)

[f-22fan12]

Yes it is highly unlikely that J-10 would stand a chance in a dogfight vs Su-30

I think so too. The Sukhoi 30MKK could have a good chance at the J-10 with equal pilots.

[Waylander]

Maybe some people here should to listen to the people here who seem to know the topic and back up their clames.

Constantly stating ones own opinion (Or wish) in oneliners doesn't look good compared to the very interesting posts of others here...

I can just say that I find it very interesting what people like crobato, wp2000 or tphuang have to say and the insights into PLAAF they give to us. :)

[f-22fan12]

I can't believe someone actually said this. Someone really needs to learn more about Flankers in general, how each model differs and their general technological levels.

I know about Sukhoi models. The best of them are the Su-30 MKI's (Indian) and MKM's (Malaysian) . Both have canards, thrust vectoring, and western avionics. That makes them the TOP planes the Russians produce. The Su-35's have Thrust vectoring and canards but no western avionics. The Sukhoi 30MKK is not the best, yet it is a good plane.

[ever4244]

Thought currently Flanker serve in PLAF is SK (export type ,groud attack capability locked, radar and avionics sys handicaped) and 30MKK (mainly improved for ground attack ) su 30Mk2 and Mk3 for China are variety of mkk favoured by PLAN, which can embody KH-31A and jdam like bomb .

So among China s flanker virtually only su-27sk are intended to air superiority and yet it s capability was deliberately unabled .That why i m not surprised to see J-10 can easily beat them, however when it comes to J 11B or the 27U or SM(can t remember clearly) russian use themselves,J-10 will be in disadvantages. Two engine always means larger radar , higher Trust/Weight, longer range, higher speed,larger capability. That s means a lot in beyond vision engagement.So is not likely for a F-16 beat a F-15 in a one on one combat.however, I still think F16 is better for it s efficient/price ratio is much higher. The same, J 10 is cheaper , handy , can do a lot dirty job like patrol ,ground attack , pull out AA missle base```` plus: two engine is almost square times more expensive to support than one.

some photo http://idao.bokee.com/3310708.html


BTW:China s SU-30MKK is different with India s MKI or MKI2, the later has N一011M radar, Vector trust`````maybe india want to wrap it to an all-round super-invincible fighter-bomber. but Chinese SU-30 s air combat capability is no better than SU-27 and well behind su-27SM for russian . So that s why we need J-11B , and the imported SU-27 family is too "fruitful" to logistic surpport .

[Thery]

with improved engine and aerodynamics, J-10 will super cruise




Well you are really optimistic. Do you understand such changes are equivalent as designing a whole new plane and engine?

[T-95]

Well you are really optimistic. Do you understand such changes are equivalent as designing a whole new plane and engine?

Nope, the engine yes but aerodynamics no. The areodynamics can just be adjusted a little. And didn't you hear about the Super J-10? It has two engines can super cruise incorporates stealth tech and has TVC. The Chinese were considering it for a while as cheaper alternative because they would not have to design a whole new plane but I think they left it in favor of the J-XX.

[powerslavenegi]

Supercruise sigh........ its become a buzzword as if it were some mythical capability,imho there are many things to it apart from just engine design and airframe drag(inclusive of weapons loadout),

Questions to be asked are
1.how much edge does this 'SC' thingy lend to contemporary non-stealth fighters with no weapons bay ? (i.e. airframe design aside without an internal weapons bay one would need to sqeeze the bypass ratio almost equal to the Turbo Jet class hence bringing down the SFC which would negate the +ves of SC vis a vis AB turbofan).

2.Supercruise perfectly blends with the F-22 design doctrine i.e. stealth apart from the low RCS the IR suppression is achieved via SC(avoiding the AB),I dont see Supercruise being of similar significance for an aircraft of RCS=2-3 msq which would be detected on a conventional Radar (at close ranges anyways the IRST or OLS would take over).

[Thery]

Nope, the engine yes but aerodynamics no. The areodynamics can just be adjusted a little. And didn't you hear about the Super J-10? It has two engines can super cruise incorporates stealth tech and has TVC. The Chinese were considering it for a while as cheaper alternative because they would not have to design a whole new plane but I think they left it in favor of the J-XX.

As I expected, you are talking about the myth twin engine stealth J-10 variant.

First of all, it need internal weapons bay, to achieve that the intake must change to side way instead belly ones, which means the whole middle section need redesign.

In order to install twin engine the whole tail section need redone, and its likely the tail fin also needs to change for stealth reason (likely V sharp one).

Well you may able keep the nose section but to reduce RCS further it too needs reshape. All these changes are no less work than designing a whole new plane, actually designing a new plane will be even easier.

Supercruise sigh........ its become a buzzword as if it were some mythical capability,imho there are many things to it apart from just engine design and airframe drag(inclusive of weapons loadout),

Questions to be asked are
1.how much edge does this 'SC' thingy lend to contemporary non-stealth fighters with no weapons bay ? (i.e. airframe design aside without an internal weapons bay one would need to sqeeze the bypass ratio almost equal to the Turbo Jet class hence bringing down the SFC which would negate the +ves of SC vis a vis AB turbofan).

2.Supercruise perfectly blends with the F-22 design doctrine i.e. stealth apart from the low RCS the IR suppression is achieved via SC(avoiding the AB),I dont see Supercruise being of similar significance for an aircraft of RCS=2-3 msq which would be detected on a conventional Radar (at close ranges anyways the IRST or OLS would take over).

I agree with you totally. There is only one more point I would like to add. Super-curies other than BVR advantage (given the plane is stealth) it suppose allow the plan fly further and/or longer as well. This could transfer to larger combat range and/or longer battle time.

[crobato]

We don't know much about Flanker versions actualy , but if you care to explain we will be glad to listen ;)

To start with an Su-27SK has electronics no much better than an non upgraded F-4E Phantom. That's a generation behind an F-15C/F-16C in terms of radar technology, cockpit ergonomics, and defensive measures. You are talking about an aircraft that is seriously outdated.

Well you are really optimistic. Do you understand such changes are equivalent as designing a whole new plane and engine?

Before the definition of supercruise was changed to Mach 1.5 in order to make it sound the F-22 can do this exclusively, a clean F-16 Block 30 or 40 with the GE engine could break supersonic on dry thrust and meet the meaning of the original term.

So is not likely for a F-16 beat a F-15 in a one on one combat.

They do actually.

[Thery]

Before the definition of supercruise was changed to Mach 1.5 in order to make it sound the F-22 can do this exclusively, a clean F-16 Block 30 or 40 with the GE engine could break supersonic on dry thrust and meet the meaning of the original term.



I don’t think speed is the only difference which F-22 redefined the term super-cruise. Super-cruise by itself does not give a fighter much of advantage, it give you huge benefit only when you can achieve it efficiently and at the same time still able to combat (with loads) and stay stealth (without AB).

A fighter achieve super-cruise with clean load is almost no use in real battle. Actually same thing goes to stealth as well, most fighters have far smaller RCS when clean loaded, but it has not much of use in battle.

As mentioned earlier super-cruise is mainly for stealth fighter, for an non-stealth fighter super-cruise is not that useful since with or without after burns others still able to pin point its position with easy.

[powerslavenegi]

To start with an Su-27SK has electronics no much better than an non upgraded F-4E Phantom. That's a generation behind an F-15C/F-16C in terms of radar technology, cockpit ergonomics, and defensive measures. You are talking about an aircraft that is seriously outdated.
Using the baselined Flanker as an example to prove your pov aint gonna win you any brownie points if platform evaluation is what you wish to do then compare the latest evolved version of the Flanker with J-10 or whatever .



Before the definition of supercruise was changed to Mach 1.5 in order to make it sound the F-22 can do this exclusively
Was it ?? please care to post any link or credible literature supercruise ==1.5 Mach :onfloorl:.

a clean F-16 Block 30 or 40 with the GE engine could break supersonic on dry thrust and meet the meaning of the original term.
Clean being the keyword here (btw what exactly are you trying to prove ?).There is hige diffrence between a platform designed ground up for super cruise and others which can merely achieve the statistics by tweaking on several other variables which might not be true in a real time scenario.

Quote:
So is not likely for a F-16 beat a F-15 in a one on one combat.

They do actually

That proves nothing for a matter of fact in the recent red flag exercises a F-16 managed to shoot down a F-22 raptor but after the latter had eaten 144 F-15's and Superbugs ,but such exceptions cannot be used to peddle a pov.

[tphuang]

Well you are really optimistic. Do you understand such changes are equivalent as designing a whole new plane and engine?

They are continuously upgrading the design at CAC. Just look at what they did to JF-17 for prototype 04. You can imagine the effort being used on J-10.


Questions to be asked are
1.how much edge does this 'SC' thingy lend to contemporary non-stealth fighters with no weapons bay ? (i.e. airframe design aside without an internal weapons bay one would need to sqeeze the bypass ratio almost equal to the Turbo Jet class hence bringing down the SFC which would negate the +ves of SC vis a vis AB turbofan).

2.Supercruise perfectly blends with the F-22 design doctrine i.e. stealth apart from the low RCS the IR suppression is achieved via SC(avoiding the AB),I dont see Supercruise being of similar significance for an aircraft of RCS=2-3 msq which would be detected on a conventional Radar (at close ranges anyways the IRST or OLS would take over).

nobody ever said internal weapon bay isn't part of the plan for future J-10 upgrade. Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.

I know about Sukhoi models. The best of them are the Su-30 MKI's (Indian) and MKM's (Malaysian) . Both have canards, thrust vectoring, and western avionics. That makes them the TOP planes the Russians produce. The Su-35's have Thrust vectoring and canards but no western avionics. The Sukhoi 30MKK is not the best, yet it is a good plane.

I would go at su-35, su-30mki/m, su-27sm, su-30mkk, su-27ubk with N-001VE and su-27sk. If I was to factor in J-11B, it would probably be between su-27sm and su-30mki/m. Although the thing about su-27sm is that it uses all the Russian (non-export) missiles. If you add in other planes, I would put Mig-31M, Mig-35, Mig-29SMT (iffy) better than mkk.

Thought currently Flanker serve in PLAF is SK (export type ,groud attack capability locked, radar and avionics sys handicaped) and 30MKK (mainly improved for ground attack ) su 30Mk2 and Mk3 for China are variety of mkk favoured by PLAN, which can embody KH-31A and jdam like bomb .

mk3 never got ordered, mk2 are not favoured by PLAN. They are ordering a lot of JH-7A, because it can use the full range of Chinese and Russian weaponary.

So among China s flanker virtually only su-27sk are intended to air superiority and yet it s capability was deliberately unabled .That why i m not surprised to see J-10 can easily beat them, however when it comes to J 11B or the 27U or SM(can t remember clearly) russian use themselves,J-10 will be in disadvantages. Two engine always means larger radar , higher Trust/Weight, longer range, higher speed,larger capability.

J-11B doesn't necessarily have higher T/W ratio, it certainly doesn't have higher speed. larger radar is offset by larger RCS. It's advantage are in range and payload.

[crobato]

Using the baselined Flanker as an example to prove your pov aint gonna win you any brownie points if platform evaluation is what you wish to do then compare the latest evolved version of the Flanker with J-10 or whatever .

What the f*ck are you trying to talk about eh? The PLAAF has baseline Flankers and that's what the evaluation is based on. The Su-30MKK is just slightly above baseline.

No one knows how the J-10---which is still in its baseline form to begin with---would compare to uprated Flankers. There may be an opportunity in this month's Peace Mission 2007, and further down the road with China's own J-11B.


Was it ?? please care to post any link or credible literature supercruise ==1.5 Mach :onfloorl:.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.

Are you agreeing on this definition or not?

Take it from here too.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3116-start-60.html


Clean being the keyword here (btw what exactly are you trying to prove ?).There is hige diffrence between a platform designed ground up for super cruise and others which can merely achieve the statistics by tweaking on several other variables which might not be true in a real time scenario.


The original definition of supercruise was supersonic on dry thrust, before being ammended further to make it exclusive to the F-22. As a matter of fact, a few other planes can do supersonic on dry thrust ranging from the BAC Lightning to the Concorde. The key point has nothing to do with its military relevance. It's only there to illustrate that it can.



That proves nothing for a matter of fact in the recent red flag exercises a F-16 managed to shoot down a F-22 raptor but after the latter had eaten 144 F-15's and Superbugs ,but such exceptions cannot be used to peddle a pov.

LOL. F-16s and F-15s have been DACTing for over three decades now, and not just within the US but also with other nations. F-16s winning over F-15s is not an exception. They do it regularly and consistently enough. You understand what a 1:1 ratio is?

[ever4244]

Well, from what i read from the official media,J-10 is not designed to compete with 4th gen fighter like F-22, It more emphasized on efficiency and multi-task rather than pure exclusive high tech such as stealth and supersonic cruise, vector trust. Those are left to J-XX , a twin engine heavy platform.

So now the mean stream of improvement of J-10 would be its ground attack capability and array radar . J-10 s upgrade will aim at the capability of European fighter and manage to become the backbone of the PLAAF while the J XX ( currently the J-11B)will be the spear head.

Maybe when those 4 gen tech became more available and cheaper ,then J-10 can adopt them .but if we mount up every best single part on a handful J-10 regardless how much does that cost , hoping it would become a super advanced 4-gen fighter ,then we lost the origin meaning of J-10 ------a light ,efficient , cheap multi-role fighter.

BTW: many chinese article are argue about the 2-engine variety of j-10, but many expert believe moding j10 to a 2 engine one will take enough time and money to develop a brand new plane. the promblem is , even if the variety is a success ,it can t be much more than a european fighter,but the true threat comes from F-22, So rather than working for a 3.5 gen fighter ,we would take a bit more time to achieve a real 4 gen one . then the improved J10 can still have a place in supporting mission and numerous soft task on the field.

reviewing the 1 to 2 transformation , only the F-4 is a total success.
Phantasm 4000 is super-advanced 2.5 gen who can beat a 3 gen, but no one want to buy it because the concept is already outdated and super-advance also means super expensive .
J-8 is intended for defend F-4, but when it came out ,the F-16 has been in its prime for years.

[Thery]

They are continuously upgrading the design at CAC. Just look at what they did to JF-17 for prototype 04. You can imagine the effort being used on J-10.


nobody ever said internal weapon bay isn't part of the plan for future J-10 upgrade. Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.


I have never doubt CAC have upgrade plan for J-10, actually lots people are speculating that the J-10 variant going to be has DSI intake, fitting with removable conformal fuel tank to boost J-10’s ground strike ability.

At the same time reduce RCS and weight by use more composite material and install more advanced avionics and engine. These changes do not make J-10 fully stealthy or give it super-cruise ability, but they are reasonable and are expected.

But if you are talking about change J-10 into a twin engine fully stealthy fighter, then the modification is same as designing a whole new plane and will take long time and lots money.

More important this modification share almost except technical bottle neck as designing the next generation fighter. So there is no logical reason why must improve J-10 to such level instead designing a new plane other than military fans’ bias.

[crobato]

Well, from what i read from the official media,J-10 is not designed to compete with 4th gen fighter like F-22, It more emphasized on efficiency and multi-task rather than pure exclusive high tech such as stealth and supersonic cruise, vector trust. Those are left to J-XX , a twin engine heavy platform.

So now the mean stream of improvement of J-10 would be its ground attack capability and array radar . J-10 s upgrade will aim at the capability of European fighter and manage to become the backbone of the PLAAF while the J XX ( currently the J-11B)will be the spear head.

Maybe when those 4 gen tech became more available and cheaper ,then J-10 can adopt them .but if we mount up every best single part on a handful J-10 regardless how much does that cost , hoping it would become a super advanced 4-gen fighter ,then we lost the origin meaning of J-10 ------a light ,efficient , cheap multi-role fighter.

BTW: many chinese article are argue about the 2-engine variety of j-10, but many expert believe moding j10 to a 2 engine one will take enough time and money to develop a brand new plane. the promblem is , even if the variety is a success ,it can t be much more than a european fighter,but the true threat comes from F-22, So rather than working for a 3.5 gen fighter ,we would take a bit more time to achieve a real 4 gen one . then the improved J10 can still have a place in supporting mission and numerous soft task on the field.

reviewing the 1 to 2 transformation , only the F-4 is a total success.
Phantasm 4000 is super-advanced 2.5 gen who can beat a 3 gen, but no one want to buy it because the concept is already outdated and super-advance also means super expensive .
J-8 is intended for defend F-4, but when it came out ,the F-16 has been in its prime for years.

You make some very good and lucid points.

The J-10 and J-11B is intended to be the dual structure of the PLAAF. The modernized Flanker J-11B will probably the heavy duty ranged plaform until J-xx comes out. The J-10 becomes the muscle to fill the bones.

So where do you fill in the other planes? The JH-7A appears to be the strike specialist, though it will fight A2A if forced to defend itself. The role of the JF-17 is not very clear. Conventional wisdom suggests the replacement of the J-7 at the low end, and that it may be impossible budgetwise to use the J-10 and J-11B to fill every need. On the other hand, at this stage, the PLAAF has yet to make an official order of the JF-17. Furthermore, no JF-17 prototypes are spotted in the official PLAAF testing grounds, either in the CFTC or the FTTC.

I believe that officially, the line of development on the J-10 is the integration of new weapons and avionics; further improvement of the radar, maybe eventually to PESA or AESA; more powerful engines with the good likelihood of TVC. Though it is expected that the J-10 may eventually use the WS-10A, it seems Salut does not intend to give up the business without a fight with major carrots on the deal.

The two engined Typhoonesque J-10 variant in my opinion, could have been a serious proposal by CAC, probably with the intention to grab more business from its rival SAC which makes the J-11. It may also have been proposed for any potential carrier plan. But so far it appears the PLAAF has not approved of it or is funding it. In the carrier side, it appears that the navalized J-11 is the front runner.

[swerve]

... Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.....

No, sustainable high speed does that. It can be achieved either with or without afterburner. Supercruise is advantageous because it uses much less fuel than afterburners, so high speed can be sustained, instead of being for brief bursts only. But the MiG-25, MiG-31 & SR-71 can (or could) sustain high speeds by having specialised engines which are relatively fuel-efficient while afterburning. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[powerslavenegi]

nobody ever said internal weapon bay isn't part of the plan for future J-10 upgrade. Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.
:onfloorl: yes for that 'no body' was sane enough to know the difference between an UPGRADE and re-engineering (infact at a level approaching building a completely new aircraft).

UPGRADE J-10 with internal weapons bay,supercruising TF and stealthy airframe ..........anything else on your wish list ?

[T-95]

That proves nothing for a matter of fact in the recent red flag exercises a F-16 managed to shoot down a F-22 raptor but after the latter had eaten 144 F-15's and Superbugs ,but such exceptions cannot be used to peddle a pov.

No it wasn't an F-16 that shot down an F-22 at Red Flag it was an F-18 super bug I even had a picture of the lock but I can't find it. Anyways I think the the F-16 is second most maneuverable production plane built by the US so far after the F-22 correct if I'm wrong.

[nero]

No in BVR China wouldnt stand a chance against Russia's 30's

In dogfight sure it could have defeat Su-30 but dogfight is mostly about the pilot , so its not certain that J-10 is better.
Looking at the specifications overall J-10 is quite impresive, but if i had to choose i would put my money on the Su-30 still , that test didn't mean anything.


. J-10 is quite impressive.

4th prototype version is said to be redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSIs) being the most notable feature; according to Lockheed Martin, DSIs are more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSIs also divert turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet.

All precision guided munitions listed above are either GPS or radar guided, and when the television or laser guided munitions are deployed, addition electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky pod must be carried externally in order to provide guidance and targeting information


all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon



.

[powerslavenegi]

What the f*ck are you trying to talk about eh?
Sigh...that tells from where are you coming...... anyways the point is my post was legible enough for people to understand I dont know what part of it you did not get .

No one knows how the J-10---which is still in its baseline form to begin with---would compare to uprated Flankers. There may be an opportunity in this month's Peace Mission 2007, and further down the road with China's own J-11B.

I hope that you understand the fact that 'no one' includes you too hence stop yapping about the J-10.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.

Are you agreeing on this definition or not?

I did not ask for the definition I know it,I questioned your claim that SC was redefined do refer to your post where you calimed SC speed ==1.5 Mach

Take it from here too.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3116-start-60.html

So much for your credible links that is yet another forum where does it say SC==1.5 Mach ??


The original definition of supercruise was supersonic on dry thrust, before being ammended further to make it exclusive to the F-22. As a matter of fact, a few other planes can do supersonic on dry thrust ranging from the BAC Lightning to the Concorde. The key point has nothing to do with its military relevance. It's only there to illustrate that it can.
Supercruise is fine but the point is under what circumstances and operational
scenario is the same being achieved what good is a CLEAN F-16 going at Mach1+ such instances are of academic purposes only what matters is cruising speed with mission critical weapons loadout ? How many combat fighters achieve that ?




LOL. F-16s and F-15s have been DACTing for over three decades now, and not just within the US but also with other nations. F-16s winning over F-15s is not an exception. They do it regularly and consistently enough. You understand what a 1:1 ratio is?

Look here mate you seem to have scrolled by my entire post ,I mentioned the Raptor .......please read before you reply.

[crobato]

Sigh...that tells from where are you coming...... anyways the point is my post was legible enough for people to understand I dont know what part of it you did not get .


And my posts are more than legible enough for anyone [mod edit: please avoid the convoluted insults. thank you.] to understand.


I hope that you understand the fact that 'no one' includes you too hence stop yapping about the J-10.


Wth do you mean huh? The bottomline, the J-10 has beaten the Su-27, J-11 and Su-30MKK in exercises according to the PLAAF. It ha followed that up by ceasing production of the J-11 and purchases of the Su-30MKK. They meant business. Now the J-10 is has to be tested against bigger game, particularly the J-11B or whatever the Russians are willing to offer.


I did not ask for the definition I know it,I questioned your claim that SC was redefined do refer to your post where you calimed SC speed ==1.5 Mach

So much for your credible links that is yet another forum where does it say SC==1.5 Mach ??



I read that from www.f-16.net. I bet you there are a lot of posters there that have a first hand experience in aviation than you.


Supercruise is fine but the point is under what circumstances and operational
scenario is the same being achieved what good is a CLEAN F-16 going at Mach1+ such instances are of academic purposes only what matters is cruising speed with mission critical weapons loadout ? How many combat fighters achieve that ?


So what?

The purpose was meant to illustrate for academic and technical purposes only.

No one ever said or claimed it for military purposes. You are the one projecting your own advocacy to any post around here.


Look here mate you seem to have scrolled by my entire post ,I mentioned the Raptor .......please read before you reply.

So what the hell is the Raptor relevant here eh? Read the title of thread.

Follow your own freaking advice. Moderators please.

[crobato]

. J-10 is quite impressive.

4th prototype version is said to be redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSIs) being the most notable feature; according to Lockheed Martin, DSIs are more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSIs also divert turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet.


So far no J-10 prototype has been sighted with DSI unlike the JF-17. So DSI J-10 is an extrapolation or speculation for now.


All precision guided munitions listed above are either GPS or radar guided, and when the television or laser guided munitions are deployed, addition electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky pod must be carried externally in order to provide guidance and targeting information


all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon

The last part remains to be seen.

[XaNDeR]

all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon

.

Your joking right ?

First of all why do you even compare J-10 which is a fighter , too F-35 which is not intended for air supreority , second of all J-10 is not better than Typhoon , it comes nowhere near with BVR capability's , Eurofighter would shoot him down before he even had him on the radar ..

[powerslavenegi]

Now the J-10 is has to be tested against bigger game, particularly the J-11B or whatever the Russians are willing to offer.Well if J-10 indeed has so many mythical capabilities then why churn up home made RU Flanker lookalikes aka J11B.

I read that from www.f-16.net. I bet you there are a lot of posters there that have a first hand experience in aviation than you.
Point me to a poster/link who said or mentioned SC speed==1.5 Mach which you were claiming otherwise,you have no proofs to back your claims .we all are waiting for you to come up with proper citations.

So what?
The purpose was meant to illustrate for academic and technical purposes only.No one ever said or claimed it for military purposes. You are the one projecting your own advocacy to any post around here.
Co incidently that 'no one' happens to be you alone ,Afaik we discuss weapon specs which are meant for military use and objectives .



So what the hell is the Raptor relevant here eh? Read the title of thread.
Follow your own freaking advice. Moderators please.

Raptor is very much of significance for it is you who came up with a F-16(again is that related to the thread OH I forgot my bad J-10 and F-16 related true eh....) achieveing the SC in CLEAN config (I am scared),I mentioned the Raptor for it is the only bird out there which was made ground up to super cruise with mission critical combat load (although I have heard of EF and Rafael too having a limited capability to SC under certain config) .

[tphuang]

Well, from what i read from the official media,J-10 is not designed to compete with 4th gen fighter like F-22, It more emphasized on efficiency and multi-task rather than pure exclusive high tech such as stealth and supersonic cruise, vector trust. Those are left to J-XX , a twin engine heavy platform.

So now the mean stream of improvement of J-10 would be its ground attack capability and array radar . J-10 s upgrade will aim at the capability of European fighter and manage to become the backbone of the PLAAF while the J XX ( currently the J-11B)will be the spear head.

From all evidence, J-10's position as the spearhead as not changed with the induction of J-11B. Even if (that's a huge if), the J-11B can do better than J-10 in whatever exercises happen between them, that would still be SAC's newest product to CAC's product from 2005. Meaning, they are still going to make changes to J-10 and the next variant, will be undoubtfully better than J-11B. It's true that J-10 is not intended to compete with F-22, but neither is J-11B. What flanker series does bring is more payload and longer range.
I have nothing against flankers in plaaf, but they are future in pla reside mostly in naval airwing and long range fighter bomber (like F-15E/su-34)

I have never doubt CAC have upgrade plan for J-10, actually lots people are speculating that the J-10 variant going to be has DSI intake, fitting with removable conformal fuel tank to boost J-10’s ground strike ability.

At the same time reduce RCS and weight by use more composite material and install more advanced avionics and engine. These changes do not make J-10 fully stealthy or give it super-cruise ability, but they are reasonable and are expected.


In terms of just J-10 itself, there will be some major mod. Becoming a stealth plane is out of question, but becoming as stealthy as say Rafale is still achievable. Having capability to super cruise is not as hard to achieve. Think about it this way, even Gripen was said to be able to go faster than mach1.0 in A2A config without using afterburners. Typhoon has actually done it in A2A config. Rafale probably can do it in empty config. With improved engine and aerodynamics, SC is definitely not out of question imo.


But if you are talking about change J-10 into a twin engine fully stealthy fighter, then the modification is same as designing a whole new plane and will take long time and lots money.

China isn't short on money. This proposed twin-engined "J-10" is the bridge between J-10 and the 5th generation plane (from SAC I guess).


No, sustainable high speed does that. It can be achieved either with or without afterburner. Supercruise is advantageous because it uses much less fuel than afterburners, so high speed can be sustained, instead of being for brief bursts only. But the MiG-25, MiG-31 & SR-71 can (or could) sustain high speeds by having specialised engines which are relatively fuel-efficient while afterburning. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

sure, that's what I'm saying. I'm clearly not talking about SR-71 is a special plane. I'm not sure Mig-25/31 can remain as fuel efficient using afterburners as SR-71.


yes for that 'no body' was sane enough to know the difference between an UPGRADE and re-engineering (infact at a level approaching building a completely new aircraft).

a lot of people would say the jump from prototype 3 to prototype 4 for JF-17 was like creating a new plane. Unlike the Russians, China does not create a new designation every time it makes a major change.

UPGRADE J-10 with internal weapons bay,supercruising TF and stealthy airframe ..........anything else on your wish list ?

well, if you have a hard time accepting some of the changes planned on J-10, that's not my problem.

Well if J-10 indeed has so many mythical capabilities then why churn up home made RU Flanker lookalikes aka J11B.

you clearly haven't read anything we wrote. They are by competing firms. Like you know, LM producing F-22 hasn't stopped Boeing from producing super hornets? And the other reason is that they need some experience developing an A2A version before moving on to the more complex carrier version and long range fighter/bomber version.

[crobato]

Well if J-10 indeed has so many mythical capabilities then why churn up home made RU Flanker lookalikes aka J11B.


That is because one is a bigger fighter and one is smaller. Have you ever heard of a low and high mix?


Point me to a poster/link who said or mentioned SC speed==1.5 Mach which you were claiming otherwise,you have no proofs to back your claims .we all are waiting for you to come up with proper citations.


Why don't you actually read the link I posted a while ago.


Co incidently that 'no one' happens to be you alone ,Afaik we discuss weapon specs which are meant for military use and objectives .


And what do you actually know about weapons specs and how objective or tested this claims may be?


Raptor is very much of significance for it is you who came up with a F-16(again is that related to the thread OH I forgot my bad J-10 and F-16 related true eh....) achieveing the SC in CLEAN config (I am scared),I mentioned the Raptor for it is the only bird out there which was made ground up to super cruise with mission critical combat load (although I have heard of EF and Rafael too having a limited capability to SC under certain config) .

So what! You are the one who have to bring up the Raptor here. As if you didn't know that other planes by the academic definition of supercruise, have already done it (Concorde, BAC Lightning).

We are talking about the J-10 here. The closest equivalent in weight, thrust and size is the F-16. Given an uprated engine, why can't it hit supersonic on dry thrust?

[gf0012-aust]

Crobato and Powerslavengi.

Can you two please work out your differences and self moderate your engagement with each other?

This post has already been reported once, we don't need to see it reported again.

[pshamim]

Perfected...

Yes I suppose anything can be classed as that, 20 years after the Soviets stopped producing the original. J-6 build quality was generally regarded as bad, the PAF for instance had to virtually rebuild their's before letting them go into operational service.



According to who? You??

Trade websites like Defence Industry Daily are using it as reference, so it must have some reliability.

Sorry! I must disagree and support Corbato's assertions regarding J-6s compared to MIG-21. You need more research.

Website, you mentioned does not present unbiased views.

[f-22fan12]

Your joking right ?

First of all why do you even compare J-10 which is a fighter , too F-35 which is not intended for air supreority , second of all J-10 is not better than Typhoon , it comes nowhere near with BVR capability's , Eurofighter would shoot him down before he even had him on the radar ..

The Typhoon is certainly better than a J-10. I agree. :)

[wp2000]

. J-10 is quite impressive.

4th prototype version is said to be redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSIs) being the most notable feature; according to Lockheed Martin, DSIs are more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSIs also divert turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet.

All precision guided munitions listed above are either GPS or radar guided, and when the television or laser guided munitions are deployed, addition electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky pod must be carried externally in order to provide guidance and targeting information


all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon



.
I think you have too much wishful thinking.

J10 was started at a lower level compared to Typhoon and F35. While J10 is improving and trying to catch up with what Typhoon already achieved, Typhoon is improving too, not to mention F35.

The only advantage for J10 is, China has much more motivation to push J10 up a few nothces.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

The J-10 program is equivalent to mini Apollo program for the Chinese aviation sector. The performance of the Typhoon and Jian are simular but only current advantage that the Typhoon flexes over Jian is its avionics and armnament. Jian having a less advance and powerful radar compared to Typhoon and its current PL-12 is no much for the Typhoon AIM-120. Dogfight will be near equal.

[omeko3]

What about the J-XX that is rumored to be on the drawing board? Won't that pose a threat to the F-22/F-35?

[Izzy1]

What about the J-XX that is rumored to be on the drawing board? Won't that pose a threat to the F-22/F-35?

And what is on the US drawing board?

Or is the US just going to fall asleep and wait for everyone else to catch up... Rubbish.

[10ringr]

Hard to say in comparison to those you list, especially given the West's lack of credible information on the J-10.

However, here is one of the better links on the web in regards to the J-10.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

bad link

[colvin123]

compare with these , and you will know why J-10 is better than su-27

but , we all know su-27 is much heaver than J-10 , it's for different use.

[colvin123]

first is FC-1 , 2th is su-27 , I couldn't find J-10's cabin, think it's better than FC-1

[BlahBlahBlah1]

first is FC-1 , 2th is su-27 , I couldn't find J-10's cabin, think it's better than FC-1

FC-1 came out later than J-10...FC-1 probably has superior electronics.

[s002wjh]

FC-1 came out later than J-10...FC-1 probably has superior electronics.

nah J-10 has better electronic. FC-1 is the export plane, J-10 is use by pla, i would think they save the best for themself.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

nah J-10 has better electronic. FC-1 is the export plane, J-10 is use by pla, i would think they save the best for themself.

FC-1 is a joint development for both the China and Pakistan...plus, J-10s are planning to be exported to Pakistan, so there is no "save the best for themself" for either planes.

[s002wjh]

FC-1 is a joint development for both the China and Pakistan...plus, J-10s are planning to be exported to Pakistan, so there is no "save the best for themself" for either planes.

fc-1 is driven from j-7, j-10 is newly developed. so i think j-10 is better than fc1, even if fc-1 electronic is same as j-10, its airframe and other parts are not as good compare to j-10. I don't think chinese would export better electronic equip aircraft to other country while it self use inferior electronic equip aircraft, would it:confused: ? so i think j-10 electronic is least as good as fc-1, probably better.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

fc-1 is driven from j-7, j-10 is newly developed.

Overall performance, J-10 is definitely better than FC-1...but FC-1 came out so much later than J-10. FC-1 have more and better electronics available because of that.

I don't think chinese would export better electronic equip aircraft to other country while it self use inferior electronic equip aircraft, would it:confused: ? so i think j-10 electronic is least as good as fc-1, probably better.

It's not really an export aircraft...it was joint developed.

[s002wjh]

Overall performance, J-10 is definitely better than FC-1...but FC-1 came out so much later than J-10. FC-1 have more and better electronics available because of that.



It's not really an export aircraft...it was joint developed.

u know they can upgrade the electronic of j-10 fair easily, i just don't think j-10 been the front line of PLAAF has inferior electronic component vs FC-1, especially when chinese have access toward both plane electronic components.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

u know they can upgrade the electronic of j-10 fair easily

J-10 probably will get an upgrade in the near future, but that takes money, which is being invested in other places like the 2008 Olympics ($40 billion already spent btw).

[s002wjh]

J-10 probably will get an upgrade in the near future, but that takes money, which is being invested in other places like the 2008 Olympics ($40 billion already spent btw).

40B is chunk change for china. the top leader already decide to increase more military budget. but anyway hopefully someone knew the subject will come in and give us some ideas. right now we just speculate on the subject. but common sense indicate any country will keep the best military equipment for themself.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

40B is chunk change for china. the top leader already decide to increase more military budget. but anyway hopefully someone knew the subject will come in and give us some ideas. right now we just speculate on the subject. but common sense indicate any country will keep the best military equipment for themself.

By the highest estimate last year (including estimates by SIPRI, RAND, CIA, and DIA), 40 billion is about 1/3 the total budget for the PLA.