• Thursday, October 19, 2017

Could China's J-10 Fighter Kill the Best from Japan's Air Force?

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by Zarvan, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    41,843
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +74 / 40,684 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Kyle Mizokami

    [​IMG]

    If on the other hand the J-10 could get in close, the infra-red search and track capability will give the Chinese fighter an advantage in short-range fights. The F-2 has no IRST.

    Both the J-10 and F-2 have their advantages and disadvantages. At long ranges, the F-2 would eat the J-10 alive. At short ranges, the tables turn. The long-range battle comes first though, and the F-2’s advantage could be enough to end the fight before both sides enter visual range. In the end, the F-2 comes out ahead in this duel of fighters.

    The rivalry between Japan and China over islands in the East China Sea has triggered close encounters between the two sides in the air. Chinese fighters have intercepted Japanese aircraft patrolling the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands to China), resulting in Japanese fighters being scrambled to intercept.

    These aerial encounters in the Western Pacific highlight the People’s Liberation Army Air Force and the Japan Air Self Defense Force. China’s Su-27 and J-11 air superiority fighters are well known to outsiders, as are Japan’s equivalent, the F-15J Eagle.




    Less well known are the single-engine multi-role fighters that back up their large, twin-engined cousins. China’s J-10 “Vigorous Dragon”, the first modern Chinese multi-role fighter, was introduced in 2005. An improved variant, the J-10B, has already entered service. Japan’s F-2 multi-role fighter entered service in 2000.

    The Mistubishi F-2 fighter is the result of the FSX program, a joint Japanese-American project to develop a multi-role fighter. Both the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-16 Fighting Falcon were proposed as a baseline, with the F-16 eventually winning out. At the time, the FSX program was controversial as many in the U.S. Congress feared transferring advanced fighter technology to Japan.

    Officially, the J-10 is the creation of the Chengdu Aircraft Design Group. Unofficially, it too has roots in an American aerospace program. The J-10 bears a striking resemblance to the joint American-Israeli Lavi fighter. Also based on the F-16, the Lavi was eventually canceled due to cost and political concerns. In 1987, the Office of Naval Intelligence stated that China had received Lavi—and thus American—technology, a conclusion shared with Jane’s.

    A joint collaboration between Mitsubishi and Lockheed, the F-2 took the basic F-16 design and enlarged it. The aircraft includes a 25% larger wing area, GE F110 engine, and Japan’s J/APG-1, the world’s first active electronic scanning array radar installed on a fighter. It is armed with the Mitsubishi AAM-3 and AAM-5 infra-red guided air-to-air missiles (similar to the AIM-9 Sidewinder) and the AAM-4 radar-guided air-to-air missile (similar to the AIM-7 Sparrow.) The F-2 is also tasked with the anti-invasion mission, and is capable of carrying up to four ASM-2 anti-ship missiles. An M61 20-millimeter gatling gun rounds out the F-2’s armament.

    Despite this, the aircraft is generally regarded as a failure. The per unit cost of the F-2 was a staggering $171 million dollars, more than four times that of an F-16C Block 50/52. Needless to say the F-2 was not four times as effective as the F-16. The lone upshot of the F-2 was the opportunity it gave Japan’s aerospace industry to work on a fighter program.

    The J-10 fighter is a delta wing design, powered by Russian-made Saturn-Lyulka AL-31 afterburning turbofan engines. The aircraft is equipped with a Type 1473H pulse-doppler radar, and has 11 hard points for weapons and external fuel tanks. For air to air combat, the J-10 carries PL-9 infra-red guided air-to-air missiles and PL-12 radar guided missiles, and the Russian GSh-23 23-millimeter cannon. It can also carry a variety of laser and satellite-guided bombs.

    All of that is very good, but which would win? At 520 miles, the F-2 has a better combat radius than the J-10, which is estimated at 340 miles. Assuming the two planes meet each other operating at equal distances from base, this would give the F-2 pilot slightly more fuel to maneuver and spend on speed. The J-10 also has an older design pulse-doppler radar to the F-2’s more modern AESA radar, so the F-2 would probably detect the J-10 first. The two planes are roughly the same weight, but the F-2 has a slightly better thrust to weight ratio.

    All in all, the F-2 has the advantage.

    The story doesn’t end there, though. Both countries are upgrading the J-10 and F-2. China has already started production of the J-10B. The B model features an improved engine, the AL-31FN, with improved thrust and range. Further improvements include a phased-array radar and infra-red search and track (IRST) for short-range air-to-air engagements.

    In the case of Japan F-2 production has already ceased, so the emphasis is on upgrading existing planes. The F-2 is receiving new data links and a new radar, the J/APG-2, which will be mated with the AAM-4B air to air missile. The AAM-4B is currently the only missile in the world with its own AESA radar. The after-launch target lock capability of the AAM-4B allows pilots to launch the missile and begin evasive maneuvers before achieving radar lock.

    Japan’s F-2 would have the advantage in long-range fights, being able to launch AAM-4B missiles from beyond visual range and then “turn and burn” in retreat. Thanks to their data links, F-2 units will be able to coordinate these long-range launches for maximum effect. Although China’s new phased array radar may be good, Japan’s long experience in radars means it’s safe to assume that the Japanese radar is better. J-10s might take serious losses in a scrape with the F-2 before they can even engage the enemy.

    If on the other hand the J-10 could get in close, the infra-red search and track capability will give the Chinese fighter an advantage in short-range fights. The F-2 has no IRST.


    Both the J-10 and F-2 have their advantages and disadvantages. At long ranges, the F-2 would eat the J-10 alive. At short ranges, the tables turn. The long-range battle comes first though, and the F-2’s advantage could be enough to end the fight before both sides enter visual range. In the end, the F-2 comes out ahead in this duel of fighters.

    Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter:mad:KyleMizokami.

    This appeared several years ago and is being reposted due to reader interest.

    Image Credit: Reuters.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...r-kill-the-best-japans-air-force-21658?page=2
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  2. Fledgingwings

    Fledgingwings FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,864
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 639 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    On the ground a million speculations can be made but the fate of the jet is witnessed in the skies !
     
  3. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,859
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +3 / 2,566 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    At some point, the concept of 'active protection' of fighter jets will come in vogue. This means using a missile to counter an enemy's missile. The AESA warhead on A-4 will be of little use if an ARM missile is sent to intercept it. Similarly, DRFM decoys can also play a big role.

    One crucial aspect is that Japanese strategy seems to be devised around shoot and evade. Such a defensive mindset is a premonition for defeat. With an abysmal lack of WVR capabilities, the Chinese will do everything to gain the advantage. Let us not forget that China is the master of cyber warfare. Also, the Chinese can overcome F-2 simply by sheer numbers.

    Although there is a feel good factor in comparing fighters one on one, in real life they always face off in the context of a larger environment. Today, network centric warfare can enhance the capabilities of less potent platforms. I haven't seen any mention of NCW for FF-2.

    @wanglaokan
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Tom M

    Tom M FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,054 / -11
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    India
    My genuine opinion is that it all depends more on one who is in control of the bird than the bird itself. :)
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. Horus

    Horus ADMINISTRATOR

    Messages:
    37,038
    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Ratings:
    +361 / 85,761 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Depends on the pilot.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. ebrahym

    ebrahym FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,905
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,446 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    people here have put a lot of faith in BVR
    what they dont understand is BVR is a rather new concept and is not well tested
    its maiden large scale use was in Iraq war and even the most advanced western BVR missiles have a hit probability of 59% on average ( some a little better, others even worse)
    its feasibility in an aerial combat between two potent airforces is yet to be tested ..........
    "Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat"



    wikipedia:
    The efficacy of BVR air-to-air missiles has been criticized. The increased success rate of BVR combat during Operation Desert Storm may have significantly depended on other factors, such as assistance of AWACS, NCTR system of F-15Cs, as well as enemy incompetence. One major issue with BVR is still unreliable IFF technology (Identification friend or foe)
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. Avicenna

    Avicenna FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,031
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,011 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    This seems to be a really simplistic analysis. I wonder what @gambit would have to say about this article?
     
  8. Penguin

    Penguin PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    13,099
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Ratings:
    +56 / 11,335 / -0
    Most F-16s also do not have an IRST. That includes E/F block 70. But e.g. the F-16 E/F Block 60+ Desert Falcon, the F-16BR block 62+ (both based on F-16E/F block 60) and F-16IN Block 70/72do. Which shows it is an option, that can be installed with relative ease.

    And if not in/onto the aircraft itself, consider Lockheed Martin's IRST21 is compact enough that it can be mounted on the nose section of e.g. the F/A-18's centerline fuel tank or it can be placed in an add-on pod e.g. for mounting on the air-take 'chin position'.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,859
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +3 / 2,566 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    If the pilots don't practice WVR combat, adding an IRST pod won't be very effective.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. Avicenna

    Avicenna FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,031
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,011 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    I wonder how the PL-15 will change the equation. Not sure though that it's been seen on any J-10 yet.
     
  11. 26-K

    26-K FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 24 / -0
    Why do people even read anything written by this guy. Look at his list of articles and have a laugh.
     
  12. Avicenna

    Avicenna FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,031
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,011 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Yea. As I said, seems really simplistic. Of course the vast majority of us here are laymans without any technical knowledge of the tactics employed in aerial warfare. I hope some of the pilots share their wisdom.
     
  13. Penguin

    Penguin PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    13,099
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Ratings:
    +56 / 11,335 / -0
    Duh. If pilots don't practise flying, giving them an aircraft won't be very effective either.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  14. Beast

    Beast ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    11,128
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +5 / 26,332 / -22
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    Desert storm is a 25 years ago battle where AESA, real time feed info ,high speed data link is not available. Most BVRAAM are quite short range. Kill and no escape zone is quite limited.

    Now 2017 , it will be a different ball.
     
  15. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,859
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +3 / 2,566 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Exactly.