Srbinhmmm is it just me or is that “XXJ” looking pretty similar to the Mig 1.44.
By the artist’s impression, it has similar intakes as teh J-10/Mig 1.44, the vertical tails are like those of the F-22.
As for the wind tunnel model, I am not sure about it but I think they will add on canards to it for sure.
Anyways as for the J-10/Lavi, I dont think its a copy or a rip off, NO such as thing as a rip off in aviation, you pick the best aerodynamic design, no matter if its used by others.
this was posted on ACIG
Difference on Lavi and J-10
1) J-10 is a single seated fighter whereas Lavi is a double seated fighter.2) Compare to the Lavi, J-10 nose is bigger, rounder, therefore is a capable of holding a larger radar like the Phazotron.
3) The cockpit is smaller and lower than a F-16. One of the disadvantage in the J-10 lies in the lower cockpit, which doesn’t improve visibility. This is one reason why the Chinese did not get their hands on an F-16. If they did, they would notice that having a higher cockpit would give an advantage of better visibility.
4) Lavi and the F-16 uses a fixed intake whereas J-10 uses a variable intake similar to a J-8II or SU-27 design.
5) There is conformal fuel tanks between the fuselage and the wings to hold more fuel. The humps here are not present in the Lavi. There is a hump in the back that is used to hold extra fuel. The Lavi and F-16 does not have this which suggests that the Chinese successfully attempt to produce a medium range fighter. Lavi is a short ranged fighter.
6) The wing sweep is more aggressive, at an angle of 62 degrees vs. 52 for the Lavi. The J-10’s wings have a slightly inverted gullwing shape. Totally different in wing design.
7) The Lavi has missile rails on the wing tips. The J-10 has rounded wing tips.
8) According to specifications, the J-10 appears to be two to three feet longer than a Lavi. And it appears to be narrower than both the F-16 and the Lavi.
9) The J-10’s tail rudder is taller and deeper having the rear ventral fins are longer and deeper.
10) The J-10’s engine is much more powerful than the Lavi, and is also longer. The J-10 was redesigned for the AL-31FN, when negotiations for the AL-31FN took place in 1995. By 1996-1997 period, China took delivery of 10 AL-31FNs so there was certainly no flying prototype earlier than 1997.
11) There is more spacing between the engine nozzle and the tail rudder brake chute, intended maybe for TVC engines. Maybe the later WS-10 engine would have TVC.
12) J-10’s canards have a different rake.
SrbinI am not sure about the super cruise of the J-10, it can cruise under lower speeds but I am not sure it can supercruise.
Anyone have any comparisons of the WS10A to AL-31F???
SrbinThe J-10 seems to be the PLAAF’s next gen low end fighter, I dont think there will be space for FC-1, however the J-10 also seems to be excellent in the price if thats what it will be.
Srbinok so thats clear that they will use the WS10A for SURE, now how much thurst will the WS10A deliver compared to the AL-31FN? This will cause major recalculations in the J-10’s speed and thrust as well as payload.
EDIT:
It looks like the J-10 will get the WS10A TVC Engines in the future which will make it alot more manuverable, more than any PLAAF plane in the inventory.
Srbinhow good is the WS10A engine? The J-10 will use that engine.
SrbinThe F-16 was never built with attack roles in mind and the SMT upgrade means that the Mig-29 was upgraded with that in mind, though it always had a basic day only dumb air to ground capability so it could operate in the swing role.
The F-16 was built as a very cheap dogfighter and a strike aircraft, both at the same time and therefore it’s a multirole aircraft, even if the USAF uses them for the strike role mostly does not mean they are strike aircraft, they were designed to be multirole.
Who said the Fc-1 is’nt sophisticated? It’s more manuoverable than an F-22 did’nt you know, according to some pakistanis on another thread?
I have only seen Indians mostly ****ting on threads like these, you’re asking for a Flamewar
Those planes sourced from the mainland are’nt exactly known for their quality. I still don’t see any records of a chinese indeginous plane (if there is one), scoring kills (109 for F-15, 89 for F-16) or performing well in combat? Their first objective would be to try and keep it from falling apart in the air. Once that’s acheived, try and compare it to an F-16 blk-52. Remember the hardy J-8 vs the EP-3?
You’re an idiot! When have Chinese Aircraft ever been in real air combat?? Even when have they been in combat? Like I said you love ****ting on people’s threads. Maybe I should remind you of how India cant even keep its Mig-21s in the air anymore, lately alot of them have been crashing.
Are people really so blind? Almost every pakistani or chinese site lists out the spec of the Fc-1. Nothing impressive about it at all. It’s like a 21st century Mig-21. Do you have any idea why the blk-52 costs 5-6 times as much? You don’t get quality equipment that actually works for chickenfeed! And our delegations don’t exactly get thrown out by our customers, like the chinese!
Most of those specs are mostly false, as we dont know exactly what engine FC-1 will use or what avionics so you wouldnt know. FC-1 just flew a few months ago.
Charge full price but don’t deliver! LOL!
I am sorry but what are you talking about here? What does this mnean? When didnt the Russians deliver the payed aircraft?
Yeah right. Go ask the Germans….
It depends on the maintenance technicians, just cuz Germans had problem with the RD-33s does not mean everyone did, remember that the Russians said if you know how to maintain them properly the RD-33’s lifetime can be alot longer. Though it’s still hard to maintain them.
————-
I would really like to know how fuel efficient RD-33s are and how maintenance costs are on them as well as reliability, anyone have any reliable sources?
————
What does everyone think that the cost of the LCA will be?
————-
Also the FC-1 for now seems to be like you buy the plane and you put whatever you want into it, but we dont know much exactly other than it will be a nice cheap BVR capable multirole plane.
———–
What is the price of J-10 sopposed to be? anyone know any figures?
Srbinthe Joint Strike Fighter program started off with requirements as a low cost stealthy strike aircraft, after the requirements changed and it is becoming a multirole aircraft, maybe still more on the strike side but it will be a multirole aircraft. As you can see also the Word Joint in there, which was sopposed to have numerous countries participate in it, which they are but it seems the Americans dont even trust their closest Allies.
I would never buy the JSF with those flaws I have listed there, basically the “kill switch” and unable to operate independantly. Even if it cannot operate without AWACS I would still NEVER buy it cuz of the kill switch.
SrbinPAK-FA is not a JSF equivalent so it’s not a very good comparison.
It kind of us, PAK-FA will be a multirole fighter, kind of like what teh JSF is turning into, the PAK-FA will be kind of inbetween the F-22 and F-35.
SrbinUS usually looks to get the best deals for themselves, just like puting “kill switches” into their planes, so when ever they feel like it they will just stop them dead in their tracks by disabling their systems.
They will export the JSF as part of the “offensive package”=it cannot operate independantly meaning it is very dependant on AWACS just like older styled Soviet planes were very dependant on ground radars.
The F-35 is a GREAT bird, it will be one of the best multirole planes in the world in the futre, dont get me wrong but it has a few flaws:
1) It’s costs are rising by the day and it looks like it will cost anywhere from 40-75 million, if a F-16blk50/52 costs something like 70 million then I dont think the F-35 will cost any less, especially that its 30 years newer.(typical Western equipment)
2) It cannot operate independantly, it is largely dependant on the AWACS and other systems.
3) The Americans have built the kill switches into them=you cant do whatever you really want with them
There is nothing wrong with F-35’s performance or others but just the American war doctrine is a bit messed up, based on the “offensive package” crap and the kill switch.
That is why I would go for the Russian planes in the future, ie the PAK-FA, we dont know how it will exactly turn out but it should be able to match the F-35 and will not be very dependant on Ground Radars, or maybe not at all so we’ll see.
SrbinAVRO ARROW, I am sorry but there is not such a great big gap between the YF-23 and its ex-competator the F-22, not as big of a gap as the Arrow had over all the planes in it’s time. Avro Arrow would’ve been very very very good. Yes T-4 and B-70 should’ve been built, what a waste, Soviets were so dumb to cancel everything after the Americans did, the T-4 would’ve posed a large threat to anyone and would be the best bomber for years and years.
Srbinthe biggest problem with RD-33 is the tough maintenance, will FC-1 use the RD-33 FOR SURE? or is it just a temporary thing?
If the FC-1 will use the RD-33 then it’s maintenance cost would be alot higher.
SrbinFC-1s are cheap (to procure) but that is only one side. What about the cost of maintainance?
40 FC-1s doesn’t give you the capability that 40 F-16s will give, therefore more FC-1s need to be procured which negates some of the cost advantage. Then, you have to maintain a larger number of aircraft which will cost more than to maintain a smaller number of aircraft. Again, dissipating some more of the FC-1’s lower cost of procurement.
You also need to train more pilots, reservists, mechanics, etc for the larger number of FC-1s, again dissipating even more of the FC-1’s lower cost of procurement.
Look at cost per unit capability in a holistic manner, not just fly away cost. In the long run, having a lesser number of highly capable aircrafts is better for the budget than having a vast quantity of lesser capable aircrafts.
We will have to see how exactly the FC-1 will turn out, especially the PAF version with probable Western Avionics, I think it might be able to match the F-16blk50/52 at BEST, I dont think it will ever be able to match F-16blk60.
As for 160 FC-1s or 80 F-16s for the same price, sure it will be the same cost to procure them both but the FC-1 is sopposed to be easy to maintain but the 160 FC-1s are ALOT more capable than 80 F-16s no matter what you say(forget F-16blk60).
Hell why not 100 FC-1s to 80 F-16blk50/52, the 100 FC-1s might be more capable probably at a lot lower cost, ALOT lower to procure.
I think the biggest problem with Mig-29 is the RD-33 engines, tough on fuel and maintenance, if Mig-29 HAD a different engine it would be SO MUCH better and it would probably the best out of those 3 as everything else about is good.
LCA, we’ll all see on cost and maintenance cost, if the LCA is somewhere around 20-25 million then it will be a great bird for any smaller type country, its small, stealthy and very sophisticated.
SrbinYes all 3 of them have their advantages
the FC-1 is the cheapest out of those 3, capable too, might be able to patch the F-16blk50/52 and Mig-29SMT but even if it doesnt its still GREAT because its still capable and VERY cheap. The Mig-29SMT is probably as capable as F-16blk50/52 if not MORE and cheaper than F-16blk50/52, then the F-16blk50/52 is also very capable in A2A and A2G too just like SMT, a bit more expensive but lotsa spare parts around the World. However I dont know how FC-1 will turn out but I’d go for that especially with Western avionics etc it will be a nice smaller bird.
If the LCA is just as cheap as Mig-29SMT then I will pick it over anything.
If anyone has any more reliable sources of LCA cost then please post them.
I would certainly not look at the F-16blk50/52 for now, still a bit too expensive and Mig-29SMT is just as capable but alot cheaper.
BTW How much can u get one of those newer SMTs that are already built and sitting?
Srbinohh the JAS-39 Gripen is alot more than 35million, South Africans payed about 53 million /plane for their Gripens, thats alot too but still alot less than F-16.
the Mirage 2000 is also not an option because the French offered it to Brazil for 70mil/piece too. I was wrong about the F-16, its wayyyyyyyy too expensive, I had no clue it would be that high.
I still think Mig-29 and FC-1 are the best bang for your money, along with now LCA
LCA
Advantages & Disadvantages:
-Stealthier than Mig-29 and FC-1 due to it’s smaller size
-very good in A2A and A2G combat( can carry a wide variety of ordinance)
-not proven either and in testing phases still.
SrbinI would go with the F-16 Blk 52s because there is almost no performance risk while the other two are wildcards as far as how they will fare in the real world and not just in air shows, PR stunts, etc.
The saying is, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
Let’s take the UAE for instance. Would the UAE have as much a capability or intimitading power if it went for 80 FC-1s rather than F-16 Blk 60? Yeah, they paid out the waazoo for those planes but it instantly brough them a HUGE PROVEN capability and immediately made them a high tier AF. Can we say the same things if they had bought the FC-1 or even the Mig-29?
Also, Mig-29s have shown they are more impressive on paper than in combat or in day-to-day maintainence.
I kind of agree, the other two are wild cards, especially the FC-1 now.
There is a difference between 80 FC-1s and 80 F-16blk60, first lets say it was F-16blk50/52 NOT 60, for 80 F-16blk50/52s you could get something like 150-160 FC-1s probably, which would might you pick? I’d certainly go for the FC-1, however I agree the F-16blk60 is superior to Mig-29SMT but I wouldnt be so sure about the F-16blk50/52, I think they might be somewhat even.
I am not sure the F-16 is best bang for your money anymore looking how Poles got 48 F-16sblk50/52 for 3.6 bn dollars=75million/piece, aint that a rip off even if it includes all the support equipment, maintenance & crew training, even with all of this the F-16 should not be more than 40 mil.
A Su-35 Flanker offered to Brazil costs 35mil/piece and is far more capable than a F-16blk50/52 and a M2kBR. I am sorry but I dont like that price, same as they sold the 10 F-16s to Chile for 700 million USD=70 mil/piece.
Also how about the LCA? It is stated to cost around 21 mil? It sure is alot better than the F-16 prolly.
Damn expensive Western stuff!!!!!!!
Sign In
