The J-10 single seater seems to be ~ 9 tons OEW (no fixed inlet and higher wing-area compared to F-16C in mind). This translates into a clean TOW of ~ 12,1 tons with ~ 3,1 tons internal fuel and no AAM. ~ 19 tons MTOW.
The Gripen single seater seems to be ~ 6,7 tons OEW. This translates into a clean TOW of ~ 9 tons with 2,3 tons internal fuel and no AAM. ~ 14 tons MTOW.
The J-10 shows a better ratio of installed thrust, but with a similar full-ratio the range is less or it has to be operated at lower powersettings to reach similar range capabilities. We do not know the drag-values in different configurations. So we can say nothing about usefull thrust = free thrust. T-W-ratios are sometimes misleading.
Max Mach for Gripen is Mach 2 and Mach 1,85 for J-10. But that does not matter really, because air-combat with a usefull AAM-load is < Mach 1,6 , when starting the first manouver to engage or disengage. The fighter-bombers are limited to low and medium heights and limited by ordenance to sub-sonic speeds at all.
In that case the avionik-suit becomes decessive and here the Gripen has the edge.
I post those ‘guess-data’ only to compare it later on with the official data still to come.

i kind of agree with you but i would consider the J-10 only limited with regards avionics and air to air armament, i think perhaps the J-10 might have a 1.2:1 TWR at basic take off weight while is already known the JAS-39 gets only 1.02:1 barely more than the unity.
Only if the JAS-39 is fitted much later with the EJ-200 engine the Gripen can get better and higher it`s TWR since the it is quit light and with an EJ-200 is a fact that a Gripen will even surpass the J-10 in TWR even with WS-10 fitted to to it, thrust vectoring can be endowed to the JAS-39 also with a EJ-200 with thrust vectoring nozzle

the thing we can really know is the J-10 will be surpased by the JAS-39 in 2006 thanks to the IRIS-T that will give it an edge versus a J-10 armed with Python 3 in close combat and if China does not get soon a Meteor equivalent by 2010 in BVR the data link and Meteor will be too much of an advantage of the JAS-39 over the J-10.
If in electronics Europe continues the Gripen`s upgrade with Helmet mounted display and IRST systems, all these will allow the tiny Gripen to win the battle thanks to better avionics, air to air missiles and data links.

Don’t know how you can make any comparision :confused: …..

RADAR is not known! Once it was Type-1473 (KLJ-3 ??)….Once phased array, then planar array………Notice Hui Tong has completely removd the RADAR designation from his site. Now all it says is “(search >100km, track 4-6 targets simultaneously)”…… Data Link??? How much composites used???

And even things like empty/max-TO weight, fuel load, war load, g limits….. aren’t precisely known! I remember, Crobato once nicely showed that the so called figures of the J-10 flying aroung the net seem to be figures picked out of the Lavi, Mig-29, Typhoon….etc, etc……

Soooo, think we should wait until Chengdu, PLAAF unveils things…..

Talking about hard-points……

here no one is is pretending to give the exact figure but just estimate the J-10 specifications.

The americans have given some estimates claiming that the J-10 will be a better fighter in terms of agility than the F-18E, with computer analisys is possible to have kind of accurate figures.

Engine design and thrust is very important, for example a Boeing 777 has more thrust in one engine than a B-52 total number of engines or all of the engines of a Boeing 707 put togather but achieves better performance than both designs. In order to achieve a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1 the engine will be related to the weight, is quit logical that if the Chinese wanted a F-16 equivalent at the least the Al-31 will need similar take off weight.

Tha AL-31 also gives some idea of the weight due to the fact that a fighter burns fuel and the AL-31 will imply an internal especific fuel weight for the J-10 to achieve some cruise speed, warload, range and a max speed knowing the Al-31 specific fuel consumption is very clear that an F-16 weight is very likely to be expected; in the JAS-39 Swedish engineers achive a light weight fighter with an economical engine such as the RM12 is, composites are part of the equation but very likely what the chinese have achieved got to be something similar to what the americans have achieved in the F-16 even in block 50 examples

The JAS-39 achieves a TWR of 1:1 even with the less powerful F-404 simply because it is quit small and light
The Eurofighter achieves it`s excellent performance with less powerful EJ-200 using a pair of them.

The J-10 specifications we would guess by modern technological standards gives a fighter with close niche to the F-16 and JAS-39.

The J-10`s weaponry and avionics are quit known at least in basic specifications by russian and Israeli involvement in radars such as the Elta El/M-2032 and at least the Chinese will fit a similar radar and the SD-10 Russian head seeker will give it an AMRAAM capability.

Very likely the J-10 can have some flight regimes where we can expect it to be superior to some F-16 variants as the IAI Lavi had some superiorities over some early F-16 variants and since the J-10 is a more powerful and updated aircraft we can guess the J-10 got to be an excellent dogfighter.

what is the weight of J-10 and degree of composite used is not reliably known. I have heard astounding figures like 8000kg empty upto 11000kg empty. different sites quote diff figures on its payload also.

since the engine is known, the “real” empty and takeoff weights determine its performance and range.

when will we know?

I think the clue for the weight relies in the engine, the AL-31 is a powerful 1980s engine and very likely the weight the J-10 has is similar to the F-16C`s as the americans claimed.

The Gripen`s F-404(RM12) is a less powerful engine than the Al-31 but boosts a lighter airframe.
figures in the range of 8.500kg-9,000kg for the J-10 seem a likely figure.
the chinese fitted a heavier variable inlet that adds weight while in the F-16`s case it was disregarded as only adding weight and not necesary for a Mach 2.0 fighter, newer generation F-16 are heavier to make them multirole and give them better range.
from my humble point of view the J-10 is a F-16 class fighter in weight and perhaps little bit faster due to the variable geometry inlet ramp since the F-16 has even more powerful engines such as the Pratt& Whitney F-100-P-229 of 29,000lb than the J-10 in the latest blocks but that is to do with it`s heavier take off weight.

Satisfcatory answer? Hey, you are the one who help me resolved this matter of which one J7 clone from. Lari is the one who helped you, and you are the one who helped me.
So A = B = C and then D must be equal to C, hey I am learning your logic, don’t you see!

Yeah? So X-6 incoporated into J6 then. You are a genius, you help me to solve alot of miseries.

You are totally wrong again, when the time he refered, J7 was the fighter that was building in Chengdu and it was CHINA BEST FIGHTER at that time, it must be clone of Levi, may be a few numbers of J7 using Elta raders. That’s why Elta radar disqualified from the bid for J10. Since J7 has it, J10 don’t need it anymore. As a result, KLJ-3 (type 1473) was born.

That’s why CHINA BEST FIGHTER J7, don’t you see?
May me some day they would eliminate carnard from J10, and the performance of J10 dramatically improved. Don’t you agree? if not agree then, prove it.

yeah yeah yeah, The IAI Lavi Elta El/M-2035 radar was offered to the J-10 an so you came to the conclusion the J-10 is indigenous because again you give a excuse speculation as an answer saying MAYBE the J-7 was fitted with Elta EL/M-2035 heheheheheehehe yeah you maybe seems like you are re writining History 😮 this would not bother the US simply becuase a J-7 is so primitive in fact is MiG-21 not a threat to the US

You memtioned a word, “POSSIBLE”, do you know what does it mean? Whoever wrote these reports did not even sure what the true is, so they use the word “POSSIBLE”, it meant they also copied or echoed from some other source or media, which also reproduced from some other rumors. Only the fools belived these reports which no any hard evidences.

Elta? It was all over the internet that China may have a deal that J10 may use either Israel’s or Russia radar, but it turned out KLJ-3 (type 1473) is the winner for this project.

Python 3? Is it a fighter? Oh, I remember now. It is a SAM that China got lisence from Israel. Now, wait, what does have to do with J10 and Levi? What does it prove? Nothing!!! as I recall, Israel sold many weapon system (or upgrade Mig-21)to many countries, including Indian, China, South Africa, some east europeans etc. So, based on your logic, all these coutries are building a Levi clones.

Commo’n Flagger, don’t try to fool forum members here, you are only fooling you self, because of your prejudges, and sterotype upon China.

David Lari said China recieved aircraft technology from China and he said some Israeli companies MIGHT have dirty hands.
At no moment he said no aircraft technology was transfered to China, he enfatically admits Israel sold and transfered aircraft technology.
He was an Israeli high official in fact he was a director of the Israeli defence ministry.

tell me what military aircraft technology he is talking about? is it Lavi, Kfir, Phalcon? if the Israelies offered the IAI Lavi radar, the Elta EL/M-2035 for the J-10, so why the Israeli IAI Lavi was not of any use to the J-10 when both aircraft are so similar and the US claims Israeli technology got into the J-10 and it`s based on the IAI Lavi?

Israel is the second largest weapons provider to China, China uses israeli military equipment in the PLAAF, builds Israeli military stuff under license, so you can see Israel has lots to gain from miliatry deals with China and that is Money because Israel in among the 5 World`s top arms exporters and China among the 5 world`s arms importers