Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Combat Aircraft Comparison stats

This is a discussion on Combat Aircraft Comparison stats within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; How would a chinese J-10 compare to the latest F-16s. They are in the same class and have very similar ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 26th, 2006   #31
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 201
Threads:
How would a chinese J-10 compare to the latest F-16s. They are in the same class and have very similar designs. Just by capability alone.
zoolander is offline  
Old September 27th, 2006   #32
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
powerslavenegi's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 186
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoolander
How would a chinese J-10 compare to the latest F-16s. They are in the same class and have very similar designs. Just by capability alone.
Which Block are you talking about,moreover as of now what sort of a Radar and armaments is J-10 equipped with(not much info is availbale about it).If we assume J-10 having Russain R-27and 77 then I dont think it measures upto F-16(Block 50 or above) armed with Aim-120 and Aim-9x.
________________
[FONT="Arial Black"][I]Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. [/I][/FONT]---------Winston Churchill
powerslavenegi is offline  
Old October 29th, 2006   #33
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlottenlund
Posts: 520
Threads:
This comparison really illustrates how well aluminium is wrapped around an engine - and is quite good for that.

It shows the jump in generation, that is smaller than I had expected it to be; but it leaves Eurofighter, F-35 and F-22 in a slightly higher class, whereas the Rafale is a bit of a disappointment - it is simply to small.

The other 75 percent is engine performance, because you can mess up a good engine; but cannot build a good fighter around a bad engine.

These technical discussion tend to degenerate into - for comparison - the importance of the potters wheel for the roman civilisation.
The truth is that it is not to difficult to build a good fighter, provided you have the engine.

The jump with the F-22/F-35 generation is in quite another place.

If you are stringent in discussions there are different military levels:

A. The technical: Is my hammer better than yours.

B. The functional: Does I wield a hammer better than you.

C. The tactical: Do I hit the nail better than you.

D. Operational: Do I hit the right nails better than you.

E. Strategic: Am I better finding and deciding the right nails.

F. Grand Strategic: Am I better deciding if nails or screws are to be used.

The operational option with the F-22/F35 combination is far superior, as it involves the concept of an AIRBORNE tactical reserve, which other countries only to a miniscule extend are able to apply.

As i said; to give the right answer you sometimes have to ignore the question.
Ths is offline  
Old December 12th, 2006   #34
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 73
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E View Post
Mig-31 is improved version of Mig-25, that is all. Nothing revolutionary here.
I don't know if you want to call it revolutionary, but MiG-31 FOXHOUND was the first plane with phased array radar

The MiG-31's datalink is pretty impressive too

The only bad thing is the Mach 3...imagine what it does to the engines and airframe
onslaught is offline  
Old December 12th, 2006
onslaught
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: One-liner
Old December 12th, 2006   #35
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by onslaught View Post
I don't know if you want to call it revolutionary, but MiG-31 FOXHOUND was the first plane with phased array radar

The MiG-31's datalink is pretty impressive too

The only bad thing is the Mach 3...imagine what it does to the engines and airframe
I guess you could call it revolutionary for the Russians... they haven't accomplished much more on radars since then. The problem with FlashDance as opposed to other US AESA radars are the passive mode is practically non-existant. It is the most powerful radar ever put into an aircraft and it's feedback is rather high. Once it lights up it is like a mini-AWACs saying "Hello I'm here!" to the world.
Big-E is offline  
Old January 16th, 2007   #36
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Falstaff's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 524
Threads:
Yeah, and it weighs about 1 ton... so mini-awacs would be the right description.

I tend to think that the given figures are not too useful. What counts in an air-to-air combat is the package, really, comprising sensor suite, armament, ergonomics and ecm-suite as well. Let alone the capabilities of the pilot, who has to fly, manage weapons, sensors and fight his adversary.

I have no doubt that as a package the F-22 can easily take out any adversary now and in future. BVR sure is the thing that counts these days and I'm sure the F-22 with its sheer power and thrust vectoring is not only good at that And don't tell me that it is a problem the Raptor can't shoot quick enough.
My guess for the second place, however, is the Eurofighter as besides its superior maneuverability connected with carefree handling the captor surely marks the edge of physically scanning radars, the degree of sensor integration (and display!) is enormous, the (yet future) weaponry (ASRAAM, IRIS-R, METEOR) seems to be leading the edge.

I'm not so sure at all about the abilities of the Flanker however. I believe it's capabilities in comparison are wildly exaggerated by its manufacturer and operating air forces like IAF and PLAAF. As there is no doubt that the MKI is the most advanced Flanker variant I will deal with this one:
As I already said in another thread, it basically is a 30 year-old-design and it's stable aerodynamic layout and massive size and weight don't point to extreme agility, do they?
Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times.
So I don't really think it will stand a chance against new generation western designs.

As far as the J-10 is concerned I not only think the avionics are modest at best compared to F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale etc. (not even Pakistan buys chinese radars for their FC-1) but I also think it is underpowered and the structural redesign of the air intake shows that it might be a big step for china's aviation industry but surely isn't a match for decades of experience and design instead of reeengineering and still buying russian planes because of weak performance...
Falstaff is offline  
Old January 20th, 2007   #37
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlottenlund
Posts: 520
Threads:
I think the reason for the big radar in the Foxhound is that there aren't to many other sensors around where it is/was foreseen to operate. The Russians has the transsiberic railway to protect, not so much the tracks; but the ICBM's along it.
Ths is offline  
Old January 20th, 2007   #38
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pune, India
Posts: 126
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
I'm not so sure at all about the abilities of the Flanker however. I believe it's capabilities in comparison are wildly exaggerated by its manufacturer and operating air forces like IAF and PLAAF. As there is no doubt that the MKI is the most advanced Flanker variant I will deal with this one:
As I already said in another thread, it basically is a 30 year-old-design and it's stable aerodynamic layout and massive size and weight don't point to extreme agility, do they?
Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times.
So I don't really think it will stand a chance against new generation western designs.
F-15C Eagle: Length: 19.44 m Span: 13 m Empty Weight: 12,800 kg MTOW: 30,845 kg
F-22 Raptor: Length: 18.90 m Span: 13.56 m Empty Weight: 14,366 kg MTOW: 36,288 kg
Su-30MKI: Length: 22.10 Span: 14.70 m Empty Weight: 12,700 kg MTOW: 38,800 kg

As you see, while the MKI is the biggest in terms of size, it is actually the lightest of the trio. And the Indian AF has done a good job in selecting the avionics fit of the type. And a final very important point... The MKI is here now and has been in active squadron service for quite some time, while the Raptor and the Eurofighter are more recent.

Finally about the performance of AMRAAM against ex-Soviet missiles...
Firstly, let me say that I agree that of all medium range missiles in service today, the AMRAAM is the best. But IMO it is far from the wonder weapon it is claimed to be.
vivtho is offline  
Old January 20th, 2007   #39
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlottenlund
Posts: 520
Threads:
Vivtho: To me the comparison spells a less than excellent engine, using to much fuel.
But You are right about one thing. The Flanker is here, and used by a competent Air Force like the Indians it can achieve results.
Ths is offline  
Old January 20th, 2007   #40
Super Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,133
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivtho View Post
F-15C Eagle: Length: 19.44 m Span: 13 m Empty Weight: 12,800 kg MTOW: 30,845 kg
F-22 Raptor: Length: 18.90 m Span: 13.56 m Empty Weight: 14,366 kg MTOW: 36,288 kg
Su-30MKI: Length: 22.10 Span: 14.70 m Empty Weight: 12,700 kg MTOW: 38,800 kg

As you see, while the MKI is the biggest in terms of size, it is actually the lightest of the trio. And the Indian AF has done a good job in selecting the avionics fit of the type. And a final very important point... The MKI is here now and has been in active squadron service for quite some time, while the Raptor and the Eurofighter are more recent.

Finally about the performance of AMRAAM against ex-Soviet missiles...
Firstly, let me say that I agree that of all medium range missiles in service today, the AMRAAM is the best. But IMO it is far from the wonder weapon it is claimed to be.
I honestly have no idea where you got the mepty weight number from, but check this link
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_specs.htm
even su-27 basic model is at 16 tonne+, there is no way MKI is lighter than it.
tphuang is offline  
Old January 21st, 2007   #41
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pune, India
Posts: 126
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tphuang View Post
I honestly have no idea where you got the mepty weight number from, but check this link
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_specs.htm
even su-27 basic model is at 16 tonne+, there is no way MKI is lighter than it.
That's what comes of replying to forums late at night. You're right on those numbers. Thanks.
vivtho is offline  
Old March 6th, 2007
kevinsu
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: One-liner
Old March 13th, 2007
ahussains
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: One-liner
Old March 22nd, 2007   #42
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 126
Threads:
The thrust figures the F-18E are off. GAO in tests found that the engine when put in the jet gave about 17,000 each in AB.

err.... I should make sure I am not wrong before I correct anyone else

About 20,000 vs. 22,000 listed.

Last edited by ELP; April 28th, 2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason: my own stupid error
ELP is offline  
Old April 14th, 2007   #43
Banned Member
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 177
Threads:
Hi! I thnik you will figure that for some aircrafts, these datas are quiet inacurate. I'll prepare a more detailed post on the subject....
BKNO is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007   #44
Banned Member
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 177
Threads:
Rafale c weights-on at 9.500 kg according to the official figures released by the ministere of defense.

This would give it the following TWR:

Non-AB Thrust TWR: 1.052.

AB Thrust TWR: 1.578.

According to LM Program Brief (PDF Program-Brief-20Sept-2006) the F-35 empty weights are (for a 28.000/43.000 lb F-135):

CTOL: 29.036 lb

STVOL: 32.161 lb

CV: 32.072 lb.

TWR would give us:

Non-AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 0.964.

AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 1.480.

Non-AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 0.870

AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 1.337.

Non-AB Thrust TWR CV: 0.873.

AB Thrust TWR CV: 1.340.

I do think that whoever compiled these datas was misinformed.
BKNO is offline  
Old June 24th, 2007   #45
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2
Threads:
Those figures use public static power, not real power in combat condition.
Real power depend on By pass ratio, pressure rate, stall margin etc...
For exemple to name an extreme case, M2000 engine with low pressure and low by pass has a bad static trust compare to a F16.However in flight at mach 1 and high altitude, its real power is higher than the F16 engine (high pressure , high by pass) which is better for lower speed and altitude.
Frank Hammer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:50 PM.