What's new

PAF New Batch J-10 C Spotted

帅的一匹

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 6, 2012
12,854
-4
18,981
Country
China
Location
China
Best to understand ones weakness. I think China will need atleast another 20-30 years minimum before its close to matching the US military. Even then China wont be able to fully match the US being equal due to the US network of international alliances. Problem is that China does not have many friends, and the few that it has had it managed to squander away with the exception of Pakistan+ North Korea.

China will have the build allies, this will become more important the more weaker Russia becomes as the west will be more able to focus its resources to China. For this China needs the muslim world+africa.

Think of the muslim world+Africa as being on the side lines not taking a side but being flippable. If I were the Chinese id focus there a lot more when it comes to building allies. The US strengh doesnt just come from itself but from its strong international alliances.
If is like so, USA will be very cautious and hesitated to wage a war against China, even we are 20 years away from the top. For China doing business is far important than fighting a war. The only lead for war is Taiwan claiming independence, the rest is peace. Even I has divergence with you as we are from different camps, I don’t wanna shoot you in the real battlefield, I mean where is the real hate coming from man? As I say, we will not fight a war if it is not imposed on us.
But we should make sure that we has the ability to win the war.
 

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,732
0
4,169
Country
China
Location
Australia
Best to understand ones weakness. I think China will need atleast another 20-30 years minimum before its close to matching the US military. Even then China wont be able to fully match the US being equal due to the US network of international alliances. Problem is that China does not have many friends, and the few that it has had it managed to squander away with the exception of Pakistan+ North Korea.

China will have the build allies, this will become more important the more weaker Russia becomes as the west will be more able to focus its resources to China. For this China needs the muslim world+africa.

Think of the muslim world+Africa as being on the side lines not taking a side but being flippable. If I were the Chinese id focus there a lot more when it comes to building allies. The US strengh doesnt just come from itself but from its strong international alliances.

China's method of "building alliance" is via trade deals, connections, donations, loans. It cannot build via only on giving since itself has much use of resources too and has not completed development itself.

USA's past method was via a double approach of "we're all European brothers, Christians, liberal democracies" and the building of security pacts - Japan, South Korea, even Pakistan and many others. Others not on board they punished through various means. Carrot and stick method all the time but alliances everywhere and honestly when you are powerful, people do want to be your ally when they see some benefit. It is helped of course by USSR and Cold War era tensions between USSR and Europe.

China simply cannot build alliances. It cannot export its culture and cannot and should not export its politics. Whatever works for China simply works for China but maybe not others. It also has to contend with the overwhelming psychological and information compaigns from the US which again prevent it from truly developing any real soft power. Therefore the way it approaches building a network is via trade agreements and things of that nature. It is not as effective as saying like the US "we're all white brothers, white power!" essentially which deep down is part of the European American alliance based on.

Global South is not allied in any meaningful way except allied in sharing the common traits of being underdeveloped, non industrialized or just industrializing and poor. They have first mover advantage and there is no overtaking it in alliance and softpower until you hardpower is superior. China at best would be roughly 3 to 5 times the size of US nominally if per capita one day is the same. That's USA + Europe + East Asia allies like Japan and South Korea. That's pretty damn good but China today is nowhere near achieving that yet. Like you said 20 to 30 years away from overall nominal parity with US (but with advantages actually and lead in some) and 100 years maybe from USA + Europe + Japan... who knows... maybe 50 years maybe 200 years. But all this is nothing in terms of historic time scale.

It's no use to say China should build alliances. It can't. Good strong allies are already in US camp. All China can do is build networks, integrate itself like it has been doing with the global economy, keep progressing on science and technology and improving industry and over time, lift all its population into first world industrialized standard so that China is per capita the same as Japan, USA or western European countries but simply the same population size as all those put together - roughly 800 million. 1.4 billion people with demographics trend to be roughly 700M to 800M in 20 to 40 years time.
 

ZY-CN-CA

FULL MEMBER
Apr 20, 2015
327
0
486
Country
China
Location
Canada
Best to understand ones weakness. I think China will need atleast another 20-30 years minimum before its close to matching the US military. Even then China wont be able to fully match the US being equal due to the US network of international alliances. Problem is that China does not have many friends, and the few that it has had it managed to squander away with the exception of Pakistan+ North Korea.

China will have the build allies, this will become more important the more weaker Russia becomes as the west will be more able to focus its resources to China. For this China needs the muslim world+africa.

Think of the muslim world+Africa as being on the side lines not taking a side but being flippable. If I were the Chinese id focus there a lot more when it comes to building allies. The US strengh doesnt just come from itself but from its strong international alliances.
yes,maybe 20-30 years,
China will have the build allies, this will become more important the more weaker Russia becomes as the west will be more able to focus its resources to China. For this China needs the muslim world+africa.√ China also work hard to do that.
 

rgfegasrg

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Feb 5, 2022
54
0
64
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Australia
Russia lost a few Su-30 in Ukraine but not quite as many as some think. The numbers last time I checked was under 10 lost. Ukraine war for Russia is like Vietnam war for USA or Korea for USA rather than using Afghanistan or Iraq as examples. The capability gap between Russia and Ukraine is closer than USA and Vietnam 50 years ago. That of course was a different era but the US lost over 3000 manned aircraft and over 5000 helicopters.

I think the portrayal of the war is a bit too affected by propagandas. I think Russians use their stuff very roughly and with a very risk tolerant attitude but reality is maybe this is even a wrong impression and in comparison to other major large scale all out wars (which Russia is the one not pushing all its weight) then their aircraft losses aren't actually all that substantial. If the US were to go to war with North Korea for example, they would lose many modern fighter aircraft. One can bet everything on that. Lose at least similar levels to how many Russia is losing. Of course this requires China to be supporting the North Koreans with weapons like USA supports Ukraine for example.

To recently at least, Ukraine still moves around S-300 SAMs and others. They are not all destroyed by Russia especially in the eastern half.



MKI they have over 200 of which means well over 100 that are serviceable. This is capable of bringing basically 1000 medium range missiles into fights or a fight. This alone is some force. Of course MKI is by even 2010, outdated as this was the era (for everyone not USA) of 4.5 gen fighters already starting to be manufactured. MKI is NOT a 4.5 gen fighter.

PLAAF considers J-11B to be fairly useful. Of course it is using even more old tech than what is on MKI but for PLA as a whole, J-11B in modernity and technology is after J-20, J-35, J-16, J-10C, J-10B, Su-35, J-11D (or J-11BG), and even Su-30MK2 (modernity but maybe not in capability).

PLAAF still has J-8 and J-7 in service. Thousands of these fighters are not a force to be ignored. hundreds of Su-30MKI is a greater force than the entire Australian Airforce for example, ignoring F-35 in Australian service of course.



This I would not bet. J-10C vs Su-35 or Su-30MKI, J-10C ...okay yes 5 bitcoins no worries. PAF will eat up IAF in the next conflict? we should remember how much of a numbers difference there is and if it was a case where PAF has dozens of 5th generation fighters to balance it out, then 5 bitcoins bet okay.

India has roughly 600? 4th generation to 4.5 generation fighters (assuming 36 Rafales all delivered) while Pakistan has 300? 4th and 4.5 generation fighters.

No matter training and command superiority, that's 100% more. The technology base and equipment capability level are roughly similar, maybe even with slight advantage to India in fighters and missiles while Pakistan at the moment would have slight advantage in networking, communications, and electronic warfare.



The Rafale IAF bought are the most modern and updated Rafales with an American based AESA radar. The French RBE AESA radar I think was American design based. Might be wrong on this.

It carries 25% more fuel (more energy and range) and more payload. Meteor is probably slightly better than PL-15E to significantly better similar to PL-12 to PL-15 difference gap maybe. PAF bought PL-15E export version and has range that is more limited and no dual pulse motor apparently. Again this is quite an unknown but let's assume worse rather than assume better.

Radar and electronics honestly I would have considered J-10C to be higher because the honest truth is Chinese electronics especially high end military ones are no exaggeration, leading if not tied with US. BUT J-10C receiving all the best and the top notch equipment? I don't think so. This is supposed to be China's light weight cheap fighter. It is the budget fighter and so the calculation for deciding how well it needs to be electronically is optimized rather than given the absolute best with blank check for engineers like J-20 would be. J-10C would have just good enough AESA to peak and optimize its platform and just good enough EW etc. This is still a good level don't get me wrong, PLAAF has in the past sent J-10A and J-10C to intercept Japanese F-15s and Vietnamese Su-30s. Always sending a single J-10 to intercept several fighters. In Vietnam's case, there are leaks that the J-10 were able to jam Su-30s since China bought two Su-30MK types and know them thoroughly and know their weaknesses and how to electronically defeat or suppress them.

The French SPECTRA suite is nothing more than what many fighters have used. Active cancellation and signals processing is yawn. Boring and neither China US or even Russia bothered with that path. They would all have looked into it and trialed it. J-10C however does have something quite similar, basically an integrated EW suite and jammer. That's all SPECTRA really is... it just is the French gave it a cool sounding name. The active component is just jamming but integrated with aircraft rather than on a pod and supposedly can mask the aircraft better etc. Maybe J-10C's isn't far behind in effectiveness, maybe it is. The key to this though isn't in defence - jamming and SPECTRA etc but in defeating jamming attempts and going through it.

Overall Rafale is still better since it can carry more weapons and more fuel if all those over concerns are roughly equal. I would rather PAF assume those categories are all at least slightly worse than Rafale in performance. Then the balance shifts to Rafales favor even more.


Active Cancellation does NOT exist.

It is impractical to do so and anybody who has done high school physics would know that it is not feasible, in fact, impossible even. It is just a nonsense rumor.
 

rgfegasrg

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Feb 5, 2022
54
0
64
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Australia
Russia lost a few Su-30 in Ukraine but not quite as many as some think. The numbers last time I checked was under 10 lost. Ukraine war for Russia is like Vietnam war for USA or Korea for USA rather than using Afghanistan or Iraq as examples. The capability gap between Russia and Ukraine is closer than USA and Vietnam 50 years ago. That of course was a different era but the US lost over 3000 manned aircraft and over 5000 helicopters.

I think the portrayal of the war is a bit too affected by propagandas. I think Russians use their stuff very roughly and with a very risk tolerant attitude but reality is maybe this is even a wrong impression and in comparison to other major large scale all out wars (which Russia is the one not pushing all its weight) then their aircraft losses aren't actually all that substantial. If the US were to go to war with North Korea for example, they would lose many modern fighter aircraft. One can bet everything on that. Lose at least similar levels to how many Russia is losing. Of course this requires China to be supporting the North Koreans with weapons like USA supports Ukraine for example.

To recently at least, Ukraine still moves around S-300 SAMs and others. They are not all destroyed by Russia especially in the eastern half.



MKI they have over 200 of which means well over 100 that are serviceable. This is capable of bringing basically 1000 medium range missiles into fights or a fight. This alone is some force. Of course MKI is by even 2010, outdated as this was the era (for everyone not USA) of 4.5 gen fighters already starting to be manufactured. MKI is NOT a 4.5 gen fighter.

PLAAF considers J-11B to be fairly useful. Of course it is using even more old tech than what is on MKI but for PLA as a whole, J-11B in modernity and technology is after J-20, J-35, J-16, J-10C, J-10B, Su-35, J-11D (or J-11BG), and even Su-30MK2 (modernity but maybe not in capability).

PLAAF still has J-8 and J-7 in service. Thousands of these fighters are not a force to be ignored. hundreds of Su-30MKI is a greater force than the entire Australian Airforce for example, ignoring F-35 in Australian service of course.



This I would not bet. J-10C vs Su-35 or Su-30MKI, J-10C ...okay yes 5 bitcoins no worries. PAF will eat up IAF in the next conflict? we should remember how much of a numbers difference there is and if it was a case where PAF has dozens of 5th generation fighters to balance it out, then 5 bitcoins bet okay.

India has roughly 600? 4th generation to 4.5 generation fighters (assuming 36 Rafales all delivered) while Pakistan has 300? 4th and 4.5 generation fighters.

No matter training and command superiority, that's 100% more. The technology base and equipment capability level are roughly similar, maybe even with slight advantage to India in fighters and missiles while Pakistan at the moment would have slight advantage in networking, communications, and electronic warfare.



The Rafale IAF bought are the most modern and updated Rafales with an American based AESA radar. The French RBE AESA radar I think was American design based. Might be wrong on this.

It carries 25% more fuel (more energy and range) and more payload. Meteor is probably slightly better than PL-15E to significantly better similar to PL-12 to PL-15 difference gap maybe. PAF bought PL-15E export version and has range that is more limited and no dual pulse motor apparently. Again this is quite an unknown but let's assume worse rather than assume better.

Radar and electronics honestly I would have considered J-10C to be higher because the honest truth is Chinese electronics especially high end military ones are no exaggeration, leading if not tied with US. BUT J-10C receiving all the best and the top notch equipment? I don't think so. This is supposed to be China's light weight cheap fighter. It is the budget fighter and so the calculation for deciding how well it needs to be electronically is optimized rather than given the absolute best with blank check for engineers like J-20 would be. J-10C would have just good enough AESA to peak and optimize its platform and just good enough EW etc. This is still a good level don't get me wrong, PLAAF has in the past sent J-10A and J-10C to intercept Japanese F-15s and Vietnamese Su-30s. Always sending a single J-10 to intercept several fighters. In Vietnam's case, there are leaks that the J-10 were able to jam Su-30s since China bought two Su-30MK types and know them thoroughly and know their weaknesses and how to electronically defeat or suppress them.

The French SPECTRA suite is nothing more than what many fighters have used. Active cancellation and signals processing is yawn. Boring and neither China US or even Russia bothered with that path. They would all have looked into it and trialed it. J-10C however does have something quite similar, basically an integrated EW suite and jammer. That's all SPECTRA really is... it just is the French gave it a cool sounding name. The active component is just jamming but integrated with aircraft rather than on a pod and supposedly can mask the aircraft better etc. Maybe J-10C's isn't far behind in effectiveness, maybe it is. The key to this though isn't in defence - jamming and SPECTRA etc but in defeating jamming attempts and going through it.

Overall Rafale is still better since it can carry more weapons and more fuel if all those over concerns are roughly equal. I would rather PAF assume those categories are all at least slightly worse than Rafale in performance. Then the balance shifts to Rafales favor even more.


Let me put cold water on this active cancellation myth now.


Okay, lets quickly look at RCS of an aircraft:

sigma-big.jpg


This is a very basic example, however, I'm sure you can see what i am referring to. These 'spikes' vary at different angles, this assumes level flight, etc, its a completely perfect environment, the aircraft surface is perfect too, in real life this wouldn't be the case BTW. So to repeat, RCS=changes with angle (simplification).

Now, for something like active cancellation to exist, what we now need to do is;

-Find WHERE the wave is reflecting from, you need the EXACT point on the aircraft to then figure out HOW its reflecting.
this now means you need sensors covering the ENTIRE skin of the aircraft, EVERY SINGLE square meter, to then tell the onboard system where it is reflecting from, thus, the system can then calculate how it's reflected, where it's going, and then, to emit a wave that is out of phase to then cancel it. -BTW, there is a massive problem with this lol, i will touch on it in the next point.
Continuing with the above, so now, the entire skin of the aircraft is a sensor, this is probably impossible lol.


-Now, let's assume that we solved the issue of detecting the reflection, we haven't, but for argument's sake, let's say we have.
When do we intercept?
If we are to intercept the wave before it hits the aircraft, how do we even know there is a wave? We haven't detected it as for detection it needs to interact without sensors, whether these be ESM, RWR, or these magical skin sensors lol?
Okay, so we cant pre-emptively intercept.

No problem let's intercept AFTER they reflect!
-How lol. EM waves travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum, you could argue there's a difference within earth's atmosphere as it is not a vacuum, so there is a medium, thus, the speed of light may vary but again this will be difficult to calculate)
So let's assume that all EM waves will travel at the speed of light, how do you 'catch' the reflected wave. If two things have a distance X, and both travel at the same constant speed, the distance X will never close.

The other more fun scenario
-A parameter is wrong, there is an error, and something goes wrong.
Now, the principle we are talking about is called destructive interference, there is the opposite called constructive interference. Let's say something goes wrong somewhere, instead of having two out-of-phase waves to destructively interfere, you by error now have two in-phase waves to constructively interfere, lighting you up like the night sky, at which point you're fked and you should say your prayers.
 

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


Top Bottom