And no, I do not know the name of J-10B’s AESA, just as no one knows the name of F-16E Block 60’s IRST. :rolleyes:

What is the J-10B’s frontal aspect RCS?

Smaller than an F-16E Block 60’s for sure. You don’t want slabbish titanium engine blades bouncing radar waves back. :p DSI bump has a much greater angle of incidence compared to slabbish engine blades, reflecting less radar waves back.

I am correcting you, you are wrong. You have no idea what the bird carries, let alone how it fares against its peers.

What electronic warfare suite does the J-10B have? How does it fare against NG Falcon Edge?
How does J-10B’s radar fare against AN/APG-80? Do you even know what its name is? I doubt that.
In what way make the DSI intakes the J-10B more aerodynamic?

I know F-16E has no DSI, a crucially new technology incorporated since the 2000s. J-10B has it. This implies J-10B is more technologically advanced than F-16E. Name me 1 technology F-16E has that J-10B lacks. :rolleyes:

J-10B’s internal EW is at the top of the tail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6dwLp1KFxs

With DSI, there is no gap between the intake and the rest of the fuselage, resulting in a unibody construction. No gap = more aerodymic. With F-16E, you can clearly see a slabbish gap between the intake and the rest of the fuselage. With J-10B, there is no gap because the intake and the rest of the fuselage are fused as one piece.

J-10B will hardly be a match for F-16E. F-15SG/SE is a different beast, a league above that.

F-16E Block 60 Desert Falcon has inferior technology compared to J-10B. J-10B is the most advanced single engined war jet in the world except F-35, but the latter won’t be operational till years after J-10B is operational. Correct me if I’m wrong, F-16E doesn’t even have MAWS like J-10B does. J-10B is also more aerodynamic and stealthy due to DSI configuration.

Is an F-35B a match for the J-20?

umm umm

The question we must ask is, does adding missiles to a plane add to radar signature? Certainly from the front due to more surface area added. From the side there is no addition because the missile’s body would block radar waves from hitting the side of the plane. If the missiles are air to air missiles, we know the side shape of the missiles which are round would reflect radar waves better than the slabbish side of a plane, and should therefore reduce the radar signature from the side. From the front there would be a minor addition of radar signature.

Absolutely correct*…

Same as when you put fuel on the outside of the aircraft, it is lighter than when you put fuel on the inside… :dev2:

*Its signature will tend to zero after a short time in the air too…

conformal fuel tanks :applause:

It is proven mathematically that carrying air to air missiles outside the plane rather than inside the plane overall reduces a plane’s radar signature. The reason is that, in terms of surface area, a missile’s side is much bigger than a missile’s front.

F-15SE rejected http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/09/24/south-korea-rejects-boeings-f-15se-fighter-will-restart-fx-iii/