What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
677
-9
345
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Your observation proves J-10C was optimally designed for air-to-air operations, especially on a defensive role in its airspace. That was the motivation that gave the rise to J10's. You obviously missed these historical facts or intentionally ignored the facts for your narrative's convenience. I brought B-52 into the discussion to dispute your argument because having the higher payloads is not going to help in a shoot-out battle in the air -- assuming J10C's uses of low-RCS and other sensor techs borrowed from 5th-generation fighter jets help J10C detects its opponent first. In that end, F16V will fare no better than a B-52 if it were detected first and shot at with a BVR PL15.

FYI, whatever missiles you listed for the F16V DO NOT out gun the PL-15 in terms of range and homing technologies.

You go to military export market involving a country that wanted to buy where few manufacturers presented their fighters, otherwise you won't understand what I'm telling you. FYI a normal country (not rich superpower with GDP ranking not in top 20-30, their budget limited with preference for multi-role fighter that would do everything air to air & air to ground against separatists forces or unfriendly neighbours.

If your unfriendly neighbour is having latest F-15 with AESA, advanced MAWS, RWR, ECM carrying AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D ordered pending delivery. Also they are richer having far more fighters than your country, you would need a fighter that could carry more missiles engaging at least 2-3 enemy fighters each. Effective range of missiles would reduce greatly when you're not at high altitude travelling at speed. The pk of PL-15 is not over 70% neither, even with datalink, your enemy fighters MAWS have IR detectors to warn them on incoming strobes. You won't know how your datalink, radars would fare against US proven effective ECM until you get to meet in combat. If the US ECM is superior, your radar & missiles effective range would be reduced further.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
18,138
9
18,806
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
What kind of transparency for Russian engine? Care to share? I didnt know there is transparency for Russian engine? All I know Russian engine are well known for low lifespan and low reliability. Giving countries like India, China, Malaysia and Algeria plenty of problem and low combat time.

Fortunately, those times are over. China military has enter an era of full domestic engine times.
There is no public data that can be verified from third party
This will change once china wxports these let say to pakistan or some other country and that country states the engines are good

Russians are exporting al 31 for decades now

China has never exported ws 10/13
 

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
677
-9
345
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Ain't that true, typical blown-out-of-proportion euro stuff!


Now that's what we are talking about, real medium workhorses! Here is an opinion piece on 1V1 between the birds, quite a good read.

[Analytics] Chinese J-10C vs US F-16V: Which fighter would prevail in an air

View attachment 790469
J-10C '4++ generation' fighter jet pilot. Photo: Military Watch Magazine. Sketched by the Pan Pacific Agency.

Entering service in 2017 and 2018 respectively, the American F-16V and Chinese J-10C represent two of the most capable lightweight fighter jets in production today and considerable improvements over older baseline fourth generation designs. With each weighing approximately 13,000kg, deploying similarly sized radars, similar single engine configurations and similar weapons payloads, the aircraft are in many ways highly comparable. Both are being marketed for export today. Military Watch has observed both models.

The large majority of fighter jet classes in production today are configured with twin engines, from heavyweights such as the J-20 and F-15EX to medium designs such as the MiG-35 and Eurofighter, and even lightweight platforms such as the Kowsar and upcoming Taiwanese Brave Eagle. This places the J-10 and F-16 in a class of their own among modern fighter designs.

While other less prominent single engine designs are in production today, notably the Gripen, JF-17 and Tejas, these are all lighter and less capable than the American and Chinese platforms. The American F-35A is the only other prominent contemporary single engine fighter, although it is still very far from ready for high intensity combat and is unlikely to be until near the end of the decade. While the fifth generation design has considerable potential, it is much heavier, requires much more maintenance and is considerably more expensive to operate than the F-16 and J-10 which limits the possibility of making direct comparisons. Comparing the J-10C and the F-16V, however, can offer valuable insight into the state of Chinese and American military aviation – and which will prevail both in a potential conflict and on export markets.

The first F-16s entered service in 1978, meaning the airframe is now approaching 45 years old with no orders for the type from the U.S. Military for several years. The F-16V’s alterations to the original design are relatively conservative. There are no reductions to the radar cross section or applications of stealth coatings and no improvements to the F110 engine’s thrust have been made. Upgrades are restricted to avionics, with new cockpit displays, electronic warfare systems and an AESA radar all integrated. The fighter deploys the same AIM-120C missile as regular F-16 variants, although some reports indicate it could integrate AIM-120D missiles with a longer 180km range in future. The F-16V overall represents a cheaper idea for an ‘enhanced F-16’ to the F-16E – developed for the United Arab Emirates, the F-2 developed for Japan, and the F-21 concept currently being marketed to India – all of which have seen far more ambitious enhancements from high composite airframes and new more powerful engines.

The first J-10 fighters entered service in 2006, with the design benefitting from new technologies developed since the 1970s to provide a leading single engine platform. The fighter was slightly lighter than the F-16 but had a superior flight performance, with a more powerful AL-31 engine exceeding the capabilities of the American F110, a higher speed and operational altitude and superior manoeuvrability. Although its engine was more powerful, the airframe was slightly lighter which further increases its manoeuvrability advantage. There was not a single field in which the F-16 could boast superior capabilities over the J-10. Not only is the J-10 design more advanced, but the J-10C has seen more comprehensive improvements compared to the original design than the F-16V has relative to the original Fighting Falcon. These have included a reduced radar cross section, applications of stealth coatings, a greater use of composite materials a new more powerful AESA radar and integration of PL-15 air to air missiles. The PL-15 has an estimated range of 250-300km, comfortably outperforming any existing American design. The J-10C also benefits from integration of new WS-10B engines, which further increases the discrepancy between its own thrust and that of the F-16 with the new engine boasting considerably greater power than the AL-31. The WS-10B also benefits from three dimensional thrusts vectoring systems – the only non-Russian fighter to do so – providing a massive advantage in manoeuvrability. The F-16 has not integrated any kind of thrust vectoring engines.

Ultimately the superiority of the J-10C is overwhelming. The two jets may be well matched in terms of electronic warfare systems and situational awareness – although export variants of the F-16V will have a disadvantage due to downgraded avionics – the J-10C’s advantages in weaponry and flight performance are overwhelming. As stealth fighters continue to proliferate, the J-10 also has the advantage of integrating an infra red search and tracking system (IRST) allowing it to more effectively lock onto stealth fighters at medium ands short ranges. An IRST also allows the fighter to maintain high situational awareness without a radar signature if needed – something the F-16 cannot do. The discrepancy in the capabilities of the American and Chinese single engine fighters is reflected in the fact that the former much older design has not seen interest from the U.S. Air Force – while the J-10C continues to be mass produced and fielded by elite Chinese units.


Are you from HK because your avatar unbeatable movie starring Cheong Kar Fai & sanda guy Phillip?

F-16V is smaller and lighter (empty 19,000lb) with smaller internal fuel tank 6,900lb, if carried 6 air to air missiles, it could still pull more than 8.1G, brought total weight the less that 28,000lb. The latest General Electric F110-GE-132 returns maximum 32,000lb thrust improving its climb and acceleration capability with good thrust to weight ratio. On military thrust it's about 19,000-20,000lb which is impressive enough. Even for export variant, the downgraded avionics are still proven superb, it has helmet cue & IRST too. The short combat radius 320nm could be solved with CFTs with cruising speed better than Rafale.

The J-10C is most impressive on the price tag followed by engine WS-10B with optional TVC add-on, larger internal fuel with greater combat radius, better maneuverability, probably better RCS, latest China avionics that are proven only when they get to see combat.

In comparison at presentation, the F-16V shown exceptional performance in air to air, air to ground or both practical payload configuration making it truly a multi-role fighter able to carry 2x AIM-9X, 2x AIM-120C7/D, 6x AGM-65G, 6x CBU-87/97/Mk82, 2x CFTs, 1x ECM pod or 150gal drop tank. The J-10C would carry only short range PL-10E in order to carry the latest upcoming multi-purpose 6x blue arrow missiles, 2x LGB, 4x 550lb bombs or LGB, 1x small drop tank. Without blue arrow missiles, the J-10C would be carrying bombs mostly. The F-16V won in air to ground search and destroy, SEAD, CAS operations, also excel in outnumbered air engagements.

The main winning factor of J-10C over F-16V is the price, less limitations & requirements from seller, value for money, affordable spare parts. It seriously needs to have interchangeable innermost underwing pylons that users could choose to fit pylon for carrying 2x larger bombs, drop tanks or air to air missiles like F-15E fuselage pylons that could be configured to carry 4x AiM-120, 4x 1,000-2,000lb bombs or 6-12x 500lb bombs. Best if J-10C fuselage pylons can be interchanged too, that'll make J-10C able to carry 6-8 air to air missiles without the flimsy dual racks that reduce maneuverability
 

MajesticPug

FULL MEMBER
Jan 29, 2021
389
-8
574
Country
China
Location
United States
Ain't that true, typical blown-out-of-proportion euro stuff!


Now that's what we are talking about, real medium workhorses! Here is an opinion piece on 1V1 between the birds, quite a good read.

[Analytics] Chinese J-10C vs US F-16V: Which fighter would prevail in an air

View attachment 790469
J-10C '4++ generation' fighter jet pilot. Photo: Military Watch Magazine. Sketched by the Pan Pacific Agency.

Entering service in 2017 and 2018 respectively, the American F-16V and Chinese J-10C represent two of the most capable lightweight fighter jets in production today and considerable improvements over older baseline fourth generation designs. With each weighing approximately 13,000kg, deploying similarly sized radars, similar single engine configurations and similar weapons payloads, the aircraft are in many ways highly comparable. Both are being marketed for export today. Military Watch has observed both models.

The large majority of fighter jet classes in production today are configured with twin engines, from heavyweights such as the J-20 and F-15EX to medium designs such as the MiG-35 and Eurofighter, and even lightweight platforms such as the Kowsar and upcoming Taiwanese Brave Eagle. This places the J-10 and F-16 in a class of their own among modern fighter designs.

While other less prominent single engine designs are in production today, notably the Gripen, JF-17 and Tejas, these are all lighter and less capable than the American and Chinese platforms. The American F-35A is the only other prominent contemporary single engine fighter, although it is still very far from ready for high intensity combat and is unlikely to be until near the end of the decade. While the fifth generation design has considerable potential, it is much heavier, requires much more maintenance and is considerably more expensive to operate than the F-16 and J-10 which limits the possibility of making direct comparisons. Comparing the J-10C and the F-16V, however, can offer valuable insight into the state of Chinese and American military aviation – and which will prevail both in a potential conflict and on export markets.

The first F-16s entered service in 1978, meaning the airframe is now approaching 45 years old with no orders for the type from the U.S. Military for several years. The F-16V’s alterations to the original design are relatively conservative. There are no reductions to the radar cross section or applications of stealth coatings and no improvements to the F110 engine’s thrust have been made. Upgrades are restricted to avionics, with new cockpit displays, electronic warfare systems and an AESA radar all integrated. The fighter deploys the same AIM-120C missile as regular F-16 variants, although some reports indicate it could integrate AIM-120D missiles with a longer 180km range in future. The F-16V overall represents a cheaper idea for an ‘enhanced F-16’ to the F-16E – developed for the United Arab Emirates, the F-2 developed for Japan, and the F-21 concept currently being marketed to India – all of which have seen far more ambitious enhancements from high composite airframes and new more powerful engines.

The first J-10 fighters entered service in 2006, with the design benefitting from new technologies developed since the 1970s to provide a leading single engine platform. The fighter was slightly lighter than the F-16 but had a superior flight performance, with a more powerful AL-31 engine exceeding the capabilities of the American F110, a higher speed and operational altitude and superior manoeuvrability. Although its engine was more powerful, the airframe was slightly lighter which further increases its manoeuvrability advantage. There was not a single field in which the F-16 could boast superior capabilities over the J-10. Not only is the J-10 design more advanced, but the J-10C has seen more comprehensive improvements compared to the original design than the F-16V has relative to the original Fighting Falcon. These have included a reduced radar cross section, applications of stealth coatings, a greater use of composite materials a new more powerful AESA radar and integration of PL-15 air to air missiles. The PL-15 has an estimated range of 250-300km, comfortably outperforming any existing American design. The J-10C also benefits from integration of new WS-10B engines, which further increases the discrepancy between its own thrust and that of the F-16 with the new engine boasting considerably greater power than the AL-31. The WS-10B also benefits from three dimensional thrusts vectoring systems – the only non-Russian fighter to do so – providing a massive advantage in manoeuvrability. The F-16 has not integrated any kind of thrust vectoring engines.

Ultimately the superiority of the J-10C is overwhelming. The two jets may be well matched in terms of electronic warfare systems and situational awareness – although export variants of the F-16V will have a disadvantage due to downgraded avionics – the J-10C’s advantages in weaponry and flight performance are overwhelming. As stealth fighters continue to proliferate, the J-10 also has the advantage of integrating an infra red search and tracking system (IRST) allowing it to more effectively lock onto stealth fighters at medium ands short ranges. An IRST also allows the fighter to maintain high situational awareness without a radar signature if needed – something the F-16 cannot do. The discrepancy in the capabilities of the American and Chinese single engine fighters is reflected in the fact that the former much older design has not seen interest from the U.S. Air Force – while the J-10C continues to be mass produced and fielded by elite Chinese units.


Great comparison. Yet kungfugymnast touts F16V carries missiles like a B-52 can. LOL...
You go to military export market involving a country that wanted to buy where few manufacturers presented their fighters, otherwise you won't understand what I'm telling you. FYI a normal country (not rich superpower with GDP ranking not in top 20-30, their budget limited with preference for multi-role fighter that would do everything air to air & air to ground against separatists forces or unfriendly neighbours.

If your unfriendly neighbour is having latest F-15 with AESA, advanced MAWS, RWR, ECM carrying AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D ordered pending delivery. Also they are richer having far more fighters than your country, you would need a fighter that could carry more missiles engaging at least 2-3 enemy fighters each. Effective range of missiles would reduce greatly when you're not at high altitude travelling at speed. The pk of PL-15 is not over 70% neither, even with datalink, your enemy fighters MAWS have IR detectors to warn them on incoming strobes. You won't know how your datalink, radars would fare against US proven effective ECM until you get to meet in combat. If the US ECM is superior, your radar & missiles effective range would be reduced further.

I'm waiting the news of your B-52 shooting down a J10C or a C-17 gunning down a J20B.
 

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
7,203
45
23,289
Country
China
Location
China
Great comparison. Yet kungfugymnast touts F16V carries missiles like a B-52 can. LOL...
Yeah I was impressed by that apparently quite in-depth article, almost turning me into a J-10C fans instantly! Seems like Russian analysts are quite objective on top of being very pro, while Chinese/western analysts are more biased, in many case not even pro at all, well that's just my experience.
Are you from HK because your avatar unbeatable movie starring Cheong Kar Fai & sanda guy Phillip?
Nah I'm from Shanghai, though have stationed in HK for a short period of time. Yep that's my favorite movie cos I play some boxing, Cheong Kar Fai is damn cool!
 
Last edited:

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
677
-9
345
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Great comparison. Yet kungfugymnast touts F16V carries missiles like a B-52 can. LOL...


I'm waiting the news of your B-52 shooting down a J10C or a C-17 gunning down a J20B.

You really don't know much about F-16 armament payload, do you? Probably your generation don't get to buy detailed military books like the old days anymore.

Just look at these photos, since F-16C early variants in 1980's, they have been carrying AGM-65, Mk-82, CBU-87/97 on double or triple racks on middle and inner most underwing pylons. Each rack able to carry up to 700lb compact missile or bomb. You can see AIM-120 on wing tips while AIM-9M/X on outermost underwing pylons. B-52G/H would be carrying far more bombs and missiles than this. What I posted taken from military feedback on the medium fighter purchase plan presentation involving F-16 block 60/70, J-10C, Mig-35, Gripen. The F-16 wows everyone with air to ground and air to air payload apart from showing their impressive combat achievements.

The J-10C would have to come up with interchangeable inner most underwing pylons at least to compete. When long range combat radius is not priority especially when flying CAS, search and destroy, the ability to destroy as many tanks, SAMs can only be done with compact air to ground missiles. Blue arrow is China's answer to AGM-65.
 

Attachments

  • main-qimg-1e82e111b91ac266636ad11f35874b5d.jpeg
    main-qimg-1e82e111b91ac266636ad11f35874b5d.jpeg
    81.5 KB · Views: 27
  • F-16V_CFTs-in-hangar_1920.jpg.pc-adaptive.full.medium.jpeg
    F-16V_CFTs-in-hangar_1920.jpg.pc-adaptive.full.medium.jpeg
    101.4 KB · Views: 25

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
677
-9
345
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Yeah I was impressed by that apparently quite in-depth article, almost turning me into a J-10C fans instantly! Seems like Russian analysts are quite objective on top of being very pro, while Chinese/western analysts are more biased, in many case not even pro at all, well that's just my experience.

Nah I'm from Shanghai, though have stationed in HK for a short period of time. Yep that's my favorite movie cos I play some boxing, Cheong Kar Fai is damn cool!

Good you're in Shanghai, you sure get to watch KLF and WLF fight events there since you're into martial arts. Frankly speaking, that unbeatable movie is really awful with bad fight choreograph. Cheong Kar Fai is just average to me while Philip is totally out whether in acting or fighting. Thumbs sticking out when holding fist is bad influence, I would aim for the thumbs if my opponents do that in real street fight or when wearing open hand gloves.

The J-10C is the only best fighter other countries could buy from China if they don't pass US strict requirement. Only downside is it doesn't have enough missile pylons unless manufacturer comes up with optional pylons that could carry air to air and air to ground missiles.
 

MajesticPug

FULL MEMBER
Jan 29, 2021
389
-8
574
Country
China
Location
United States
You really don't know much about F-16 armament payload, do you? Probably your generation don't get to buy detailed military books like the old days anymore.

Just look at these photos, since F-16C early variants in 1980's, they have been carrying AGM-65, Mk-82, CBU-87/97 on double or triple racks on middle and inner most underwing pylons. Each rack able to carry up to 700lb compact missile or bomb. You can see AIM-120 on wing tips while AIM-9M/X on outermost underwing pylons. B-52G/H would be carrying far more bombs and missiles than this. What I posted taken from military feedback on the medium fighter purchase plan presentation involving F-16 block 60/70, J-10C, Mig-35, Gripen. The F-16 wows everyone with air to ground and air to air payload apart from showing their impressive combat achievements.

The J-10C would have to come up with interchangeable inner most underwing pylons at least to compete. When long range combat radius is not priority especially when flying CAS, search and destroy, the ability to destroy as many tanks, SAMs can only be done with compact air to ground missiles. Blue arrow is China's answer to AGM-65.

Why do you stick to your payload argument when what I said was that j10C could gun down F16V when F16V pilot has no idea what hits his jet? You obviously can't read and can't argue logically. You jumped in with a bunch of payload craps and concluded j10C is designed for air-to-ground mission and yet it's still bad at its design goals. You really have no clue. You might as well argue B-52 can shoot down a j10C. What a troll.
 

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
677
-9
345
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Why do you stick to your payload argument when what I said was that j10C could gun down F16V when F16V pilot has no idea what hits his jet? You obviously can't read and can't argue logically. You jumped in with a bunch of payload craps and concluded j10C is designed for air-to-ground mission and yet it's still bad at its design goals. You really have no clue. You might as well argue B-52 can shoot down a j10C. What a troll.

In BVR, both sides chance of winning at 50:50. The F-16V RCS isn't that high neither yet it is fitted with proven advanced AESA radar coupled with advanced proven avionics especially early warning system. China avionics could be either close, similar or better, won't know until it sees combat actions. The only thing confirmed is the J-10C has better maneuverability especially with TVC giving it better chance of winning at dogfight.

I picked debate from a country's air force personnel after being presented the few fighters capabilities by manufacturers to post here. Are you trying to say that you're better than the air force personnel that evaluated the fighters that they are deciding to buy? These air force personnel have flown both US and Russian medium fighters. They fly the flankers with TVC too.
 

MajesticPug

FULL MEMBER
Jan 29, 2021
389
-8
574
Country
China
Location
United States
In BVR, both sides chance of winning at 50:50. The F-16V RCS isn't that high neither yet it is fitted with proven advanced AESA radar coupled with advanced proven avionics especially early warning system. China avionics could be either close, similar or better, won't know until it sees combat actions. The only thing confirmed is the J-10C has better maneuverability especially with TVC giving it better chance of winning at dogfight.

I picked debate from a country's air force personnel after being presented the few fighters capabilities by manufacturers to post here. Are you trying to say that you're better than the air force personnel that evaluated the fighters that they are deciding to buy? These air force personnel have flown both US and Russian medium fighters. They fly the flankers with TVC too.

Now you're talking sense comparing air-to-air capabilities, not payloads of air-to-ground nonsense. While nobody knows the capability of J10C's AESA performances compared to F16V's, PL-15 has a greater range than any current and maybe developing American missiles. One can always assumes China's AESA radar could take advantage of PL-15's range -- which would unwittingly or indirectly suggestJ10C's AESA performance is better than F16V's. PLUS -- J10C is equipped with TVC and a range of 5th-generation jet's sensor and stealth techs. In exercises, J10C's could shoot down similarly equipped J16's and that tells how capable J10C is in air-to-air combats. It could easily assume the role of an assassin in the air.
 

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
677
-9
345
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Now you're talking sense comparing air-to-air capabilities, not payloads of air-to-ground nonsense. While nobody knows the capability of J10C's AESA performances compared to F16V's, PL-15 has a greater range than any current and maybe developing American missiles. One can always assumes China's AESA radar could take advantage of PL-15's range -- which would unwittingly or indirectly suggestJ10C's AESA performance is better than F16V's. PLUS -- J10C is equipped with TVC and a range of 5th-generation jet's sensor and stealth techs. In exercises, J10C's could shoot down similarly equipped J16's and that tells how capable J10C is in air-to-air combats. It could easily assume the role of an assassin in the air.

The maximum effective range is only achievable if the launcher aircraft is flying at high altitude and at speed without affected by ECM. In rear engagement against fleeing aircraft at high speed, the effective range would greatly reduced to less than 15Nm. This is why in modern BVR engagement, most of the launcher aircraft don't launch missiles at maximum effective range especially against agile fighters with range below 30miles during Iraq, Serbia war.

If J-10C is carrying just 2x PL-10E & 2x PL-15 up against 2x F-16V, the J-10C might launch 1 PL-15 at each F-16V at range of 80 miles or less (it won't be the maximum effective range at over 100miles anyway unless target is large aircraft with huge RCS & poor maneuverability). If F-16V carried AIM-120D, they too would launch at similar range. You don't expect 100% successful hit especially against fighters with proven avionics and well trained pilots as they would take evasive maneuver upon detecting spike and warning on their advanced RWR planning their spoofing moves. If the PL-15 managed to splash 1x F-16V, the other would have at least 3 or more AIM-120 remaining to launch at the lone J-10C that is desperate to get into visual range engagement. Question is, can the J-10C be lucky enough to spoof the remaining 3x AIM-120 from 2nd F-16V if it managed to spoof the first?
 

johncliu88

FULL MEMBER
Mar 16, 2021
196
0
120
Country
China
Location
United States
J-10 is a very capable platform. It also can be converted to different task fighters easily. Maybe the next upgrade will be using the WS-15 engine when it is ready. Let's see then.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom