There is an Iranian movie about a daring raid the IRIAF pulled attacking one of Saddam’s most defended bases. Showed the Iranian Tomcats, etc,. Iranian F-7s painted in Iraqi markings doubled as the planes from the other side.

the only reson i thought of an attack on the city is to distract the china from the airfealids and save the defeances because thats what what was done in the battle of britain. they wouldn’t have to spend to much time over the manland would they.

The Battle of Britain scenario does not hold so much because of other factors. Let’s say Germany had V-1s and V-2s in that scenario. Now that is much more closer to the scenario Taiwan faces.

You won’t know PS even when it bites you. We make it a sport and an art now to spot PS pics, that J-10B one certainly isn’t. Under close up, it’s full of panel, aerodynamic and feature details that are distinctly functional and requires a level of engineering understanding that is way beyond the level of a prankster. Furthermore this is not the only pictures of the two seater out there, and the pictures comes in different angles and sizes.

The other picture is a JH-7A. I don’t see any “Phantom” on either the JH-7A (which has Jaguar like intakes) and the J-8II (which has MiG-23 like intakes). Both of them have a larger nose and lacks the downward beak look of the F-4.

Flogger

Z-10 pics still too small for me to make up my aesthetic mind about it. I do kind of like the Russian Hind and Hokum. While I like the bubble canopy of the J-10B, I didn’t like the way the structural spine mess up the basic lines of the J-10. I like the JH-7A because of its clean lines, and yes, it looks better with the one piece canopy, less wing fences and the double rear ventral fins. Come to think of it the JH-7A’s cockpit looks both narrow and tight compared to the J-10B’s.

Frankly I don’t like any of the stealth aircraft. They’re boring and looks like they’re designed by a computer rather than by a human.

Like Mr. Flogger here I don’t like the pipe with wings look of many fifties aircraft. But among the round inlet planes I do like the Fishbed, the J-8I and the YE-152. There is something rackish about their delta wings coupled with the design of their elevators.

At first I like the F-16 but that was beginning to bore me to death too with its generic ness. Ditto with its ilk that followed the same path—Lavi/J-10/FCK-1/FC-1 etc,. However the F-15 is something that still grows on me. For some reason I never liked the Tomcat either, due to its proportions but I love the Hornet which is the most elegant flying thing today. But I hold the F-4 Phantom above all else American, followed by the F-5Es and the Starfighters.

With Chinese planes the J-10 gets boring a bit. I just love the ‘raw” but rakish look of the J-7s, the J-8s and the Fantans, though the J-6 just looks plain ugly but brutish.

Never really like any of the Brit planes of any age, just something quirky in their designs.

Ah the French. They never forget beauty with function. The Mirage III, V and its copies like the Cheetah and the Kfir, will always be among the most beautiful aircraft ever made. The Mirage 2000 is a beaut too and so is the Rafale.

I love the German WWII designs, especially the Me-109. That thing always look like it was meant to kill.

The P-51 didn’t appeal to me but the P-40 Warhawk does. I like brutish looking designs.

Didn’t like Soviet WWII designs, but I like them more from the MiG-21 up, including the MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-24, the Su-15, the MiG-25/31, and the Flankers. They really got character, sleek yet brutish with the predominant message saying I’m an evil commie and I’m out to kill you capitalist dogs.

Of course there are SAM ballistic ranges used for advertisement, but public LACM ranges are often high-level ideal condition releases. At high attitude with no terrain dodging or sea skimming, those numbers aren’t the actual combat figures either.

If the bomber is going to send the cruise missile with a high-level straight-line path 200km away on open water, there is no need to use the long range SAM against the bomber. Simply detect and kill the CM with any cheap point defense system.

Not really. That’s not how both cruise missiles and ASM ranges are advertised. They are based on the most common flight profile the missile is expected to engage.

You seem to think that poping up over terrain features takes up a lot of fuel when it is not, compared to trying to chase down a high speed aerial target.

Let me add to this, the SAM is rocket powered. Both fuel and oxidizer are part of its propellant weight. The CM is air breathing. Only the fuel makes up for its propellant weight.

You sure can kill a CM with a point defense system, but the catch is detecting it fast enough so that the PDS can react in time before the CM hits the target.

Killing cheap CMs with high level SAMs like PAC-2s and TK-2s is ultimately a losing proposition even if you achieve the ideal 1:1 (one fire, one kill) ratio. In combat situations, there are going to be misses. Those CMs are cheap, especially if a great number among them are recycled old Seersuckers modified to hit ground targets. A SAM expended on a CM is one less SAM that you can use against a plane.

The end effect of SSM and CM attack on defense infrastructure will not wipe out the ROCAF and its bases, which has an amazing plethora of survival features. But it can seriously degrade the ability of the ROCAF to send aircraft up in the air in time, in the right place, in sufficient quantity and in sufficient frequency.

Nonetheless “possibly” is not an option for military strategy even if possibly means good chances. Overkill and always accounting for Murphy’s Law is the best strategy, and the PLAAF has to assume the most conservative planning in which case, it must not assume that preemption by SSM and CM would not always work and it has to deal with the ROCAF on an air to air basis. In which case it needs a minimum (to my opinion) of a 3 to 1 ratio in among technologically equal aircraft—basically Flanker, J-10 and maybe even late model J-8II vs. F-CK-1, Mirage 2000 and F-16. Thus when facing a force of 332 of these planes + 66 Block 52s, the PLAAF needs at least a thousand J-11s and J-10s.

In fact check this two articles

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit…/china/j-10.htm both have different first flights http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

as a result of that J-10 redesign

Does not prove anything. One is copying off from the other in a self reinforcing way as most purported J-10 articles do, feeding off here, feeding off there and copying each other inadvertently and creating a mythos. The Russian article above is the same thing, since I have read parts of it from different places though this is the first time I’ve seen it assembled into one.

Hence why I took another approach in researching the J-10, and the first thing to do discard the BS, consider the evidence, put it in an organized time frame then work from there.

The fact that the article doesn’t know the state of the radar, puts me in doubt that it has a new original sources.

This is not to say that an early prototype using the WP-13 engines (J-7 engine) would have been made. It’s a logical speculation I heard from Chinese forum articles. It’s just that there is no proof of that either. Considering there is a major difference between the dimensions, weight and thrust between the WP-13 and AL-31FN engine, the “early” and the “definitive” versions would have been significantly different from each other.

I was reading it off babelfish, and while it did not say that the wing is the same it said the leading edge wing surfaces are like the Lavi’s. And yes the Lavi and the J-10 has forward edge slats but so does a lot of other planes like the Mirage 2000 and the F-106 Delta Dart. But the length of the slat differs significantly between the two planes.

Also the first trial J-10 regiment was commissioned in 2003, and the first operational regiment was commissined in 2004, not 2005.

The article has many points but it still is a collage of different internet and magazine articles put together into one inheriting some of the flaws and myths.

And yes, the article did say the first flight was in 1996 which is dead wrong. Likewise, failed to mention 1002.

Первый полет опытного образца состоялся в середине 1996 года. Было построено девять машин: пять для летных испытаний (N1003-1007), две для проведения наземных испытаний и две серийные (N1008-1009). В ходе испытаний машина N1002 была потеряна из-за отказа системы управления самолетом.
В феврале 2003 года на вооружение национальных ВВС была поставлена первая партия новых самолетов, состоящая из семи (N1010-1016) или, возможно, десяти предсерийных самолетов стандартной конфигурации. Некоторые из этих машин используются для проведения войсковых оценочных испытаний в составе боевых подразделений, а другие остались в центре испытательных полетов и обучения ВВС НОАК, где они участвуют в завершающем этапе испытаний. В декабре 2003 года программы испытаний и сертификации самолета были завершены. В настоящее время начато производство первой партии из 50 J-10A.

Kh-59MK is an anti-ship cruise missile with INS/active seeker. Technically speaking, advanced LACMs like JASSM or SLAM-ER do perform terminal maneuvers (“pop-up”) with autonomous seeker, to dodge against point CM defense or ECM. But let’s set the technicality aside because it’s obvious we’re talking about LACM against fixed targets.

I’m not talking about the Kh-59MK. I’m talking about Kh-59ME. This is a cruise missile with a man-in-loop system designating target via optical TV camera in the seeker. SLAM and SLAM-ER does not do pop up either for evasion as these are also man in loop systems with TV cams on their seekers. The YJ-63 belongs to the same class. These are all extremely accurate weapons; optical guidance can land you within 1-2m of the target.

SAM ranges are often quoted as ballistic to make it sound for marketing. But in reality, their effective ranges, aka “slant” ranges are only a half or a third of their ballistic ranges. This is similar to the No Escape Zones used by AAMs. The reason for this is that aircraft are fast evasive targets, but for CMs, ground targets are non evasive. SAMs expend a lot of energy going up and still need significant amounts of energy to deal with evasive targets. CMs conserve energy by beling launched from air and headed down. Not only are they backed by the potential energy imparted by the launching aircraft, they are targeting a non moving target. Thus different rules—and very different standards.

A 200km SAM isn’t going to stop a bomber with a 200km cruise missile, that’s for sure. Only intercepting the bomber by fighters could.

You also mention about decoys. That’s only in the context of defending SAMs from ARM attacks. You can’t decoy an entire airbase, or power plant, or dock, or an entire building. You can’t decoy large infrastructure against CMs heading towards fixed infrastructure targets. You can’t ECM CMs because CMs don’t radar seek; they are guided by INS/terrain mapping/satellite. You can only shoot it down (last I heard TK-2 has many issues against CMs; Patriots are not guarantees). You can only hope intelligence is faulty and it hits an invaluable target. Man in the loop missiles designate their targets once the missiles are in range; you can only hope to fool the missile operator optically. Then you still have to deal with ballistic SSMs.