What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

The Chinese pilot are extremely skillful to land the J-10 almost intact on riverbed.

Another AL-31F engine fault.
I am glad he or she is alive.

On a lighter note, I am even more glad I didn't read that they did this because they didn't want to exploit their full potential to the western world........
 
Absolutely nonsense from you...

I am not saying Russian egnines are better - I am saying right now - Russians are a known quantity for better or worse. There is transparency in their products. Right now, there is none for Chinese military jet engines. Chinese systems could be better or not - but until there is some transparency

Nothing to suggest he says Chinese engine is better. The one need to have better english comprehension, is you...

He didn't say Russian engines are better neither. WS-10B/C are indeed better than AL-31 at the moment. Now that there's new fighter procurement project in few countries for budget under US$80million, few fighters have been shortlisted = J-10C vs Gripen vs F-16V. In terms of maneuverability, avionics, weapon system, do you have any comment?
 
He didn't say Russian engines are better neither. WS-10B/C are indeed better than AL-31 at the moment. Now that there's new fighter procurement project in few countries for budget under US$80million, few fighters have been shortlisted = J-10C vs Gripen vs F-16V. In terms of maneuverability, avionics, weapon system, do you have any comment?

Actually Russian aeromotor are still slightly better than Chinese engines,it is a gap of about five years.But China is Investing huge amounts of money to develop our own engine technology,I'm confident that we can catch up or even beyond the russian within 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Actually Russian aeromotor are still slightly better than Chinese engines,it is a gap of about five years.But China is Investing huge amounts of money to develop our own engine technology,I'm confident that we can catch up or even beyond the russian within 10 years.

What confirmed so far are Russian AL-41 and Izdeliye engines are their benchmark engines. China purchased the Su-35 in order to perfect the WS-10B to WS-10C. WS-15 would take technology from AL-41 hopefully able to perfect it. So far no request on acquiring Russian Izdeliye 40,000lb thrust engjne yet.

Would you pick the J-10C, Mig-35, F-16V or Gripen?
 
What confirmed so far are Russian AL-41 and Izdeliye engines are their benchmark engines. China purchased the Su-35 in order to perfect the WS-10B to WS-10C. WS-15 would take technology from AL-41 hopefully able to perfect it. So far no request on acquiring Russian Izdeliye 40,000lb thrust engjne yet.

Would you pick the J-10C, Mig-35, F-16V or Gripen?
1.WS-10IPE use some techs from WS-15 poject but not 117S to improve the performace for example the next generation single crystal turbine disk blade.
2.Surely F16V,as long as you don't have a limitt from budget.F16V is 5years later and piled with many of the latest technologies at any cost to attract the foreign buyers,while J-10C is a compromise project between cost and performance for PLAF as a second-class fighter.
 
1.WS-10IPE use some techs from WS-15 poject but not 117S to improve the performace for example the next generation single crystal turbine disk blade.
2.Surely F16V,as long as you don't have a limitt from budget.F16V is 5years later and piled with many of the latest technologies at any cost to attract the foreign buyers,while J-10C is a compromise project between cost and performance for PLAF as a second-class fighter.

A lot of Taiwan nonsense. How is F16V designed to attract foreign buyers when the premium Western fighter jets are F35, Rafale, and Typhoon? F16V is merely another attempt to sell to cheaper countries with small defense budgets or those NOT qualified to be America's friends by retrofitting a 40+ year old airframe. F16V has no stealth signature when J10C makes use of many advanced material and stealth design. In any one-on-one engagement, J10C will shoot F16V down without the F16V pilot knowing what hits him.

As for your lies about J10C being a compromise between cost and performance. Here's what will send you high flying to India and Taiwan: Any single engine jet is designed for lower cost of operations and maintenance compared to a heavy fighter jet that has twin engines. Hello? Your brain still there? Or buzzing in too much cow dun?
 
A lot of Taiwan nonsense. How is F16V designed to attract foreign buyers when the premium Western fighter jets are F35, Rafale, and Typhoon? F16V is merely another attempt to sell to cheaper countries with small defense budgets or those NOT qualified to be America's friends by retrofitting a 40+ year old airframe. F16V has no stealth signature when J10C makes use of many advanced material and stealth design. In any one-on-one engagement, J10C will shoot F16V down without the F16V pilot knowing what hits him.

As for your lies about J10C being a compromise between cost and performance. Here's what will send you high flying to India and Taiwan: Any single engine jet is designed for lower cost of operations and maintenance compared to a heavy fighter jet that has twin engines. Hello? Your brain still there? Or buzzing in too much cow dun?

Upgrade Kit for F16V also expensive too,it will at lest spend you 80M$ with fully parts include new GaN AESE RADAR and new F110-129 engine and towed temptation etc.
 
Al 41 belong to same size class of Al 31 ?
Same question for ws10c and ws15 ?
 
Al 41 belong to same size class of Al 31 ?
Same question for ws10c and ws15 ?
Yes, same class. With newer tech/design, new models naturally have better performance/indicators than older ones despite being marginal.
Any single engine jet is designed for lower cost of operations and maintenance compared to a heavy fighter jet that has twin engines.
True. Even for same weight class of medium jet, a single-high-thrust engine config is easier/cheaper to maintain than a twin-medium-thrust engine config.
 
Last edited:
1.WS-10IPE use some techs from WS-15 poject but not 117S to improve the performace for example the next generation single crystal turbine disk blade.
2.Surely F16V,as long as you don't have a limitt from budget.F16V is 5years later and piled with many of the latest technologies at any cost to attract the foreign buyers,while J-10C is a compromise project between cost and performance for PLAF as a second-class fighter.

Which variant is WS-10IPE engine? Is it fitted in any fighter or still under development?

I was expecting you to pick Gripen like others believing in their paper sweet talk. You chose F-16V instead which is a good choice. Avionics in F-16V proven with practical payload arrangement allowing it to carry more A-A & A-G missiles, bombs, rockets, miscellaneous stores making it a true multi-role fighter. The CFT solved the small 6,900lb internal fuel tank issue.

The J-10C is redesigned for quality & low RCS but I don't really like its air to air missiles payload arrangement giving it just 2x PL-10E & 2x PL-15 (without flimsy dual rack) while leaving other pylons for bombs, fuel tanks. It will have to rid the PL-15 in order to carry air to ground missiles. By present standard, a medium sized fighter over 50ft long should carry 8 air to air missiles. J-10C is more suited for air to ground search and destroy role rather than air to air unless they change the inner large pylon to carry missiles removing its ability to hold 2 large fuel tanks underwings.
 
A lot of Taiwan nonsense. How is F16V designed to attract foreign buyers when the premium Western fighter jets are F35, Rafale, and Typhoon? F16V is merely another attempt to sell to cheaper countries with small defense budgets or those NOT qualified to be America's friends by retrofitting a 40+ year old airframe. F16V has no stealth signature when J10C makes use of many advanced material and stealth design. In any one-on-one engagement, J10C will shoot F16V down without the F16V pilot knowing what hits him.

As for your lies about J10C being a compromise between cost and performance. Here's what will send you high flying to India and Taiwan: Any single engine jet is designed for lower cost of operations and maintenance compared to a heavy fighter jet that has twin engines. Hello? Your brain still there? Or buzzing in too much cow dun?

F-35 is premium fighter with export variant reserved for US close allies only. India can't buy it unless entering alliance pact with US that India has to obey numbers of terms & conditions involving politics.

EF2000 is nothing more than just an overpriced European fighter like Rafale bragging big on superiority to stealth aircraft level when these planes aren't even stealth.

F-16V is considered US export market most affordable combat proven fighter. You can use it for air to air or air to ground anytime. US tend to use F-16 on air to ground sorties while F-15C flying escort. F-16 is considered low cost expendable, being smaller means harder for AAA to hit therefore suitable for search and destroy role taking out enemy air defenses, CAS, air base bombing run, etc.

The J-10C is trying to take the F-16 role but without the wingtip and less pylons for air to ground missiles. For example, the F-16V could carry 12x AGM-65G or 6x AGM-65G mix 6x CBU-97 while able to carry 2x AIM-9X, 2x AIM-120C7, 2x drop tanks under wing & 1x small 150gal drop tank on centerline. J-10C can't carry this many missiles, bombs, not even the Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale could.
 
F-35 is premium fighter with export variant reserved for US close allies only. India can't buy it unless entering alliance pact with US that India has to obey numbers of terms & conditions involving politics.

EF2000 is nothing more than just an overpriced European fighter like Rafale bragging big on superiority to stealth aircraft level when these planes aren't even stealth.

F-16V is considered US export market most affordable combat proven fighter. You can use it for air to air or air to ground anytime. US tend to use F-16 on air to ground sorties while F-15C flying escort. F-16 is considered low cost expendable, being smaller means harder for AAA to hit therefore suitable for search and destroy role taking out enemy air defenses, CAS, air base bombing run, etc.

The J-10C is trying to take the F-16 role but without the wingtip and less pylons for air to ground missiles. For example, the F-16V could carry 12x AGM-65G or 6x AGM-65G mix 6x CBU-97 while able to carry 2x AIM-9X, 2x AIM-120C7, 2x drop tanks under wing & 1x small 150gal drop tank on centerline. J-10C can't carry this many missiles, bombs, not even the Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale could.

Yo.. your listing of payloads F16V can carry lost me but I think a B-52 probably carries more than a F16V can. But my point is still valid: regardless of a F16V or B-52, a J10C will likely shoot down these two before either pilot knows what hits its plane. Know this -- the J10 concept was developed at a time China was trying to beef up its air defense when the prime of its fighter jets were J7's. So J10's were not intended for air-to-ground attacks or invading into Japan or SKorea. Despite adding more air-to-ground weaponry to J10's since its inception, the use of advaced materials and refining the design to reduce RCS made J10C more lethal in the air than its added role of ground supports. In fact, J10C has proven its successes against Su30, Su35's, and at times the J16.

PAF knows this very well. Its purchase of J10C's was to defend against the Indian Su30 and Rafales, not to support Pakistan army invading into India.
 
Yo.. your listing of payloads F16V can carry lost me but I think a B-52 probably carries more than a F16V can. But my point is still valid: regardless of a F16V or B-52, a J10C will likely shoot down these two before either pilot knows what hits its plane. Know this -- the J10 concept was developed at a time China was trying to beef up its air defense when the prime of its fighter jets were J7's. So J10's were not intended for air-to-ground attacks or invading into Japan or SKorea. Despite adding more air-to-ground weaponry to J10's since its inception, the use of advaced materials and refining the design to reduce RCS made J10C more lethal in the air than its added role of ground supports. In fact, J10C has proven its successes against Su30, Su35's, and at times the J16.

PAF knows this very well. Its purchase of J10C's was to defend against the Indian Su30 and Rafales, not to support Pakistan army invading into India.

Bringing B-52 into this is totally irrelevant when the topic is on affordable medium fighter purchase competition where J-10C is competing against F-16V, Gripen, Mig-35. Missile probability of kill against 4.5th generation fighter is around 50-60%, even lower with ECM on. If you're in J-10C carrying just 2x PL-10E & PL-15 and the enemy F-16V managed to spoof both PL-15, you'll be at disadvantage having to spoof 4x AIM-120C7/D before you can use your PL-10E. To ensure higher hit percentage, the F-16V would launch 2x AIM-120C7/D at a time. Looking at J-10C armaments configuration, it is more suited for air to ground role than air to air unless it could carry 8x air to air missiles. The twin rack on J-10C looks flimsy which could be the reason why PLAAF J-10C carrying 2+2 air to air missiles most of the time
 
Bringing B-52 into this is totally irrelevant when the topic is on affordable medium fighter purchase competition where J-10C is competing against F-16V, Gripen, Mig-35. Missile probability of kill against 4.5th generation fighter is around 50-60%, even lower with ECM on. If you're in J-10C carrying just 2x PL-10E & PL-15 and the enemy F-16V managed to spoof both PL-15, you'll be at disadvantage having to spoof 4x AIM-120C7/D before you can use your PL-10E. To ensure higher hit percentage, the F-16V would launch 2x AIM-120C7/D at a time. Looking at J-10C armaments configuration, it is more suited for air to ground role than air to air unless it could carry 8x air to air missiles. The twin rack on J-10C looks flimsy which could be the reason why PLAAF J-10C carrying 2+2 air to air missiles most of the time

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

FYI, whatever missiles you listed for the F16V DO NOT out gun the PL-15 in terms of range and homing technologies.
 
EF2000 is nothing more than just an overpriced European fighter like Rafale bragging big on superiority to stealth aircraft level when these planes aren't even stealth.
Ain't that true, typical blown-out-of-proportion euro stuff!
The J-10C
Now that's what we are talking about, real medium workhorses! Here is an opinion piece on 1V1 between the birds, quite a good read.

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

Untitled.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom