Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[alimobin memon]

if im not wrong this C version may be as equal as rafale and typhoons.

 

[Akasa]

if im not wrong this C version may be as equal as rafale and typhoons.

Typhoons do not have an AESA radar fitted yet.

 

[randomradio]

if im not wrong this C version may be as equal as rafale and typhoons.

Two engines are always better than one.

Rafale and Typhoon can carry greater loads to greater distances.

 

[alimobin memon]

Two engines are always better than one.

Rafale and Typhoon can carry greater loads to greater distances.

In terms of AA fight I mean't yes range can be factor and load too but one on one is the factor I am referring.

 

[Akasa]

Two engines are always better than one.

Rafale and Typhoon can carry greater loads to greater distances.

Both have their inherent advantages and disadvantages.

 

[randomradio]

In terms of AA fight I mean't yes range can be factor and load too but one on one is the factor I am referring.

When you have more range, it really means more fuel, which means Typhoon and Rafale can fight longer, use afterburner longer etc. So even in AA combat, the Typhoon and Rafale have an advantage.

The J-10C is an F-16V equivalent. The F-16V's capabilities are inferior to the Typhoon and Rafale. Even the more advanced and yet fictional Block 70 could not stand up to older versions of the Typhoon and Rafale.

The J-10C will have to demonstrate significantly superior capabilities compared to the F-16V if it has to be matched with the Rafale and Typhoon. Both the Typhoon and Rafale have beaten the F-22 in dogfights.

Both have their inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Sure there are. Twin engine aircraft are slightly more expensive to buy and operate.

 

[Akasa]

When you have more range, it really means more fuel, which means Typhoon and Rafale can fight longer, use afterburner longer etc. So even in AA combat, the Typhoon and Rafale have an advantage.

More range and fuel also means that your mass goes up, detracting from your TWR which ultimately dictates your kinematic performance including acceleration and turn.

The J-10C is an F-16V equivalent. The F-16V's capabilities are inferior to the Typhoon and Rafale. Even the more advanced and yet fictional Block 70 could not stand up to older versions of the Typhoon and Rafale.

The J-10C will have to demonstrate significantly superior capabilities compared to the F-16V if it has to be matched with the Rafale and Typhoon. Both the Typhoon and Rafale have beaten the F-22 in dogfights.

This statement does not make sense. Overall performance of these jets is not decided on a single overarching factor like being single- or twin-engined. Plane X having beaten plane Y in "dogfights" (i.e. simulated combat training exercises in a controlled environment) reveals little of their respective capabilities in real-world settings.

Sure there are. Twin engine aircraft are slightly more expensive to buy and operate.

And heavier, and more complex to maintain, and not necessarily more advantageous during air-to-air combat (which is decided mostly by sensors, armament, and kinematics).

 

[randomradio]

More range and fuel also means that your mass goes up, detracting from your TWR which ultimately dictates your kinematic performance including acceleration and turn.

So you put more powerful engines into the aircraft, which in this case is true.

This statement does not make sense. Overall performance of these jets is not decided on a single overarching factor like being single- or twin-engined. Plane X having beaten plane Y in "dogfights" (i.e. simulated combat training exercises in a controlled environment) reveals little of their respective capabilities in real-world settings.

It makes perfect sense, just not in the way you have assumed. The fact that even the highly advanced fictional F-16 B70 could not beat the Typhoon and Rafale in MMRCA proves it.

The aircraft has to be designed to be on par, like the F-35 is to the Typhoon and Rafale. It's not simply "single-engined and twin-engined", what I said is "twin engine is always better". There is a pretty big difference between the two statements.

The J-10C has not been designed to compete with either aircraft. It's a pretty old design that dates back to the F-16 and Lavi. So it's bound to have restrictions that are limited to the aircraft of that time.

One can design a new single engine medium weight aircraft that can be on par with the Rafale and Typhoon. Only the Americans have demonstrated this as of now.

Airframe design matters a lot. The J-10C's empty weight should be similar to the Rafale C. So both are aircraft that weigh about 9-10T. Both should have similar engine power, only about 10KN difference in favour of the Rafale. But Rafale can carry 4.7T of internal fuel and 9.5T of payload on 14 hardpoints versus considerably lighter loads on the J-10C, likely to be 3.5T of fuel and 7T of payload on 11 hardpoints. The superiority of the Rafale's design is already evident.

There is another design being worked on in India, a concept aircraft which is considerably lighter than the Rafale, about 7T empty weight, but has superior capabilities in comparison, including range and payload with much smaller thrust. It has a stealth airframe and internal bays. Now the designer is deliberating whether to make it a single engine or twin engine aircraft, the choice is between cost and safety.

The single engine will give you more cost savings while the twin engine version is necessary for flying over the Himalayas or the oceans because any engine failure would mean the pilot has to eject over extremely hostile geographies. China's potential geographies over which combat could take place are also mountains, deserts and oceans, extremely hostile, hence "twin engine aircraft are better". You have a second chance to bring yourself and your aircraft home during emergencies, something that's impossible on single engine aircraft.

And heavier, and more complex to maintain, and not necessarily more advantageous during air-to-air combat (which is decided mostly by sensors, armament, and kinematics).

The ease of maintenance of the Typhoon and Rafale is better than the F-16. The aircraft are more expensive, that's it.

Maintenance is subject to the quality of the technology used. It's obvious that the J-10C's engine has poor life and is difficult to maintain compared to the Rafale's and Typhoon's engines. It is likely to be the same with avionics and airframe as well.

 

[Akasa]

So you put more powerful engines into the aircraft, which in this case is true.

And there is nothing stopping a single-engined aircraft from doing the same, thus leveling the playing field and bringing your logic back to square one.

It makes perfect sense. The fact that even the highly advanced fictional F-16 B70 could not beat the Typhoon and Rafale in MMRCA proves it.

A military contract evaluates all aspects of the tenders, including price, suitability, long-term cost-effectiveness, logistics, politics, air-ground capability, air-sea capability, size & configuration, et cetera. The fact that X won over Y does not mean that a certain aspect of X is superior to the equivalent aspect in Y.

The aircraft has to be designed to be on par, like the F-35 is to the Typhoon and Rafale. It's not simply "single-engined and twin-engined", what I said is "twin engine is always better". There is a pretty big difference between the two statements.

And you evaluated these jets to be (or not be) on par to each other using what? I'm curious as to how you managed to arrive at a conclusion that even the most credited defense analysts are not able to formulate.

The J-10C has not been designed to compete with either aircraft. It's a pretty old design that dates back to the F-16 and Lavi. So it's bound to have restrictions that are limited to the aircraft of that time.

The F-22 design predates the J-10 and Eurocanards, so by your logic the latter two should be more capable than the former. The J-10C is fitted with an RCS-reduced airframe, 5th generation avionics, brand new EW/ECM suite, and network centric warfare capabilities; it is very much designed to compete with the latest tranches of the mentioned aircraft.

One can design a new single engine medium weight aircraft that can be on par with the Rafale and Typhoon. Only the Americans have demonstrated this as of now.

But, but, according to you, single-engined aircraft cannot compete with twin-engined ones in air-to-air combat, right? Having a change of heart?

Airframe design matters a lot. The J-10C's empty weight should be similar to the Rafale C. So both are aircraft that weigh about 9-10T. Both should have similar engine power, only about 10KN difference in favour of the Rafale. But Rafale can carry 4.7T of internal fuel and 9.5T of payload on 14 hardpoints versus considerably lighter loads on the J-10C, likely to be 3.5T of fuel and 7T of payload on 11 hardpoints. The superiority of the Rafale's design is already evident.

I'd like to see some sources for your claims of the J-10C's fuel and weapons payload, as well as the claim that the empty weights of the two are similar. A plane's weapons/fuel capacity (a function of the difference between its MTOW and empty weight) has no direct relationship with its TWR, a key indicator of kinematic performance.

There is another design being worked on in India, a concept aircraft which is considerably lighter than the Rafale, about 7T empty weight, but has superior capabilities in comparison, including range and payload with much small thrust. It has a stealth airframe and internal bays. Now the designer is deliberating whether to make it a single engine or twin engine aircraft, the choice is between cost and safety.

The single engine will give you more cost savings while the twin engine version is necessary for flying over the Himalayas or the oceans because any engine failure would mean the pilot has to eject over extremely hostile geographies. China's potential geographies over which combat could take place are also mountains, deserts and oceans, extremely hostile, hence "twin engine aircraft are better". You have a second chance to bring yourself and your aircraft home during emergencies, something that's impossible on single engine aircraft.

Engine redundancy is just about the only advantage that twin-engine jets have over single-engined ones in all circumstances. The risk of airframe loss secondary to engine failure is much less relevant to land-based aircraf than it is to naval jets.

The ease of maintenance of the Typhoon and Rafale is better than the F-16. The aircraft are more expensive, that's it.

I'd like to see some authoritative sources on the maintenance, flight, and overhaul costs of the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-16 if you want your claims to be taken seriously. Flight hours required between overhauls would be good, too.

Maintenance is subject to the quality of the technology used. It's obvious that the J-10C's engine has poor life and is difficult to maintain compared to the Rafale's and Typhoon's engines. It is likely to be the same with avionics and airframe as well.

I'd like to see authoritative sources on the overhaul interval and total lifetime of the AL-31FN, WS-10B, Snecma M88, and EJ200 2x0.

 

[Brainsucker]

And there is nothing stopping a single-engined aircraft from doing the same, thus leveling the playing field and bringing your logic back to square one.

A military contract evaluates all aspects of the tenders, including price, suitability, long-term cost-effectiveness, logistics, politics, air-ground capability, air-sea capability, size & configuration, et cetera. The fact that X won over Y does not mean that a certain aspect of X is superior to the equivalent aspect in Y.

And you evaluated these jets to be (or not be) on par to each other using what? I'm curious as to how you managed to arrive at a conclusion that even the most credited defense analysts are not able to formulate.

The F-22 design predates the J-10 and Eurocanards, so by your logic the latter two should be more capable than the former. The J-10C is fitted with an RCS-reduced airframe, 5th generation avionics, brand new EW/ECM suite, and network centric warfare capabilities; it is very much designed to compete with the latest tranches of the mentioned aircraft.

But, but, according to you, single-engined aircraft cannot compete with twin-engined ones in air-to-air combat, right? Having a change of heart?

I'd like to see some sources for your claims of the J-10C's fuel and weapons payload, as well as the claim that the empty weights of the two are similar. A plane's weapons/fuel capacity (a function of the difference between its MTOW and empty weight) has no direct relationship with its TWR, a key indicator of kinematic performance.

Engine redundancy is just about the only advantage that twin-engine jets have over single-engined ones in all circumstances. The risk of airframe loss secondary to engine failure is much less relevant to land-based aircraf than it is to naval jets.

I'd like to see some authoritative sources on the maintenance, flight, and overhaul costs of the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-16 if you want your claims to be taken seriously. Flight hours required between overhauls would be good, too.

I'd like to see authoritative sources on the overhaul interval and total lifetime of the AL-31FN, WS-10B, Snecma M88, and EJ200 2x0.

We should also see that Delta Wing Aircraft is a different beast to a conventional wing Aircraft. So J-10C performance can't be considered the same as F-16V. I'm not saying that J-10C is superior or inferior; they just two different beast and shouldn't be considered as the same.

Also, J-10 has a long track record of being used to combat training against Flanker series. From the earliest J-10A and SU-27, to against J-11B, and so on. They won against the older Flanker series, then lost to J-11B. Dunno about the record after that. But none because of the engine number; but because of what you said earlier in your post. Sensor / Avionic / Radar and armament.

 

[randomradio]

And there is nothing stopping a single-engined aircraft from doing the same, thus leveling the playing field and bringing your logic back to square one.

But not the J-10.

A military contract evaluates all aspects of the tenders, including price, suitability, long-term cost-effectiveness, logistics, politics, air-ground capability, air-sea capability, size & configuration, et cetera. The fact that X won over Y does not mean that a certain aspect of X is superior to the equivalent aspect in Y.

The F-16 was rejected purely on tech specs. Purely on performance, endurance, weapons capabilities, sensors etc. Costs and other factors came in much later, after the Typhoon and Rafale were shortlisted. The IAF publicly announced the F-16 fell short in performance.

And you evaluated these jets to be (or not be) on par to each other using what? I'm curious as to how you managed to arrive at a conclusion that even the most credited defense analysts are not able to formulate.

Of course. Just look up the published specs.

Rafale: same thrust, same empty weight, more fuel, more payload. How is this rocket science?

The F-22 design predates the J-10 and Eurocanards, so by your logic the latter two should be more capable than the former. The J-10C is fitted with an RCS-reduced airframe, 5th generation avionics, brand new EW/ECM suite, and network centric warfare capabilities; it is very much designed to compete with the latest tranches of the mentioned aircraft.

The Eurocanards predate the F-22 by at least 10 years.

Designing something to compete with something else doesn't make it better. The J-10's basic design predates the Eurocanards.

But, but, according to you, single-engined aircraft cannot compete with twin-engined ones in air-to-air combat, right? Having a change of heart?

Incorrect. The J-10 cannot compete with the Rafale and EFT.

Find an equivalent configuration for the J-10.

The problem with single engine jets is no one has really cracked the code on how to make one better than twin engine counterparts of similar size and weight. The Americans managed something with the F-35, but while trying to match the range and payload capabilities of twin engine jets, it is still deficient in performance.

You can put a better radar and missiles on the J-10, but it will still show performance deficiencies versus twin engine jets. That's why even though the Rafale and J-10 have the same size, thrust and empty weight, the MTOW of the two aircraft are very different.

I'd like to see some sources for your claims of the J-10C's fuel and weapons payload, as well as the claim that the empty weights of the two are similar. A plane's weapons/fuel capacity (a function of the difference between its MTOW and empty weight) has no direct relationship with its TWR, a key indicator of kinematic performance.

The J-10B/C do not have any visible enhancements in size that it can compete with the Rafale's fuel supply.

The J-10C has an extra fuel tank compared to the J-10A. It doesn't mean anything unless it adds 1.4T extra fuel, which is unlikely. So the Rafale will have a 1 hour advantage on internal fuel.

I'd like to see some authoritative sources on the maintenance, flight, and overhaul costs of the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-16 if you want your claims to be taken seriously. Flight hours required between overhauls would be good, too.

So you want me to prove that the F-16's spares are more expensive than the Rafale's and Typhoon's spares? Would you like me to prove the earth is flat while you're at it?

I'd like to see authoritative sources on the overhaul interval and total lifetime of the AL-31FN, WS-10B, Snecma M88, and EJ200 2x0.

AL-31FN - 1500 hours
WS-10B - 2000 hours
EJ200 - 6000 hours
M88-4E - 7000 hours

We should also see that Delta Wing Aircraft is a different beast to a conventional wing Aircraft. So J-10C performance can't be considered the same as F-16V. I'm not saying that J-10C is superior or inferior; they just two different beast and shouldn't be considered as the same.

Both aircraft have delta wings. One is a tailed delta, the other is a compound delta.

Even the J-20 has delta wings.

 

[Brainsucker]

But not the J-10.

Both aircraft have delta wings. One is a tailed delta, the other is a compound delta.

Even the J-20 has delta wings.

You're right.

 

[帅的一匹]

Rafale can't field against J20, and the rest is just BS.

 

[Deino]

Can we come back to the topic esp. since we have only few hard facts on the true J-10's performances ...

 

[Daniel808]

if im not wrong this C version may be as equal as rafale and typhoons.

Equal or not, depends on who answer that question.
But you can judge it by yourself with a credible and proper information regarding Chengdu J-10B/C.

and I will give you that information, go check that link.
Huitong is one of the most credible sources regarding Chinese Military Aviation, very straight and objective.
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.co.id/p/fighters-ii.html