F-2 vs. J-10 Fighter

[Malik Alashter]

War experience, they haven't been in a conflict since WW2 and are staunch pacifists.

It's all about training the more you train your men the better they are at war plus motivation that drive your men BTW some advanced countries they have some kind of simulation kind of training where they make their officers their soldier feel like they are in real war.

 

[Hamza913]

It's all about training the more you train your men the better they are at war plus motivation that drive your men BTW some advanced countries they have some kind of simulation kind of training where they make their officers their soldier feel like they are in real war.

Experience is part of training, and no simulation can prepare you for actual combat.

 

[MastanKhan]

VS

At long ranges, the F-2 would eat the J-10 alive. At short ranges, the tables turn.

Kyle Mizokami

Hi,

This is the most important part of the article---the long range.

Launch---turn and burn---.

 

[Hell hound]

the AAM-4 radar-guided air-to-air missile (similar to the AIM-7 Sparrow

as of today f 2 can launch AAM-4 which is not a semi active missile but a completely active missile with range of 100km .Chinese have pl 12 (sd 10) which is also an active missile with Russian seeker and can also operate with zero guidance from parent jet after launch but it has range of 70 km.so f2 of today has benefit in long range because of better electronics, seeker and range of missile
i will disagree with the article's point about the Chinese short range advantage.as of now they are at huge disadvantage because of Japaneses AMM-5 short range high off bore sight missile which is matted with f2 since 2004 and for the reference have the performance rivaling aim9 x.while china is still developing pl 10 high off bore sight missile

The F-2 is receiving new data links and a new radar, the J/APG-2, which will be mated with the AAM-4B air to air missile

key point here is will be mated.by the time they have mate it with f2 same process will be done between pl 15 and j10b by Chinese which also has aesa seeker and beat Japaneses missile in range by huge margin. so Japaneses might lose their long range edge.
but as we all know war is not a one on one fight there are lots of factors involved in wining of the air battle.like weather, height, launching speed, jammers, AWACS,SAMS and most important of them all your wing man.

 

[The Eagle]

The F-2 has an upper hand in long range and BVR but it wouldn't be fair to compare the one based upon a potent and battle proven platform with the help of its developer since start, with another which is still growing (indigenous) and has the room for further improvements as expected by new variants in future.

In such cases, it is all about adopting and executing the strategy against a threat like J-10s V/s F-2. PLAAF knows that how to deal in such cases though seems like there will be supplementary force and J-10 (if pitched against F-2 in current strength) wouldn't hunt alone especially in a data linked mood. China has an air superiority fighter in such category like J-11 for the moment.

However, it would be interesting to see J-10 (expected C or D) for comparison along-with homemade future engine and more advance avionics, weapons, low RCS/advance stealth coatings with CFTs. Just my opinion.

 

[gambit]

That does not necessarily translate to a commensurate comparison in the field of military-grade electronics, especially if one government pours massive amounts of R&D into it relative to the other.

Sure it does. In fact, real facts, it is %99.999 -- does translate.

It is extremely rare that a technology would come from purely military incentives. How rare ? Try SR-71 rare. That is no exaggeration. Much of the SR-71 had to be in-house developed, meaning Lockheed could find no useful existing technology in order to adapt to make the SR-71. Even to today, there is no PW J58 engine equivalent in the civilian sector.

What is casually calls 'military technology' is actually adaptations of existing civilian technology. At least %50, if not most, of the adaptations are for environmental survivability under extremes such as temperatures and/or mechanical stresses. In other words, using my DRAM testing experience as example, if a DRAM module is rated as X speed, we do not tamper with that native capability, rather, we put the DRAM die into a different encapsulation process to ensure all native capabilities and features are not degraded under specified stresses, as specified by the government. The final product is usually larger in physical dimensions, which requires custom mounting solutions designed by another subcontractor, which is finally tested by the customer who is the end contractor to the government.

Phased array transmission technology is roughly the same age as the airplane -- 1905.

Radio signals have been bouncing off objects since its use in early 20th century. But radar, which is actually the discovery of how to exploit the echoes of radio signals that bounced off objects, did not came until the start of WW II with the British Chain Home system.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/tools/radar/mpar/

NOAA's National Weather Radar Testbed (NWRT) is a repurposed U.S. Navy phased array radar (PAR) built in the 1970’s, now actively tested and evaluated in Norman, Oklahoma.

The phased array radar have been around for 70 yrs. Project Diana of 1946 was the world's first functional phased array system that bounced a signal off the Moon.

But the reason why phased arrays did not become popular as radar on aircrafts, and eventually desirable, until now is because the technology to create a phased array signal did not make it suitable for military use. In other words, the military specs were too demanding.

I am not an 'expert' on Japanese military spec-ed AESA systems. Neither are you. If anything, your comment made it clear, at least to me, that you do not know what you are talking about at all. You do not know anything AESA about the JPNese or even of your own China.

It is non-disputable that the JPNese have had a much longer history of high quality electronics than your China. It is definitely probable, not merely possible, that such high quality civilian products and workmanship produced equally impressive military grade products.

So is it possible, or probable, that the F-2 may have a superior sensor package than the J-10 ?

In my opinion -- Yes, probable.

 

[Akasa]

Sure it does. In fact, real facts, it is %99.999 -- does translate.

It is extremely rare that a technology would come from purely military incentives. How rare ? Try SR-71 rare. That is no exaggeration. Much of the SR-71 had to be in-house developed, meaning Lockheed could find no useful existing technology in order to adapt to make the SR-71. Even to today, there is no PW J58 engine equivalent in the civilian sector.

What is casually calls 'military technology' is actually adaptations of existing civilian technology. At least %50, if not most, of the adaptations are for environmental survivability under extremes such as temperatures and/or mechanical stresses. In other words, using my DRAM testing experience as example, if a DRAM module is rated as X speed, we do not tamper with that native capability, rather, we put the DRAM die into a different encapsulation process to ensure all native capabilities and features are not degraded under specified stresses, as specified by the government. The final product is usually larger in physical dimensions, which requires custom mounting solutions designed by another subcontractor, which is finally tested by the customer who is the end contractor to the government.

Phased array transmission technology is roughly the same age as the airplane -- 1905.

Radio signals have been bouncing off objects since its use in early 20th century. But radar, which is actually the discovery of how to exploit the echoes of radio signals that bounced off objects, did not came until the start of WW II with the British Chain Home system.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/tools/radar/mpar/

The phased array radar have been around for 70 yrs. Project Diana of 1946 was the world's first functional phased array system that bounced a signal off the Moon.

But the reason why phased arrays did not become popular as radar on aircrafts, and eventually desirable, until now is because the technology to create a phased array signal did not make it suitable for military use. In other words, the military specs were too demanding.

I am not an 'expert' on Japanese military spec-ed AESA systems. Neither are you. If anything, your comment made it clear, at least to me, that you do not know what you are talking about at all. You do not know anything AESA about the JPNese or even of your own China.

It is non-disputable that the JPNese have had a much longer history of high quality electronics than your China. It is definitely probable, not merely possible, that such high quality civilian products and workmanship produced equally impressive military grade products.

So is it possible, or probable, that the F-2 may have a superior sensor package than the J-10 ?

In my opinion -- Yes, probable.

I agree with the fact that a lion's share of military hardware evolved from civilian/dual-use predecessors. That is indisputable from the very first time airships were re-purposed as zeppelins and half-tracks as artillery tractors.

My point of skepticism, however, is whether such prowess in the civilian field of electronics can translate to a lead in the field of avionics/radars that is equal and proportional in magnitude. If that were the case, we would see the US, Taiwan, Japan, ROK, and Singapore dominate the global production and market share of military avionics. With the exception of the US and ROK, that trend does not hold.

Conversely speaking, there are nations that exhibit incredible clout in the military electronics sector, i.e. Israel, UK, Netherlands, etc., that are nowhere near the aforementioned countries when it comes to dominating the production of civilian-grade electronics.

So, as probable as is Japan's lead in the F-2's avionics, the notion that it dominates the field because of its vibrant civilian sector alone needs to be dropped.

 

[untitled]

War experience, they haven't been in a conflict since WW2 and are staunch pacifists.

No fighting does not mean they are not training hard

They have been intercepting Russian fighters over Sakhalin Islands since the cold war

 

[Hamza913]

No fighting does not mean they are not training hard

They have been intercepting Russian fighters over Sakhalin Islands since the cold war

We will never know how strong they really are until the bullets start flying.

 

[The SC]

It will all depend on the air battles tactics, The F-15J is an air superiority fighter like the SU-35 and the SU-30 that China has, while the J-20 s a multirole fighter, most probably will fight against the Japanese F-16 variant or F-2- if there is any war- It will be mainly a BVR fight, and if they get down to close combat WVR then the advantage goes to the one with the most fighters in the air because of the classical tactics and parity in close range air to air missiles between the two..
So since both have AESA radars, BVR missiles and links to AWACS and satellites.. no one can really predict who will eat whom in an air to air battle or war..it just didn't happen before..

 

[Mugwop]

It will all depend on the air battles tactics, The F-15J is an air superiority fighter like the SU-35 and the SU-30 that China has, while the J-20 s a multirole fighter, most probably will fight against the Japanese F-16 variant or F-2- if there is any war- It will be mainly a BVR fight, and if they get down to close combat WVR then the advantage goes to the one with the most fighters in the air because of the classical tactics and parity in close range air to air missiles between the two..
So since both have AESA radars, BVR missiles and links to AWACS and satellites.. no one can really predict who will eat whom in an air to air battle or war..it just didn't happen before..

Correct me if i am wrong but I think J-20 will be a striker or Air superiority not multi-role. J-10 is multi role

 

[Hell hound]

Correct me if i am wrong but I think J-20 will be a striker or Air superiority not multi-role. J-10 is multi role

j10 as of now is only an air superiority fighter.it can't be used in precision strikes because it lack a good targeting pod and optical/MMW guided ground attack missile.neither there is any proof of it being used as a naval bomber.the role that is reserved for jh7 A.
but it will become a true multi role when its armament and pod are ready and mated.

 

[The Eagle]

Here is a bit that I found though not official but is based upon several reports/studies and news along with an estimate of development and analysis.

IMO, in this scenario whereby a J-10 has to face F-2, first area of concern is detection and BVR range of J-10 against long ranged detection and BVR of F-2.

We all know that whereby an A/C is at disadvantage (in terms of range) then many other support systems involves (most time air strategy) like AWAC/ data linked, complementary A/Cs, long range SAMs installed near border area of expected intrusion etc so we can speculate this for the fight as per current developments so far we know.

However, when it comes to subjected situation then indeed there are areas that the party which lacks would think to address the same. It has been in discussion and becoming a reality that China is going to have a long range AESA radar as well.

As per few sources/analysis and news, it is expected that a need of PL-13 was felt and development started back then. Also, one has to keep in mind that China adopts the strategy to keep everything in secret until right time (good way for surprise).

The PL-13 revelation.

The U.S., Russia, Europe, South Africa, and perhaps more recently China, have developed ramjet engine powered AAMs to achieve longer ranges without increasing missile size. Ramjets also allow the missile to sustain its high speed over most of its range, which significantly expands the “no escape zone” or area within which a target will likely be killed.

“PL-13”

Another surprise in the imagery made available on Chinese web pages on January 4 was a curious computer-generated depiction of a missile called the “PL-13.” However, it must be stressed that this is the first image of this missile and a definitive determination of its existence and performance must await further disclosures. Arguing in favor of this program’s existence is the fact that its image appears with clear images of the PL-12 and the new PL-10, which would tend to lend credibility to the new missile depiction. In addition, Luoyang was reported to have been interested in ramjet propulsion to develop the PL-12.[13] This PL-13 image also points to the possibility that Vympel has sold China the technology needed to make such an AAM. The PL-13 image appears to show a two-intake ramjet motor, a configuration that Vympel had come to prefer as it was developing its R-77M-PD, following early 1990s collaboration with France’s former MATRA Corporation.[14] The ramjet intake shape on the PL-13 appears to conform to one known Vympel configuration. Furthermore, the four cruciform fins at the front end of the PL-13 are also characteristic of other Vympel missiles like the R-27, and Vympel was also reportedly discarding the “grid” shape fins for conventional fins,[15] which also coincides with the PL-13 image. Inasmuch as Russia apparently decided not to purchase the R-77M-PD, it is possible that Vympel was allowed to sell this missile technology to China.[16] But it is also possible that South Africa was a source for some AAM ramjet engine technology, inasmuch as South Africa also had an unrealized program called the Long Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM).

First “PL-13” Image: This computer generated image appeared on the CJDBY website on January 4, 2008. While little is known about this missile the image’s credibility is supported by the inclusion of images of the PL-12 and the recently revealed PL-10. Source: CJDBY web site.

If a real program, then the PL-13 would give the PLA a long-range AAM with considerable new capabilities. The R-77M-PD was reported to have an estimated range of 160km and the PL-13 should be expected to do as well or better. Furthermore, as it a ramjet powered missile, it is expected to sustain its high speed, likely about Mach 4 and greater, throughout its engagement, meaning that it has a substantial “no escape” zone, perhaps similar to that of the MBDA Meteor. Should the PL-13 see a near-term introduction, the it will likely be used in conjunction with the PLA’s AWACS aircraft that can find distant targets and then pass targeting data to attacking aircraft, likely J-11B and J-10 fighter. But the potential range of the PL-13 offers an indication that the PLA is also likely developing long-range radar for its 4th and 5th generation fighters, or may be interested in upgrading existing fighters with new longer range Russian radar. Inasmuch as Vympel has been marketing passive guided versions of the R-27 and R-77, it is reasonable to speculate that a version of the PL-13 may feature a passive guidance system, to better enable long-range attacks against critical support aircraft like AWACS, electronic warfare and tanker aircraft. The PL-13 could also form the basis for a future light-weight anti-radar or supersonic anti-ship missile.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp


Then, a source reported on as follows:

It is reported that PL-13 air-to-air missile is about 3 meters long, 170mm diameter and 500mm wide, which are beyond any other combat missiles in service in the world, and is nearly France’s Mica missile.

PL-13 missile adopts edge wing design, which is close to Russia’s R-77’s wings, but the rear is similar to Russian R-27 missile, and might use thrust vectoring.

PL-13 missile will be used together with long-range early warning aircrafts, which will send target information via data chain to J-11B and J-10 fighters with PL-13 missiles.

She added that Sidewinder missile is an infrared guidance type missile different PL-13’s rear tracking, and PL-13 air-to-air missile’s speed might be as high as Mach 4 to 5, giving no opportunity for escape of any targets.

http://www.china-arms.com/2015/03/c...escape-from-j-20-fighter-with-pl-13-missiles/



Then after, on 22 September, 2015 a source quoted as follows:

club.mil.news.sina.com.cn

PL-15 Different Angles
These set of photos from 2013 show the PL-15 during captive flight testing (carried by fighters like this J-11B). The PL-15 is shown to be about four meters long and 200mm in diameter, about the same size as the older PL-12 BVRAAM. The PL-15 uses improved propulsion, such as advanced rocket motors and possibly ramjet engines, to achieve a greater range.

Even in the prototype stage, the PL-15 is already an international star. Speaking at the 2015 Air Force Association conference the same week as the test, USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM. His reasons for concern is the PL-15's range. By incorporating a ramjet engine, its range could reach 150-200km, was well as its terminal maneuverability. That would out-range existing American air-to-air missiles, making the PL-15 not just a threat to fighters like the F-35, but also to US bombers and aerial tankers critical to American air operations across the vast Pacific. General Carlisle called "out-sticking" the PL-15 a high priority for the USAF.

As the PL-15 moves to deployment stage, it will equip Chinese stealth fighter jets, such as the J-20 and J-31, as well as the older J-10, J-11, J-15 and J-16 fighters. This makes keeping up with the PL-15 an important part of American efforts to out-do an innovative and improving Chinese military system.

http://www.popsci.com/chinese-air-to-air-missile-hits-targets-spooks-usaf-general

So, while looking for development and possibilities, we can see that such area of threat is to be countered accordingly, not subject to Japan but in whole. While keeping in mind about Secrecy of China for Military developments, one can analyse based upon reports and data that there wouldn't be a knock-out/one-sided fight in particular scenario for J-10 Vs F-2 or would be that easy. Development of long range AAM means there is a Radar as well to utilize the maximum potential of platform for better performance.

In-case of any update subject to above posted detail, feel free to share.

Source's data and details are shared so possibilities can be kept in mind and discussed, therefore, it is requested to not bring-in anything portraying as copy/paste tech etc to avoid unnecessary derails as at the time of fight, one is hit without given any explanation of indigenous or not.

@Mugwop & others as well.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Correct me if i am wrong but I think J-20 will be a striker or Air superiority not multi-role. J-10 is multi role

J-20 will be a air superiority fighter with secondary ground strike capability, just like US F-22

 

[The SC]

Correct me if i am wrong but I think J-20 will be a striker or Air superiority not multi-role. J-10 is multi role

I meant J-10, thanks for the correction

Tha advantages of the F-2 is a new very powerful version two of the first radar and also radar absorbig material for the whole body..So RCS is quite low..