Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[UKBengali]

But then for those J-16 can hold 10 BVR missiles and 2 short range and still fly much longer range than F-16V. So the F-16V is outgunned.

It is not like a situation because Taiwan send 100 F-16V because they only have 100 available that means China send 100 J-10. Yes you are right the F-16V has better carrying ability than J-10. Just like J-16 has better carrying ability than F-16.

But that is different side. Another point you guys are saying is J-10 and F-16 are same class of fighter because engine of AL-31FN and WS-10G is similar to F-100 and F-110 so both fighter should carry similar number of missiles.

This only prove if F-16 carry 8 BVR missiles with no fuel tanks compared to J-10 with only 4 BVR and three fuel tanks, that the comparison is different. If F-16 is carrying fuel tanks as well and still has 2 more BVR than J-10 then the F-16's performance will be less since both fighter has similar engine performance and similar weight. J-10 has better lift and pitch authority at high angle.

We can only say J-10's designers did not give inner pylon missile capability because either they need those points for fuel or because they consider 4 BVR as enough for the lightweight fighter.

J-10C should have the edge over the F-16 at high altitude engagements due to it’s canard-delta design, whereas F-16 should have the edge in low to mid altitudes.

I would think the F-35 derived APG-83 would be better than the AESA radar on the J-10C and so that may cause J-10C pilots targeting issues against Taiwanese F-16s.

 

[serenity]

J-10C should have the edge over the F-16 at high altitude engagements due to it’s canard-delta design, whereas F-16 should have the edge in low to mid altitudes.

I would think the F-35 derived APG-83 would be better than the AESA radar on the J-10C and so that may cause J-10C pilots targeting issues against Taiwanese F-16s.

Perhaps the radar will like you say. I have no doubt in my mind the F-16V is at least better than J-10C. It is the most powerful F-16 using Lockheed technology from F-22 and F-35. J-10C is about 5 years old now and little smaller upgrades don't compare with F-16V.

I think if the question is to ask if Taiwanese F-16V is better than J-10C individually then my opinion is yes much better. But that is alone not worth much. J-10C is still fantastic fighter and can beat every Flanker type aircraft except J-16 in BVR. WVR is hard to say due to pilot skill and many factors. So Su-35 carrying 10 BVR is still useless against J-10C carrying just even 2 BVR. This I am very confident in. Give J-10C 4 BVR and it can play with even J-16 because J-16 RCS is high and J-10C is very small. With 4 BVR the J-10 can still carry three fuel tanks which give the J-10 similar flying range as the best range fighters like Flankers. So for BVR it is not just missile number. Of course we will love it if J-10C can fly combat radius 1500km without refuel and still carry 8 BVR and 2 WVR while still turning sharply and climbing easily. But the engineers determined the optimized point in range and missile carriage is 4 BVR, 2 WVR and three fuel tanks for roughly 3000km ferry range. It can still carry one gun and one pod or two pod types while it does this and even two small bombs in rear points but in this configuration just doesn't make sense.

For J-10 the Chengdu people could give it this level around 2015 and that's it. This is what they can do with single AL-31 or WS-10 class engine with this limit in size and weight. F-16V in 2018 or 2019 is what best Lockheed people can do. It is no doubt going to be better than J-10C I think but maybe there are some tricks still left unseen.

 

[serenity]

I hope if Pakistan wishes to buy J-10C, they will ask for missile ability in those two inner pylons because to Pakistan they use the missiles more than the range with extra fuel tanks whereas China requires the range and has plenty of J-10 and other fighters to carry missiles. It is very easy to develop dual and triple rail pylon. Much easier than internal weapons bay and side bay that deploy weapon the way J-20 does or to eject like F-22 it is even more complex. The issue is really engine performance.

Those Gripens and Rafale and Typhoon are all about advertising and making export money when J-10 was not exportable due at first to China's laws and then to consideration for Russian engine. Now WS-10 engine is being used, there is really less limitation except sensitive technologies. However J-10CE is also definitely not going to be cheap. The Europeans will show their fighter carrying 1000 different things but take a look at their engine performance in combination. It is not that much better and the thrust to weight is very poor. Combine with their advertising weapon load they are asking for trouble plus also shit range. They don't talk about the shit range to the customer or the fighter cannot climb when loaded like a truck. But European countries I can walk through and range is not a problem for them.

Dassault and Eurofighter group both recommend customer airforce air superiority load is usually 4 BVR 2 WVR and three tanks or 6 BVR 2 WVR and three tanks if using fuselage points or dual rail or triple rail. Never more than this even though those fighter can really carry more. Same with Gripen advertisement. Never show with fuel tank just triple rail everywhere. Can you imagine how poor the range and turn rate is when that is loaded? They think they can load a Gripen with F414 power engine to the point that nearly double J-10's recommended air superiority load? J-10 can also do that when you load with YJ-91 and fuel and missiles and bombs and pods too but performance becomes shit and airframe wear faster. Maybe in war where airframe life expectancy is already low, they will overload with long range and medium range missiles to shoot off quickly and then get closer for WVR if necessary.

 

[Baloch Pakistani]

Perhaps custom order can give inner pylon missile carrying ability if it is too important for the customer. J-10 was made for PLAAF requirements and maybe the PLAAF think they have enough J-10 that 4 BVR missile is enough but range is more important to them so the fighter is designed for over 3000km ferry range with fuel tanks and combat radius that is close to flanker. Of course range to PLAAF is more important than to carry 2 more BVR. PLAAF has hundreds of J-10. They can send many against some enemies so each one may need longer legs even if sacrifice two missiles.

For Pakistan, J-10's internal fuel is probably good enough for most mission. If they need longer range they can carry one fuel tank and there is also refuel pod. Maybe if Pakistan is interested in J-10 they will ask Chengdu to give inner pylon missile capability.

At the moment J-10's missile carrying capability when measured with range is about the same as Gripen but the J-10 is heavier class and should be same as F-16. If PLAAF's J-10 can carry BVR or dual rail in inner pylon it can compare as missile truck like the others but with very short range.

Maybe PAF J-10 in imagination now can use missiles in those pylons or even have purpose designed dual or triple rail and if PAF want to carry 10 BVR it can but with poor range and bad performance until those missiles are launched. It is possible and not too hard. There is nothing really stopping it since J-10's engine performance and thrust to weight is good and so if canard and design.

That was the answer I was looking for.
How would you rate J10C against rafale in air to air battle ?

 

[serenity]

That was the answer I was looking for.
How would you rate J10C against rafale in air to air battle ?

I think in the past Rafale was less than Typhoon and not much better than Gripen but of course for India Rafale has much more useful range than Gripen and many other things they considered. Now the Typhoon seems like given up by the group because UK has F-35 to play with and wants to develop their own 5.5 gen fighter, Germany wants to team with France to develop their 5.5 gen fighter and France has of course that project which they are major contributor or only player. France also is not buying F-35 so before that 5.5 gen fighter is ready they have continue to improve and work on Rafale. This has now made Rafale into much better fighter than Typhoon though in 1990s and 2000s it seemed Typhoon was much better and had more room for upgrade. French did amazing job with Rafale to be honest and have microengineered perfection whereas Russian or Chinese solutions usually will have taken more room and power.

J-10C is probably not as good as Rafale India is receiving. Slightly lower total engine power, less carriage of weapons, less range as well. RBE2 AESA version is also quite new like J-10C's AESA and J-10C uses similar high end electronic jamming and sensor fusion equipment as modern western fighters as J-10's first block to use such equipment at least shown to public. I have no idea how good each one is in the secretive departments but from public information the Rafale F3 and F4 are definitely better but small details are important too which are secretive. J-10 is PLAAF's low end cheaper fighter for tasks not involved in first line attack and I don't expect J-10 to have the best stuff that for example J-16 may be carrying. Rafale is France's best fighter and most important frontline like J-20 is to China. So I think Rafale is better or much better than J-10C.

However the J-10C is also simpler and much cheaper. Can be assembled faster and only needs to use one engine. There are some operation advantage here and readiness of single engine fighter always superior to double engine because if one engine of double engine has some issues to need attention, the whole fighter is grounded and require twice time or labor for engine inspection and typical maintenance with twice possibility of problem resulting in grounding. Anyway that is quite small differences still.

If PAF considering J-10C to counter Rafale in IAF, I think there are some things to meet and the first is ask Chengdu to fully equip inner pylon for all weapons because PAF doesn't need 3000km range. Maybe even see if it is possible to reinforce outer pylon and wing section so outer pylon can also carry PL-12 and PL-15. Then PAF must make sure for every Rafale in IAF that the PAF has at least 2 J-10C just in case but this is just perfect world imagination. This price is maybe possible to be even cheaper because China will definitely want this too and offer basically similar price as for PLAAF. Rafale is better or much better but not even half generation ahead overall. PL-15 has very good range and behaviour. Meteor has better range and long range continuous energy but PL-15 has better electronics and seekers and also has solution to energy issue that while it doesn't have good energy throughout flight it at least can accelerate towards target again. This is actually elegant solution and still quite cheap to the point PLAAF doesn't buy much ramjet powered air to air missile and kept as special mission equipment. Also all of it is much cheaper than what India pays for Rafale. So IAF can make India broke by trying to arms race Pakistan in this small department if it wants to fall into this trap.

Only problem I imagine is PLAAF will not be happy to slow down delivery from Chengdu as PAF receives J-10 as well where China makes little profit or no extra profit. So if Pakistan for some reason choose to buy J-10 and cooperate with China it will definitely buy either small numbers just to match Rafale in IAF or it will buy quite a lot so that another assembly line can open just for Pakistan. I don't think PLAAF will accept lower yearly delivery number of J-10C and Chinese government also will not want this. So either Pakistan invest in whole assembly line possibly just for its own like JF-17 but this requires large effort and quite a lot of expenses and time.

Therefore J-10C will not be bought or maybe just very small numbers with some upgraded electronic equipment as special forces almost. These J-10 for Pakistan I believe would become much better than PLAAF's own J-10C but also will cost either side much more. They may add some equipment considered by PLAAF to be unnecessary for second tier fighter in PLAAF but these equipments may balance against F3 or F4 level Rafale. More likely Pakistan and China already decided 5th generation is better and for now, India has years to learn on Rafale and for full delivery. Pakistan also should not get into some money problems just to arms race Indian in fighters better to spend the money more wisely and find good 5th generation solution that is superior and is not a direct import. This is not easy because it requires a lot of cooperation. I don't believe China's government thinks Pakistan really needs this to rush and security is somehow in danger so I don't expect to see cooperation between us for 5th gen. We still do not know what the plan for J-31 or J-35 is for PLAAF and that means for PAF option too.

Let's remember even if PAF doesn't exist and IAF has 36 Rafale, these Rafale must still need fuel and reload weapons. As long as Pakistan can destroy Rafale's bed, they are use once and forget. Rafale is not F-22.

 

[UKBengali]

I think in the past Rafale was less than Typhoon and not much better than Gripen but of course for India Rafale has much more useful range than Gripen and many other things they considered. Now the Typhoon seems like given up by the group because UK has F-35 to play with and wants to develop their own 5.5 gen fighter, Germany wants to team with France to develop their 5.5 gen fighter and France has of course that project which they are major contributor or only player. France also is not buying F-35 so before that 5.5 gen fighter is ready they have continue to improve and work on Rafale. This has now made Rafale into much better fighter than Typhoon though in 1990s and 2000s it seemed Typhoon was much better and had more room for upgrade. French did amazing job with Rafale to be honest and have microengineered perfection whereas Russian or Chinese solutions usually will have taken more room and power.

J-10C is probably not as good as Rafale India is receiving. Slightly lower total engine power, less carriage of weapons, less range as well. RBE2 AESA version is also quite new like J-10C's AESA and J-10C uses similar high end electronic jamming and sensor fusion equipment as modern western fighters as J-10's first block to use such equipment at least shown to public. I have no idea how good each one is in the secretive departments but from public information the Rafale F3 and F4 are definitely better but small details are important too which are secretive. J-10 is PLAAF's low end cheaper fighter for tasks not involved in first line attack and I don't expect J-10 to have the best stuff that for example J-16 may be carrying. Rafale is France's best fighter and most important frontline like J-20 is to China. So I think Rafale is better or much better than J-10C.

However the J-10C is also simpler and much cheaper. Can be assembled faster and only needs to use one engine. There are some operation advantage here and readiness of single engine fighter always superior to double engine because if one engine of double engine has some issues to need attention, the whole fighter is grounded and require twice time or labor for engine inspection and typical maintenance with twice possibility of problem resulting in grounding. Anyway that is quite small differences still.

If PAF considering J-10C to counter Rafale in IAF, I think there are some things to meet and the first is ask Chengdu to fully equip inner pylon for all weapons because PAF doesn't need 3000km range. Maybe even see if it is possible to reinforce outer pylon and wing section so outer pylon can also carry PL-12 and PL-15. Then PAF must make sure for every Rafale in IAF that the PAF has at least 2 J-10C just in case. This is maybe possible to be even cheaper because China will definitely want this too and offer basically similar price as for PLAAF. Rafale is better or much better but not even half generation ahead overall. PL-15 has very good range and behaviour. Meteor has better range and low range energy but PL-15 has better electronics and seekers and also has solution to energy issue. Also all of it is much cheaper than what India pays for Rafale. So IAF can make India broke by trying to arms race Pakistan in this small department if it wants to fall into this trap.

Only problem I imagine is PLAAF will not be happy to slow down delivery from Chengdu as PAF receives J-10 as well where China makes little profit or no extra profit. So if Pakistan for some reason choose to buy J-10 and cooperate with China it will definitely buy either small numbers just to match Rafale in IAF or it will buy quite a lot so that another assembly line can open just for Pakistan. I don't think PLAAF will accept lower yearly delivery number of J-10C and Chinese government also will not want this. So either Pakistan invest in whole assembly line possibly just for its own like JF-17 but this requires large effort and quite a lot of expenses and time.

Therefore J-10C will not be bought or maybe just very small numbers with some upgraded electronic equipment as special forces almost. These J-10 for Pakistan I believe would become much better than PLAAF's own J-10C but also will cost either side much more. They may add some equipment considered by PLAAF to be unnecessary for second tier fighter in PLAAF but these equipments may balance against F3 or F4 level Rafale. More likely Pakistan and China already decided 5th generation is better and for now, India has years to learn on Rafale and for full delivery. Pakistan also should not get into some money problems just to arms race Indian in fighters better to spend the money more wisely and find good 5th generation solution that is superior and is not a direct import. This is not easy because it requires a lot of cooperation. I don't believe China's government thinks Pakistan really needs this to rush and security is somehow in danger.

Few points

1. AESA radar for Typhoon is ready and will be first supplied to ME export clients like Kuwait and Qatar.

2. Tempest will be true 6th gen fighter as UK has RR for engines and gained a lot of access to F-35 stealth tech by being the only a Tier 1 partner for F-35.LM was lead for F-35 with UK’s BAE and Northrop as prime contractors.

3. I agree that the French/German next-gen fighter will be 5.5 gen as they lack the engine and stealth tech.

 

[Baloch Pakistani]

I think in the past Rafale was less than Typhoon and not much better than Gripen but of course for India Rafale has much more useful range than Gripen and many other things they considered. Now the Typhoon seems like given up by the group because UK has F-35 to play with and wants to develop their own 5.5 gen fighter, Germany wants to team with France to develop their 5.5 gen fighter and France has of course that project which they are major contributor or only player. France also is not buying F-35 so before that 5.5 gen fighter is ready they have continue to improve and work on Rafale. This has now made Rafale into much better fighter than Typhoon though in 1990s and 2000s it seemed Typhoon was much better and had more room for upgrade. French did amazing job with Rafale to be honest and have microengineered perfection whereas Russian or Chinese solutions usually will have taken more room and power.

J-10C is probably not as good as Rafale India is receiving. Slightly lower total engine power, less carriage of weapons, less range as well. RBE2 AESA version is also quite new like J-10C's AESA and J-10C uses similar high end electronic jamming and sensor fusion equipment as modern western fighters as J-10's first block to use such equipment at least shown to public. I have no idea how good each one is in the secretive departments but from public information the Rafale F3 and F4 are definitely better but small details are important too which are secretive. J-10 is PLAAF's low end cheaper fighter for tasks not involved in first line attack and I don't expect J-10 to have the best stuff that for example J-16 may be carrying. Rafale is France's best fighter and most important frontline like J-20 is to China. So I think Rafale is better or much better than J-10C.

However the J-10C is also simpler and much cheaper. Can be assembled faster and only needs to use one engine. There are some operation advantage here and readiness of single engine fighter always superior to double engine because if one engine of double engine has some issues to need attention, the whole fighter is grounded and require twice time or labor for engine inspection and typical maintenance with twice possibility of problem resulting in grounding. Anyway that is quite small differences still.

If PAF considering J-10C to counter Rafale in IAF, I think there are some things to meet and the first is ask Chengdu to fully equip inner pylon for all weapons because PAF doesn't need 3000km range. Maybe even see if it is possible to reinforce outer pylon and wing section so outer pylon can also carry PL-12 and PL-15. Then PAF must make sure for every Rafale in IAF that the PAF has at least 2 J-10C just in case but this is just perfect world imagination. This price is maybe possible to be even cheaper because China will definitely want this too and offer basically similar price as for PLAAF. Rafale is better or much better but not even half generation ahead overall. PL-15 has very good range and behaviour. Meteor has better range and long range continuous energy but PL-15 has better electronics and seekers and also has solution to energy issue that while it doesn't have good energy throughout flight it at least can accelerate towards target again. This is actually elegant solution and still quite cheap to the point PLAAF doesn't buy much ramjet powered air to air missile and kept as special mission equipment. Also all of it is much cheaper than what India pays for Rafale. So IAF can make India broke by trying to arms race Pakistan in this small department if it wants to fall into this trap.

Only problem I imagine is PLAAF will not be happy to slow down delivery from Chengdu as PAF receives J-10 as well where China makes little profit or no extra profit. So if Pakistan for some reason choose to buy J-10 and cooperate with China it will definitely buy either small numbers just to match Rafale in IAF or it will buy quite a lot so that another assembly line can open just for Pakistan. I don't think PLAAF will accept lower yearly delivery number of J-10C and Chinese government also will not want this. So either Pakistan invest in whole assembly line possibly just for its own like JF-17 but this requires large effort and quite a lot of expenses and time.

Therefore J-10C will not be bought or maybe just very small numbers with some upgraded electronic equipment as special forces almost. These J-10 for Pakistan I believe would become much better than PLAAF's own J-10C but also will cost either side much more. They may add some equipment considered by PLAAF to be unnecessary for second tier fighter in PLAAF but these equipments may balance against F3 or F4 level Rafale. More likely Pakistan and China already decided 5th generation is better and for now, India has years to learn on Rafale and for full delivery. Pakistan also should not get into some money problems just to arms race Indian in fighters better to spend the money more wisely and find good 5th generation solution that is superior and is not a direct import. This is not easy because it requires a lot of cooperation. I don't believe China's government thinks Pakistan really needs this to rush and security is somehow in danger so I don't expect to see cooperation between us for 5th gen. We still do not know what the plan for J-31 or J-35 is for PLAAF and that means for PAF option too.

Let's remember even if PAF doesn't exist and IAF has 36 Rafale, these Rafale must still need fuel and reload weapons. As long as Pakistan can destroy Rafale's bed, they are use once and forget. Rafale is not F-22.

Thanks a lot for such a detailed response. I learned a lot about J10 from your replies.

 

[serenity]

Few points

1. AESA radar for Typhoon is ready and will be first supplied to ME export clients like Kuwait and Qatar.

2. Tempest will be true 6th gen fighter as UK has RR for engines and gained a lot of access to F-35 stealth tech by being the only a Tier 1 partner for F-35.LM was lead for F-35 with UK’s BAE and Northrop as prime contractors.

3. I agree that the French/German next-gen fighter will be 5.5 gen as they lack the engine and stealth tech.

You are right. Typhoon's AESA is finally ready but none of the original partner are buying it? Because they are all buying F-35 or developing own 5.5 generation fighter. Anyway I guess India could also buy that AESA Typhoon but they have closer relationship with French military deals and dealing with UK, Spain, Germany, and Italy together is too much headache. They made the right choice with Rafale over Typhoon and definitely better than American offer of older F-15 type or F-18EF. I think American offer of F-16V is now much more attractive compared to those in the past. In this department of major project development, they have not yet gone into the phase of genuine design. The model mockup shows is purely artist made and totally will not be how it looks. UK has no need for such things and the funding is drying up. Such a project is truly more enormous than people can imagine. South Korea economy is stronger and their military technology is almost as good with access to American assistance and after 10 years of developing KFX they already given up on internal bays years ago. They say will have in future upgrade but truly will not happen because cannot be done. There are things said just for certain audience and there are models made for certain investors and interest that is all. USA or China will 100% fly first 6th generation that is obviously different to 5th gen.

Tempest is on paper still and I promise we will not see prototype flying of Tempest for at least 10 years. Most likely ore than 10 years and another 10 until into service. It's too hard to call it 5.5 gen or 6th gen or just 5th generation. 6th generation has not become defined yet. Chinese anjian can even be called 6th gen just needs to improve its AI and continue building data bank.

I think whatever French and German come with they can solve stealth easy. It is not hard for them surely. Even with metamaterial and other special micro-electronics both of them are very capable of this I think. American may keep all their information secret but none of these things are impossible with money and the right people. They have it all and UK stealth is also too easy. Americans may even assist with UK.

 

[serenity]

I think talking about Tempest and the future stuff from Germany and France is too wasteful. The point is to say they have other toys they are working on and so the original Typhoon partners are not quite in hurry to spend a lot of money for Typhoon upgrades and new units in any hurry. Russia is not quite the same and they have declining economies and managing Euro Union is not easy or cheap. UK is similar and has security needs satisfied in total by USA and if they want to develop next gen they are not in big hurry at all unless they think they can export it which is why they are marketing Tempest even though the engineers have not even decided on anything solid yet.

Talk about Tempest and Airbus 5.5 or 6th gen is like talking about anjian or recent American announcement of testing some new aircraft like they are magic pieces with a lot of mystery.

India could pick AESA Typhoon since it is ready now but it is not much better than Rafale if it is even better and it is more trouble dealing with four countries with no close ties to Indian airforce spending. SNECMA or now Safran will help make M88 into new Kaveri. Just renamed. For Pakistan, the situation is not in a hurry but India has much more money to spend. It must take smart choices to keep up.

 

[UKBengali]

You are right. Typhoon's AESA is finally ready but none of the original partner are buying it? Because they are all buying F-35 or developing own 5.5 generation fighter. Anyway I guess India could also buy that AESA Typhoon but they have closer relationship with French military deals and dealing with UK, Spain, Germany, and Italy together is too much headache. They made the right choice with Rafale over Typhoon and definitely better than American offer of older F-15 type or F-18EF. I think American offer of F-16V is now much more attractive compared to those in the past. In this department of major project development, they have not yet gone into the phase of genuine design. The model mockup shows is purely artist made and totally will not be how it looks. UK has no need for such things and the funding is drying up. Such a project is truly more enormous than people can imagine. South Korea economy is stronger and their military technology is almost as good with access to American assistance and after 10 years of developing KFX they already given up on internal bays years ago. They say will have in future upgrade but truly will not happen because cannot be done. There are things said just for certain audience and there are models made for certain investors and interest that is all. USA or China will 100% fly first 6th generation that is obviously different to 5th gen.

Tempest is on paper still and I promise we will not see prototype flying of Tempest for at least 10 years. Most likely ore than 10 years and another 10 until into service. It's too hard to call it 5.5 gen or 6th gen or just 5th generation. 6th generation has not become defined yet. Chinese anjian can even be called 6th gen just needs to improve its AI and continue building data bank.

I think whatever French and German come with they can solve stealth easy. It is not hard for them surely. Even with metamaterial and other special micro-electronics both of them are very capable of this I think. American may keep all their information secret but none of these things are impossible with money and the right people. They have it all and UK stealth is also too easy. Americans may even assist with UK.

This is off-topic but to inform:

1. UK is developing even more advanced AESA radar(ECR 2) to upgrade at least some of it’s Eurofighters from 2025 onwards. This tech will be used to build the Tempest radar.

2. Italy and Sweden are already working with UK on Tempest and chances are high that they will end up being full partners and buying the plane as neither has the tech or the money to go it alone.

3. There are credible reports that UK intends to slash the number of F-35s it intends to buy from 138 to 70 and so freeing up 10 billion US dollars to pour into developing the Tempest.

UK will even build Tempest by itself if it has to as it will want to save it’s aerospace industry - the best outside the US in the world.

PS - Do you know that UK designs and builds the VTOL section of the F-35 engine, the whole of the rear fuselage, tail planes, fins and the electronic warfare system, among other parts. It also designed and built 40% of the 80% complete backup engine for F-35 with GE.
It is the only peer to the US in aerospace tech and Airbus needs it’s engine and wing tech to compete with Boeing.

 

[mike2000 is back]

South Korea economy is stronger and their military technology is almost as good with access to American assistance and after 10 years of developing KFX they already given up on internal bays years ago.

Lol You are really comparing UK and South Korea military industry technology? Lol

 

[kungfugymnast]

That is a BIG assumption.

US has a lot more experience than China and has been able to learn from it's many wars on how to refine it's radar tech.

I would give the US the advantage in radar tech and my point was not comparing radar tech but saying that the US AMRAAM had a 46% kill ratio, even when they faced poor opponents with outdated fighters and lack of AWACs platform. The idea that BVR missiles would have 80% kill ratio is not borne through actual combat records.

Taiwan’s new F-16V could carry up to 16 AIM-120D with new triple rails.

Yes, never underestimate US radar, avionics (especially ECM) and missile effectiveness because they are proven and upgraded every time they got into war. Best examples are the AMRAAM that was upgraded to B during desert storm then C after desert storm. RWR & MAW too were upgraded with most notable with F/A-18C, A-10A shot down by Mig-25 & SA-2 in Iraq & F-16C shot down over Serbia. More sensors were added with more detailed RWR screen warning pilots on shooter direction, position and incoming missiles.

Put aside US firing 2x AMRAAMs per aircraft, the AIM-120B/C hit rate is like 90% against older Russian fighters that have poor RWR (if excluded the Mig-25 success in spoofing dozens AMRAAMs that brought down the hit ratio badly). AIM-120C7/D hit rate increased but if up against fighters with effective RWR, probably the rate is 50-60% depending on the targeted fighter maneuverability + pilot's skills.

Also numbers of Iraqi Mig-23/25/29 & Mirage F1 with medium range missiles R23/27/40 & R550 matra/super matra failed to acquire lock believed to be due to US electronic warfare EA-6B & EF-111A ECM. The Mig-25 shot down F/A-18C at 15 miles head on. Most of the BVR engagement started below 25 miles despite AIM-120A/B & AIM-7M have effective range way above 40 miles (max 37/38Nm). The max effective range only take from high altitude and speed launch. In rear engagement against a fleeing fast enemy aircraft could reduce AIM-120C and R77 range to less than 20Nm, 15Nm.

F-16V tripple rack is likely fake because F-16V engine thrust is only 2000lb more than the block 50/52 F-16CJ. 8 air to air missiles is max which would reduce its max G-limit to 7.5-8G. F-16C on full air to ground max payload would maneuver badly with 6.5G.

For J-10C, better they give it 6x air to air missiles without dual rack like F-16C or else, they'll be outgunned outmissiles and also outnumbered by swarm of enemies. PLAAF would deploy J-11B mostly even if the enemy is flying just F-16C.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Ir

We cannot what if these kind of things because in this case the enemy fighter cannot launch their BVR first. The PL-15 has better range and the J-10C has better radar than most fighter even 4.5 generation fighter. Su-35 with R-77 and R-37 doesn't stand a chance against J-10C in BVR. Typhoon doesn't even have AESA or even just a basic multi antenna radar. Rafale is much better and has Meteor so in 4.5 generation this is only one that can shoot at J-10C before J-10C can do anything.

Anyway what is the science to prove the dual rails deplete the performance and really by how much? I personally don't think the performance degrade that much. Also why does the J-10 need to immediately do evasive maneuver if the enemy already has upper hand? So in this case the one who shoot first always will win because the other will always immediately defend using evasive maneuver?

Whenever BVR fight starts, the pilots do not know they are already fired on with BVR missiles until missile seeker is active much closer. They usually understand the enemy's rough range and assume missile is probably on the way and most pilots will have to stay until they give their own shot.

I feel you don't understand how BVR fight works. It is difficult to understand but can say that range and radar are very important along with missile numbers but there is also fighter range, fuel, engine power, acceleration, climb, turning, RCS, electronic jamming etc.

To summarize more missiles is good and the J-10 can most likely only carry 4 BVR missile with 2 short range missiles and three fuel tanks. This is not good but also actually not bad load for single engine fighter. It is not F-16 level unless last pylon can actually carry BVR as well.

Consider the Rafale's and Typhoon's manufacturer own advertisement for air superiority is three tanks and 4 or 6 BVR missiles with 2 short range. This is at most two BVR more than J-10 with similar range on all three fighters. Both these fighters are larger and heavier class also much more expensive and complex with two engine designs. F-16 tip pylon should not carry AIM-120 due to damage to wings so F-16 with three tanks also can only carry at most 6 BVR with dual rail and 2 short range. This is better than the others but it is also carrying dual or triple rail. So it should also drop everything when J-16 fire PL-xx?

If things work this way, the AIM-54 or R-37 and PL-xx style long range missiles is all you need. Su-27 to 35 and J-11 to J-16 cannot be beaten and all airforce should just design only heavy weight. Missiles and radar are not perfect and no one really knows each other's electronic warfare technology levels well. J-10 designers really strangely decided not to give inner pylon missiles capability because for sure they know it is useless and will need to carry fuel tank anyway.

PL-15 only has the max range if the launcher fighter flying at high altitude above 36,000ft and high speed without enemy ECM jamming. Under enemy ECM jamming especially from EF-18G, the range reduced half or more. If launcher fighter flying 400kts at sea level, expect far less effective range probably less than 25 miles just like Iraq and Serbia air engagement.

The J-10C engine thrust is similar to F-16C or slightly higher yet it can't carry 6 air to air missiles on its own without dual rack is really serious issue unless it is primarily intended for air to ground search & destroy roles which makes sense. FYI, starting from 1992 onwards, all F-16 carry AIM-120B/C on wingtips and AIM-9M/X on underwing outermost pylons. They said it improves maneuverability this way. Present day air to air missiles are so light (190lb for IR guided & 345-380lb for active radar) that there's no issue carrying 8 of them on F-16C/D/E/F/V. So you're saying heavier bombs & fuel tanks weighing over 500-1000lb each are fine for J-10C but a 380lb PL-15 would damage wings?

Those large long range air to air missiles are meant for splashing high asset value aircrafts with large RCS and can't maneuver well. Up against smaller RCS maneuverable fighters would likely spoofed and evaded. That is why US didn't bother to retain the AIM-54C that costs US$1 million each despite F/A-18E/F could be configured to carry after F-14B/D being phased out.

The only conclusion from this is the J-10C is made for air to ground search and destroy role, not as interceptor and its air to air role is mainly for self defense and economic air patrol. If there's enemy swarm of fighters heading towards China, J-11B, J-16, J-20B would be the primary fighters while J-10C would be second line fighters and old J-7/8 will fly as decoy fighters

 

[serenity]

Ir

PL-15 only has the max range if the launcher fighter flying at high altitude above 36,000ft and high speed without enemy ECM jamming. Under enemy ECM jamming especially from EF-18G, the range reduced half or more. If launcher fighter flying 400kts at sea level, expect far less effective range probably less than 25 miles just like Iraq and Serbia air engagement.

The J-10C engine thrust is similar to F-16C or slightly higher yet it can't carry 6 air to air missiles on its own without dual rack is really serious issue unless it is primarily intended for air to ground search & destroy roles which makes sense. FYI, starting from 1992 onwards, all F-16 carry AIM-120B/C on wingtips and AIM-9M/X on underwing outermost pylons. They said it improves maneuverability this way. Present day air to air missiles are so light (190lb for IR guided & 345-380lb for active radar) that there's no issue carrying 8 of them on F-16C/D/E/F/V. So you're saying heavier bombs & fuel tanks weighing over 500-1000lb each are fine for J-10C but a 380lb PL-15 would damage wings?

Yes I know F-16 can carry AIM-120 on wingtip rail but actually the performance is enhanced by carrying AIM-9 not AIM-120. AIM-120 on wingtip has damaged F-16 in past. I cannot remember where I have read that though. Of course they are still capable of doing this if situation requires.

When did I say carrying fuel tanks weighing 1000lb damage wings more than PL-15? Please remember which points we are talking about! Do you see 1000lb fuel tank on last pylon? The damage I was talking about was using last pylon for BVR missile instead of short range. J-10 always uses last pylon for short range missile because heavier BVR missile will likely cause damages to wing.

 

[serenity]

This is off-topic but to inform:

1. UK is developing even more advanced AESA radar(ECR 2) to upgrade at least some of it’s Eurofighters from 2025 onwards. This tech will be used to build the Tempest radar.

2. Italy and Sweden are already working with UK on Tempest and chances are high that they will end up being full partners and buying the plane as neither has the tech or the money to go it alone.

3. There are credible reports that UK intends to slash the number of F-35s it intends to buy from 138 to 70 and so freeing up 10 billion US dollars to pour into developing the Tempest.

UK will even build Tempest by itself if it has to as it will want to save it’s aerospace industry - the best outside the US in the world.

PS - Do you know that UK designs and builds the VTOL section of the F-35 engine, the whole of the rear fuselage, tail planes, fins and the electronic warfare system, among other parts. It also designed and built 40% of the 80% complete backup engine for F-35 with GE.
It is the only peer to the US in aerospace tech and Airbus needs it’s engine and wing tech to compete with Boeing.

1. This is actually expected. My point is before to compare Rafale development with Typhoon. There is a huge difference because major Typhoon partner countries have other things to use and spend money on. 2025 proposed for new AESA for UK's own Typhoon is expected eventually. France already upgraded their Rafale with AESA with almost 10 year gap compared to proposal and proposal never ever meet time expectations so when they say 2025 is it 2025 or possibly after 2030. Depends on security threats and many things.

Indian decided on right choice with Rafale because it is much better back in MMRCA compared to offered Typhoon. The AESA version was not ready and Typhoon partners slowed down Typhoon development. They will of course one day perform mid life upgrades for their own Typhoon.

2. I think Europe will go this way with two main 5.5 or 6 generation projects one being lead by UK and the other by France with partner nation joining. It is too expensive and difficult to totally develop by oneself so Sweden probably will join instead of doing what they did for Gripen. They probably cannot create better alternative with similar time and budget.

3. I don't think UK will cut F-35 orders. Tempest is really just still too far away and F-35 is ready and the training has been done for so many years now. Between now and Tempest equivalent service status to current F-35 is at least another 20 years by UK's own estimates of impossible timeline. Only change if Russia upgrade Su-57 and buys hundreds lol.

UK certainly has strong aerospace industry especially civilian engines. I don't think it is best outside USA anymore but that is too controversial to discuss in this thread. We can think and believe whatever we like time will show.