tphuangLet me address this JF-17 issue, since it tends to become a really touchy one.
So, the original deal required that PAF purchases 150 and PLAAF purchases 250. However, PLAAF was never that excited about JF-17 in the beginning. And it never appeared as if they were putting in an order until after 04 came out. JF-17 improved due to a lot of good work from CAC and might be able to satisfy PLAAF requirements. And it seemed like CAC was developing ground attack version and twin-seat version (which could be the basis for a LIFT in the future). Since the current JF-17 is designed PAF, PLAAF is unlikely to accept it the way it is. It might accept JF-17 once WS-13 becomes available and also performs well against J-10/11B at CFTE. It might get orders from the twin-seater version. All I can say is that the article I posted last time provides some optimism for the aircraft. But we will have to wait, people who don’t follow PLAAF do not understand that things can change and you really have to be patient and wait.
tphuangjust to correct one thing, Luhai is actually 051B.
168, the first 052B, actually made an around the world deployment last year. And Sov, 054 made a port call to Vladivostok this year. But 171 is definitely a step up, since it’s the most advanced destroyer in service. Although to be fair, it has been around for 3 or 4 years now. Only 054A have yet to make any kind of long range deployments, although it did join up with 054 and 138 when they were coming back from Vladivostok. In fact, it created China fear mongering reports from the Japanese media.
tphuangNo actually it applies to all people I think. Majority of the people here think western equipment is superior while in forums like USSR and other Russian forums they say Russian stuff are superior.
Everyone likes thinking their stuff is decent.
everyone knows how much I detest Russian stuff and that’s from following PLAAF/PLAN over the recent years. They are just overhyped by the Western fear mongers and Russian exporters for obvious reasons.
tphuangWell, the Pictures and Article came from Information Dissemination dated December 7th. Which, has always been a reliable source……………
😮
oh yeah, that was my post. Not much to be made out of it, just that after a long dormant period, it seems like they are doing something to it again. As with anything else PLAN related, wait and see.
tphuanghow do u know about F-16E manevourability? It has new FBW system and engine produces as much non-afterburning thrust as afterburning of F-16A. So simply in straight line acceleration/vertical climb it will beat any F-16.
yeah and it also got a lot (i mean a lot) heavier.
how much better tracking range that will make a difference in combat? At most it will be F-16C/MIG-29/M2K slot array radars but that does not give any decisive advantage against bigger fighters. At best neutral result.
against a same size target, J-10’s radar from the news report can see detect farther than mkk’s radar. Now consider how much smaller J-10 is than mkk, you can see mkk’s problem.
much smaller? it does not look stealthy. there is little difference between 5 sqm and 3sqm or even 1 sqm.
let’s see, J-10 completely hides its engine blades (which is not the case with most 4th generation fighters) and flankers don’t hide it at all. It’s much smaller, doesn’t have two gigantic vertical stabilizers. You can imagine J-10 would use better material for radar absorption than sk/mkk. And just look at all the sources of radar deflection on a flanker, the thing is a behemoth. I doubt there is any angle that sk/mkk is <= 5 sqm.
F-15 and F-16 are not same generation. F-16 is latest FBW control unstable aircraft. What F-15 brings to table is brute force of Radar power, superior speeds due to surplus power. Both has similar elevated canopies.
Certainly i wont be in F-15C fighting against F-16E falcon edge EW suite. but this has nothing to do with aircraft manevourability/supersonic performance. The whole point is J-10 RCS advantage (if there any?) & close end dog fight capability are not that better when armed with missiles/external tanks than Flanker to make a one sided result unless there is some special EW suite inside J-10. even from quality of construction/materials J-10 does not look better than MIG-29/F-16 and certainly not in latest Gripen/Flanker level.
yet aside from your confidence, it almost never loses to sk/mkk.
wel you have to understand two facts
fact one
The F-16 weighs 9205kg empty weight and has either two options for engine one of 13000kg of thrust or other of 14500kg thrust of force
see lockheed brouchurehttp://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/index.html
the chinese pilot is generalizing, he does not mention which version, is he saying all the versions? let us suppose he does, but the F-16E desert falcon has an engine of 14500kg of thrust exactly the same power of a 117S that powers the Su-35BM and allows it to supercruise, it can take off at 22000kg weight but understand the aircraft is not releasing specifications in the best dogfight configuration, also the data the chinese pilot has is limited, the F-16E has restricted data and is unlikely he can know it, so he is claiming a F-16A which the chinese probably know
thanks to the Pakistanies.Also the F-16E is a very advanced airplane and only has beefed up to have better range and payload
yes, because it beefed up so much, it no longer has the agility of F-16A. Nothing against it, that’s just what happens when it becomes a multi-role plane. I’d love for you to post one source that says F-16E can supercruise, because it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of it.
This argument is invalid. PAF chose J-10 because it was the only available option without strings attached, not because they thought it would or would not do well against IAF.
you really should read what PAF ACM said then. We know for sure that J-10 beat out Gripen from previous articles.
J-10 is a 21st century product. Su-27SK is a fighter from early 80s and MKK is it cheapest and least advanced upgrade. Big deal, indeed..
exactly, why do people find it so shocking that J-10 can dominate flankers using N-001VE and export version of R-27/73/77?
Sources?
if you can understand Chinese, this is the news report
http://v.ku6.com/show/TlGC65Ed4n4VZdP3.html
tphuangThat is speculation because you have no offical data for a F-16E/F agility, the Chinese are most likely comparing the J-10 to Pakistani F-16As which are basicly similar to the taiwanese aircraft.
A J-10 will have a surprise if it tries to fight a Su-30MKI; the Su-27SK or Su-30MKKs are not as good as the Su-30MKIs.
The F-16E/Fs have better engines too you have no official data but only forum based reports which are most of the type unreliable
block 60 are actually the least maneuverable of all the F-16s. We don’t know what’s going to happen if J-10 fights against MKI, but nobody in PLAAF is having nightmares about it, trust me on that. Would PAF get J-10 as its next generation fighter if it didn’t think J-10 can do well against MKI?
So, why could similar tactics could be used today…………between the Flanker and the J-10??? Sounds like some want it both ways. Regradless, the Flanker is going to carry a larger Radar and many more Missiles. Likely destroying the J-10 at BVR.
if you fire off 4 missiles and still can’t score a hit, you are in trouble. As I said, J-10 actually dominated in BVR against sk/mkk, because it’s radar actually had better tracking range despite being smaller. Comparing J-10/11B, they are both likely to track each other well before getting to NEZ of PL-12, so how does that larger radar help you?
Funny, on how many always consider the most agile fighters as the winner. Yet, in history that has hardly been the case. Except in the Korean War were both the F-86 Sabre and Mig-15 were so closely matched. Let’s not forget WWII was a totally WVR Fight. Yet, most of the successful types were hardly the most agile. Even 25-30 years later in Vietnam. American F-4’s were beating Mig-17’s, Mig-19’s, and Mig-21’s! Really, to be honest the more powerful fighters with good aceleration, speed, and reasonable agility have won the day…………..
did you see any of J-10’s videos? It looked to have pretty good acceleration and it also has set speed record in PLAAF. The only thing people grasp onto is the larger radar which in many ways are offset by the much smaller RCS. And when supported by AWACS, there is no advantage at all.
Well, its interesting that you only sight late war conflicts to prove your point. How about late 1942 – early 1943 in the South West Pacific. Just as types like the F4U Corsair, P-38 Lightning, and P-47 Thunderbolt were entering service. At this time the Japanese still had highly experienced Zero Pilots. Yet, they were over come by less experienced American Pilots. Flying larger and heavier US Fighters. None of which were more agile…………….These contest were purely WVR fights. Yet, they prevailed!!!! Now today most combat happens at BVR. Yet. your J-10 beats the larger more capable Flanker. With a more powerful radar and better avionic……..not to mention more speed and longer range!
Further, I am not dismissing the J-10 beating Flankers in mock Combat. Yet, what were the ROE’s??? Was is a WVR fight or a BVR fight??? Funny, on how the J-10 can be superior to the Flanker. Yet, the smaller and much more agile F-16. Is not compared to the F-15! 😉
but F-15/16 are in the same generation. J-10 is at least considered by Chinese to be a generation ahead of sk/mkk in terms of weapons and avionics/radar. Anyways, I mentioned before that they have had many mock combats. In the one that is most described on a TV report, J-10 was out-numbered and defending and managed to score hits against all attacking flankers. Look, you can question as much as you want, but the reality is that they’ve had many engagements in different scenarios. J-10 has won overwhelmingly in BVR, WVR.
tphuangLet’s clear one thing up before we move on. I’m not saying J-10 is super amazing, but rather that the su-27/30mkk are just not that good. I would feel nervous putting su-27 up against the Taiwanese M2Ks.
None did question it, when it comes to a WVR-fight in a “telephon-box”.
Here the MiG-29 is still the yardstick with the OVT in mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INb-421E-mo
About that video we have to keep in mind, that the F-15 drivers had to stay in the exercise area to learn the lesson from that. In real combat life they had avoided such fight under worst case conditions. They had disengaged for a more favourable position to reenter a fight, if there was a need to do so.
To draw too many conclusions from special exercise events and the related remarks can be very misleading. Never do exspect a cooperative opponent in a real war, when most exercise and advertisement are in need of cooperative “targets” to fullfil the specifications or related promises. 😉
it wasn’t just WVR that su-27 got dominated in. flankers have basically never came out ahead in any of the known exercises. That will probably change with J-11B, but we haven’t received any results yet.
Pure agility rarely wins in Air Combat………..Especially, today with BVR weapons. So, I wouldn’t count your chickens before they hatch!;)
well 2 points, I think things like turn rates still matter even in BVR. It allows you to get in good position. And when you are talking about BVR, J-10 was winning most of those too due to superior avionics/weapons.
The fact that you need to drill it into people clearly reveals that it’s just a load of BS. If it was true, you would not need to force anyone…
J-10 test pilot clearly said that Su-27’s vertical maneuver capability is better than with J-10 because of higher T/W ratio, rolling rate is worse and horizontal maneuvrability is even. Hardly a *domination*. Regarding BVR fight capabilities, there are so many Flankers versions to choose from with so much different capabilities, that one can impossibly put them under one hut simply called *Flankers*.
do you even read Chinese? you are going on the translation of someone else of an interview. I’ve read that and a bunch of other news reports, interviews and commentaries. The previous assertions on this board that J-10 had better pilots or that it had favourable scenarios all turned out to be false from recent reports.
Now clearly, I was talking about su-27/30mkk. I have always stated that J-11B would be a different story and that widely awaited contest has yet to happen.
So, I guess you consider the F-16C as a far superior fighter than the F-15C…..:confused:
J-10 and J-11B both have their uses. If J-11B didn’t have the huge payload/range advantage over J-10, this project would not have even been worth it. But now it seemed to have got the designated role of becoming the PLAAF F-15E. The MKKs pretty much look like overpaid junk now, but they were badly needed at the time of purchase. Nobody could’ve known how well J-10 would’ve turned out or how well JH-7A and Chinese PGMs have improved.
tphuangThe main advantage of the F-22A and F-35 are still the stealth-capability and the related avionics. With that in mind, both are in a class of their own.
All the other claims about the flying abilities are questionable to stay polite.
The SH does show, that the flying performances of that are ok for the present and future air-combat needs. The SH is still ordered to see service for the next three decades at least. The J-10 is something in the class of the F-16C, Gripen or MiG-29. A MiG-29 can engage a Flanker as a F-16C can engage a F-15. 😉
again, J-10 dominates flankers. I don’t know how many times I need to mention this to drill it into people. Actually, it just got verified again in a recent interview with a test pilot for J-10. But of course, they will still get J-11Bs because J-10 doesn’t have its range/payload.
tphuangDoes anyone know if there are plans / considerations to reequip the PLAAF-aerobatic-team (1. August) with the J-10 ???
Deino
they had a picture of that appearing on Chinese bbs, but I think it’s PSed.
tphuangClearly, the J-10 is a capable and agile dogfighter. Yet, that hardly makes a case for it be superior overall to say a Flanker. As large powerful fighters like the Su have advantages they J-10 just can’t match. Including larger more powerful Radars, Avionics, Weapons Load, Range, etc. etc.
weapons load is like a useless stat when it comes to PLAAF, how does it matter whether it carries 6 or 4 AAMs?
As for radar and avionics, your assumption is based on a same generation used by J-10 and flankers. Which is not the case. Especially since J-10’s radar actually has longer detection range than that of MKK.
And J-10 has other advantages like a much lower signature and having better turn rates. As we said before, J-10 dominates flankers in PLAAF exercises. That was before J-11B came along, but even with J-11B, it’s main advantage over J-10 is the range, not the actual A2A capability.
tphuang866 and 865. The first in the newly built one and the latter is the converted one.
…until 2009 when the first Kornet-clone constellation is fully operational.
hey Sean, are you referring to this one?
http://www.sinodefence.com/space/spacecraft/fengyun3.asp
In short there is NO……I repeat……NO viable targetting system for an ASBM existing or near term. The work on Global Hawk-clone HALE UAV’s that they are undertaking is good a possibility for a solution though.
I will just say that some of trusted sources I read in Chinese are all saying that they have it developed and the targeting pretty much follows what Sean is mentioning here.
tphuangChinese Su-30 is a legacy version. Adding a separate channel for R-77 and few A-G modes on your old radar does not exactly make the bird state of art.
I don’t disagree, I’m simply saying that it has versions past basic su-27sk, most of it is R-77 capable with slightly upgraded cockpit.
getting the Lavi’s design and access to Israeli technology definitely allowed the Chinese to jump a generation..you can see that difference in the design and capabilities of the JF-17 and the J-10.
an AW&ST article from this week basically corroborated that, when it said that they were pragmatic and cherry picked the best technology that the Russians could offer to them.
you shouldn’t compare jf-17 and J-10, the first one was developed in 5 years and the second one was developed in 18 years. in a sense, it’s like developing F-22 first and then F-35 second.
It’s already rolling at a pretty good pace when the clip starts. Speed at rotation is WAY higher than the F-22 and more like an Eagle’s steep takeoff.
I have read posts that J-10 can take off in less than 200 m.
tphuangHe rates the performance of the aircraft by its performance on an airshow. He haven’t compared transonic acceleration, supersonic sustained turn rates or handling qualities in touchy situations.
Further on, he doesn’t know about the weapons system, about man machine interface or how ECM-resistent the radar works.The Suchoi 27 the Chinese use is the legacy version, basically late 80ies stuff.
I guess this statement is true but doesn’t really depent on the performance of the J-10. That the Chinese have the ablitly to gain air dominance or the Taiwan straits is pretty much granted, given the numbers. If it suffices for an invasion is a different question.
China actually has su-30, which is not the legacy version. Majority of the su-27sk/ubk in service have received the N-001VE/R-77 upgrade. And of course, J-11B isn’t legacy version.
tphuang] Chinese military said “no” to local engine makers and “no” to local makers of some key systems, instead buying these critical items directly from Russia.
This is dumb, IMO. PLAAF needs domestic engines and parts, to achieve self-reliant maintenance as good as the JASDF F-2 and ROCAF F-CK-1.
PLAAF and PLAN already have too many attacker and fighter types, some of which are obsolescent and IMO only fit for Kamikaze sorties against the 7th Fleet, similar to the IAF drones vs Syrian SAM sites in the 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee.
] and files this sobering report about the new J-10 fighter.
Although I think the J-10 doesn’t exist, that the J-10 photos are Photoshopped, and the J-10 vids are 3D CG rendered in Hollywood, by or for the China Threat conspiracy theorists; the J-10 topic is untrendy. The next myth to disprove, is the so-called WZ-10. XD
“These aren’t the droids we’re looking for… You can go about your business.”
I’m sure what he said are just what he heard from the Russians. Other than engine, I doubt there are any critical parts that China is still getting from Russia. But his view toward J-10 is interesting though.
tphuangI stick to Russian sources about the AL-31/117S/41.
You have no idea, what a 14:1 TWR does mean.
Sticking to the most reliabe French standard.
The AL-31F has a 7:1 TWR.
The prototyp 117S has a 8:1 TWR.
The future AL-41F will have a 9:1 TWR and with a reduced life-time one of 10:1 at best.
“Overclocking” a fighter-engine on the bench-station is one thing, to operate it in a fighter is a different task. The 117S is just freed for prototyp use in the Su-35BM prototypes or Su-32. In the special regime it will produce 14,5 tons, when max AB is 14 tons of thrust. The Russians have lost a decade in engine-development in the 90s. 😉
I agree with what you are saying, except that I’d think if they are starting over to develop AL-41F, they have to be aiming for 10:1 TWR by Western standard. Otherwise, they are basically admitting they are 20 years behind America in engine tech.
Sign In
