Su-35, F-22, F-15E/S/K/SG, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Mig-35, Su-30MKI, F-16E/F, F/A-18E/F……………….oh sorry thats ten, and in no particular order. There is nothing special about the Mig-29K.

Most of your fighters are not carrier based. and MIG-29K has better TWR than
Rafale/F-18E. MIG-29K should provide advantage armed with Kh-31 Antiship missile compared to Exocet/harpoon of Rafale/F-18. so we can conclude that for its intended role MIG-29K is top fighter. there other things like IRST and range more than Rafale on internal fuel.

Wrong, the fuel tanks are not included. I am only saying internal fuel capacity plus most common AA layout.

so why u include 2 BVR missiles in weight calculation for J-10 when FC-1 has 2 SRAAM from the link and logically it can have 2 SRAAM for 9100KG NTOW weight.
Dont try to assume NTOW from other fighters.

You can consider ammunition weight, but not pylon weight. The FC-1 uses the wing tip rails directly to hold two AAMs there.

it proves u cannot include 2 BVR missiles beyond doubt.

Please try to at least understand a statement before ranting against it.

How is anything above not charaterised by the statement that, the two countries/blocks have different design philosophies that make any attempt at extrapolating the weight of one plane using another of a similar size designed by the other country a pointlessly inaccurrate excerise?

Why it is pointless exercise. similar size and volume should lead to similar weights assuming everything else equals like high performance. u cannot compare a bomber like Jaquar to a Fighter.
M2K and F-16 weights closely follow each other within 500KG range. M2K-9 is 7900KG.

That rant only goes to sum up your pathetic compulsion to bash any and everything Chinese any chance you get that consititutes the only reason for you deciding to post in this thread and others like it.

I already got your point as J-10 is speciallized air to air fighter so its weight cannot be compared to multirole fighters like F-2/F-16E. but u cannot ignore some basic logic of internal volume, high performance with 3 ET that people here are claiming. it is not pathetic. I am not going into big canards.

Your entire line of reasoning is flawed even though you already touched upon the reason already.

You are comparing western design philosophy with Chinese. Just because Europeans and Americans like to make their planes heavy to meet the multi-role criteria is no reason to insist that the Chinese are also doing so. The M2K, F16E, Typhoon and Rafale are all designed as multi-role fighters meant to carry AAMs, bombs and AShMs, maybe even all at once. That requires substantually greater structural strength, which equals wait. Just look at how much weight the F16 has gained moving from the basic AA F16A to the multi-role F16E, and thats even with improving and increasing use of composity materials. Comparing western types to Chinese types is simply apples and oranges.

There is little to no evidence to suggest that the Chinese are also imposing such requirements on their fighter designs, and for the most part, it looks like the PLAAF is still mainly a type dedicated force because they have the numbers and depth of types to do so. We have not seen the J10 carry anything heavier then fuel tanks or lightweight bombs. It looks pretty clear that the J10 is primarily an AA type, while the strike missions would be left to the JH7As and Su30s.

You argue that the JF17 is lighter because it was designed to carry less, but funny that you refuse to apply that same logic to the J10. Hell, your F5 example only serves to further underline the point that a plane can be remarkably light, thus physical size is a very variable means to judging weight. Another example would be the J8II, which is actually similar in size to the Flanker, yet you would not have guessed it just going by the weights.

And also remember that the JF17 uses absolutely no composites and is still a ton lighter then the M2k. One wonders how lighter a plane designed with a similar philosophy but also employs a lot of composites would be compared to western types of a similar size.

M2K carrier much powerful engine with atleast 400KG more weight than RD-93. Add to that internal fuel capacity of M2K is 800KG more than FC-1. so no wonder it is 1 ton heavier than FC-1. I am not even going into 9 weopon stations and 6300KG weopon load of M2K. your basically where the French were in Mid 70s interms of aircraft manufacturing.

Composites mean nothing when it comes to real aircraft weight, just a lot of advertising. The Japanese F-2 have more composites than any of these two fighters and its weighing around 9700kg empty.

F-2 is big size F-16 with all the newer version like F-16E features. Just the first generation AESA radar alone weighs 300 to 400KG and associated support structures.

LOL. You have no idea that the PW1120 engine only weighs over 200kg lighter than the AL-31F engine.

So really, how can the J-10 look much larger when everyone can see the fuselage is tightly wounded around the AL-31F engine, when the two engines are roughly similar in diameter and the AL-31F is only less than a meter longer.

PW1120

* Type: Afterburning turbofan
* Length: 4,110 mm (13.5 ft)
* Diameter: 1,021 mm (3.35 ft)
* Dry weight: 1,292 kg (2,848 lb)

AL-31F

* Type: Two-shaft afterburning turbofan
* Length: 4990 mm
* Diameter: 905 mm inlet; 1280 mm maximum external
* Dry weight: 1570 kg(Russia standard), 1800 kg(French standard)

Lavi has only 2700KG internal fuel capacity withe engine that is 1 meter shorter. so u are just adding One meter to Lavi to get J-10 length?
Mirage-2000 has 3100KG fuel capacity with 7.5tons weight. it all comes to internal volume to support the fuel.

JF-17 is 6320 kg and J-8II is 9230 kg. If you ever looked at their photos, you’d see J-10 is closer in size to JF-17 than J-8II. It’s in fact not much larger than JF-17. On top of that, it uses more modern material than both, far more composite. As for composites/titanium, you should first lower the weight of the aircraft by good design and that’s what J-10 has. It achieved all weight requirements by being designed well and with increased composite usage in the future, it will only help with the weight situation.

J-10 is closer in size to FC-1 than J-8. Just post the picture side by side.

J-8I uses heavier and weaker material than J-10. The materail used on J-10 is a couple of generations ahead of J-8I. This comparison is frankly just sad.

there is no evidence of that. Just FC-1 pictures show the quality of construction which is the same as J-7

is it J-10’s fault that F-16E and F-2 are such overweight designs?
Rather than using Chinese fighters JF-17 and J-8II as the basis of comparison, you pop up overweight fighters like F-2 and F-16E.

they arent overwight fighters. They carry 10,000 KG under wings. which is hopless for J-10.

yet, J-10 has a far better safety record than flankers. Says something about the quality of its FBW.

Flanker has the best 4th generation fighter record of any fighter. J-10 is limited to one airforce, limited time frame and limited quantity.

lol, those extra fuel tank can never reduce the advantage against the unstealthy behemoth that is su-27. You speak as if you’ve never seen the plane.

surely u have calculated it.

If 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 can’t kill the opposing plane, it probably would be dead already.

Flanker has enough fuel to enagage and disengage at will huge load of missiles.

mirage 2K
length 14.36 m
span 9.13 m

JF-17
length 14 m
span 9 m

yet, JF-17’s empty weight is over 1000 kg lower than that of Mirage 2K. You can find this from sinodefense, which takes this from CAC’s official published data. So, why are you using Mirage 2K to compare to J-10?

I think u should also consider that M2K has much greater wing area, Internal fuel capacity that is alteast 800kg more, Engine that is alteast 400KG heavier, and can carry 6300KG of external load which even J-10 cant carry let alone FC-1. As usual ur comparisions are always wrong. so it is not surprizing that it is heaver than FC-1

STAR 49

Very likely the J-10 is bigger than the Gripen, however the Gripen is much slower its max speed is Mach 1.8.

the J-10 having a variable geometry inlet will have a faster speed than the Lavi and F-16, so a figure in the region of Mach 2.2 is very likely.

Its inlet might or might not have an inlet radar difusor like the F-18E and up to a level the Engine might face the radar radiation directly.

It is unlikely the fighter will go beyond what an F-16 goes in acceleration and rate of climb fully armed and with fuel tanks. The J-10 certainly must have better performance than the IAI Lavi in terms of speed.

Compared to a Flanker probably is close in speed in my opinion it is slower but it must be faster than a F-16.

The J-10 also might have good AoA handling thanks to its ventral inlet, the Swedish chose the side inlet arrangement to make smaller the JAS-39 and they indeed also saw the posibility of twin fins.
However the JAS-39 has not ventral fins, this means the aircraft has good high AoA behavior able to control inertia coupling and sideslip yaw movements, also it has vortex generators in the pitot tube that must help it to control assymetric yaw movements.

In what it looks much much slimmer than the J-10 is the aft part of the fuselage which in the J-10 seems quit draggy with the ventral fins.
The JAS-39 lacks any ventral fin and has very good fuselage blending from the inlet nacelles to the aft fuselage reducing greatly drag.

So is possible in my opinion the JAS-39 is only slower due to the inlet design and not to a draggier fuselage.

Gripen is Mach 2. and top speed is not important as acceleration. how u put 3 ET and achieve the same result. just 3 ET empty weight alone will add 600 to 800KG.

http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/TechnicalSummary.htm
Aircraft data:
Length (excluding pitot tube): 14.1m (46ft 3in)
Length (Two-Seat variant): 14.8m (48ft 5in)
Wing span (including launchers): 8.4m (27ft 6in)
Height overall: 4.5m (14ft 8in)
Maximum take-off weight: 14 tonnes
Maximum speed: M2.0 and supersonic at all altitudes

Lightweight structure employing advanced materials and construction techniques