Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[CAPRICORN-88]

Chinese radar tech is just as good as US. Very doubtful that US has any AWAC advantage as Chinese AWACs platforms are newer. Anyways, low missile load can be addressed by sending more planes on missions. J10 is not a heavy fighter.

If I says radar technology is one of the technological areas where China may have actually superseded leader USA, I wonder how many people will believe or agree with me.
But China needs not to flaunt it in order to demonstrate how advanced they are.

For instance: USAF needed an XQ58A Valkyrie drone to help its F-22 and F-35 two similar platform developed by themselves to communicate with each others meaning there are shortfalls in their original design concept.
Quantum Radar??? USAF has been only talking about it but i have yet to hear from any credible source of the existence of a working model. Now they talk about 6th generation US fighter.
Frankly all these, I take it with a pinch of salt. No point arguing.

One has both the human resources for R&D and the funding while the other one is broke and can only talk about it.

 

[serenity]

Americans definitely still hold strong lead in engines and maybe also software still. They also like spending on exciting types of ideas which are actually often useless but good exercise like XB-70 or X-47B. Of course XB-70 is now something rather easy to achieve but for modern application something like 6 or 8 WS-10 engine onto a suitable bomber shape is expensive and not hold much value. Do you believe SR-72 existence? The Americans just have such large budget and experience but in 50 years will things be different?

 

[Beast]

Americans definitely still hold strong lead in engines and maybe also software still. They also like spending on exciting types of ideas which are actually often useless but good exercise like XB-70 or X-47B. Of course XB-70 is now something rather easy to achieve but for modern application something like 6 or 8 WS-10 engine onto a suitable bomber shape is expensive and not hold much value. Do you believe SR-72 existence? The Americans just have such large budget and experience but in 50 years will things be different?

Yup! Like couldnt get rail gun work onboardship while Chinese has done so? Spendig billions on gerald ford super carrier and after so many yeas still couldnt join the fleet to serve?

US is declining. The new leader will takeover this role from them. This wil be my last reply for the OT.

 

[serenity]

X-47B created basis for their softwares used for other drone programs too for sure. China is not behind on these softwares in fact I suspect may even be ahead just based on amount of engineers working on this and the data pool. If USA has x testing platforms for data collection China is using 100x.

 

[Baloch Pakistani]

Middle wing pylon can carry dual missiles and the drop in performance is not as much as you suggested. If mission require as many PL-15 as possible, dual missile is fine and performance at medium range is okay because very close range kind of turning is not necessary in medium range launch until further into merge.

What if the enemy fighter launches their BVR first and j10 has to perform high G evasive maneuvers with dual rails which will put immense burden on the pylon which is carrying dual rails.

 

[kungfugymnast]

No it is not, otherwise You would see much more often J-10s loaded with air to ground ordnance. IMO the J-10 is a decent multirole fighter with surely a limited weapons load given by the number of AAMs seen, but it does not need to have ... for more - more AAMs and more range - there is always the J-11 and also you have to keep in mind for what the J-10 was originally developed: To replace the J-7-series, which carried even less.

The older J-10A is made for air to air to complement PLAAF lack of capable fighters while Su-27 & J-11A weren't enough at that time. The newer J-10C new redesigned configuration is slower than the older J-10A, focus on low speed stability & maneuverability therefore it is more suited for air to ground search and destroy that often get into visual range of ground threats.

Do you know that F-15C pilots sometimes find 4x AIM-7M or AIM-120C missiles not enough when up against ace enemy pilots that are good at evasive maneuver spoofing chaffs? Don't forget that the only air force that PLAAF would face is likely USAF & USN where their numbers of fighters would outnumbered PLAAF fighters. If you're flying J-10C with just 2x PL-15 & 2x PL-10E, when you used up the 2x PL-15 and there are still enemy fighters with AIM-120C7/D, are you going to turn around and flee coz they'll get shoot first while you need to spoof the incoming AMRAAMs in order to get into visual range to use the PL-10E.

 

[casual]

What if the enemy fighter launches their BVR first and j10 has to perform high G evasive maneuvers with dual rails which will put immense burden on the pylon which is carrying dual rails.

You can always dump the rails

 

[kungfugymnast]

If 4 J10s can shoot down half a squadron of enemy jets, why would it need more missiles?

No squadron leader would want to fight on if he lost 8 of his pilots in a single battle.

This is not WW2 Battle of England. Today's air battles are decided by electronics and tactical moves, carrying a dozen missiles does not mean one has an upper hand.

Check up the latest air battle in 21st century, it was between Pakistan and India this February. Did they fired dozens and dozens of missiles at each other?

If the 4x J-10C you meant is up against IAF squadron, then fine. But if up against USAF or USN fighters, first of all they have the numbers. You launch 2x PL-15 at 2x enemy fighters, they'll launch at least 2x AMRAAMs at you & 2x at each of your wingmen for higher hit chance. Managed to spoof the 2 AMRAAMs, they'll launch another 2 at you while you have only 2x short range PL-10E left that requires to get into visual range. You'll probably run out of chaff before that even with 60x chaffs (double the usual amount) won't be enough to save you from 3-4 waves of 2x AMRAAMs. F/A-18E could carry 12 full bags of AMRAAMs, F-15C carries 8 max, while F-16C carries 6x AMRAAMs plus 2x AIM-9X.

In Iraq, when US F-15C squadron faced Iraqi best pilots in Mig-25 Foxbat E that performed evasive maneuver well, they managed to spoof a dozen AMRAAMs. US present day conventional fighters are fitted with AESA incorporated RWR with directional warning receiver allowing pilots to plan their maneuver earlier and increase their chances of spoofing incoming missiles.

Also not to forget ECM EF-18G that would assist in jamming and fooling radars & missiles reducing their effective range bringing fight closer. If you think numbers of missiles and guns aren't important, then expect to shoot down less fighters and might end up being shot down due to out of missile too soon.

 

[kungfugymnast]

You can always dump the rails

Dump the rails mean dumping the missiles too if there are still missiles on them. This means you'll be left with just 2x PL-10E without long range missile which is equally helpless

 

[UKBengali]

Chinese radar tech is just as good as US. Very doubtful that US has any AWAC advantage as Chinese AWACs platforms are newer. Anyways, low missile load can be addressed by sending more planes on missions. J10 is not a heavy fighter.

That is a BIG assumption.

US has a lot more experience than China and has been able to learn from it's many wars on how to refine it's radar tech.

I would give the US the advantage in radar tech and my point was not comparing radar tech but saying that the US AMRAAM had a 46% kill ratio, even when they faced poor opponents with outdated fighters and lack of AWACs platform. The idea that BVR missiles would have 80% kill ratio is not borne through actual combat records.

If the 4x J-10C you meant is up against IAF squadron, then fine. But if up against USAF or USN fighters, first of all they have the numbers. You launch 2x PL-15 at 2x enemy fighters, they'll launch at least 2x AMRAAMs at you & 2x at each of your wingmen for higher hit chance. Managed to spoof the 2 AMRAAMs, they'll launch another 2 at you while you have only 2x short range PL-10E left that requires to get into visual range. You'll probably run out of chaff before that even with 60x chaffs (double the usual amount) won't be enough to save you from 3-4 waves of 2x AMRAAMs. F/A-18E could carry 12 full bags of AMRAAMs, F-15C carries 8 max, while F-16C carries 6x AMRAAMs plus 2x AIM-9X.

In Iraq, when US F-15C squadron faced Iraqi best pilots in Mig-25 Foxbat E that performed evasive maneuver well, they managed to spoof a dozen AMRAAMs. US present day conventional fighters are fitted with AESA incorporated RWR with directional warning receiver allowing pilots to plan their maneuver earlier and increase their chances of spoofing incoming missiles.

Also not to forget ECM EF-18G that would assist in jamming and fooling radars & missiles reducing their effective range bringing fight closer. If you think numbers of missiles and guns aren't important, then expect to shoot down less fighters and might end up being shot down due to out of missile too soon.

Taiwan’s new F-16V could carry up to 16 AIM-120D with new triple rails.

 

[serenity]

What if the enemy fighter launches their BVR first and j10 has to perform high G evasive maneuvers with dual rails which will put immense burden on the pylon which is carrying dual rails.

We cannot what if these kind of things because in this case the enemy fighter cannot launch their BVR first. The PL-15 has better range and the J-10C has better radar than most fighter even 4.5 generation fighter. Su-35 with R-77 and R-37 doesn't stand a chance against J-10C in BVR. Typhoon doesn't even have AESA or even just a basic multi antenna radar. Rafale is much better and has Meteor so in 4.5 generation this is only one that can shoot at J-10C before J-10C can do anything.

Anyway what is the science to prove the dual rails deplete the performance and really by how much? I personally don't think the performance degrade that much. Also why does the J-10 need to immediately do evasive maneuver if the enemy already has upper hand? So in this case the one who shoot first always will win because the other will always immediately defend using evasive maneuver?

Whenever BVR fight starts, the pilots do not know they are already fired on with BVR missiles until missile seeker is active much closer. They usually understand the enemy's rough range and assume missile is probably on the way and most pilots will have to stay until they give their own shot.

I feel you don't understand how BVR fight works. It is difficult to understand but can say that range and radar are very important along with missile numbers but there is also fighter range, fuel, engine power, acceleration, climb, turning, RCS, electronic jamming etc.

To summarize more missiles is good and the J-10 can most likely only carry 4 BVR missile with 2 short range missiles and three fuel tanks. This is not good but also actually not bad load for single engine fighter. It is not F-16 level unless last pylon can actually carry BVR as well.

Consider the Rafale's and Typhoon's manufacturer own advertisement for air superiority is three tanks and 4 or 6 BVR missiles with 2 short range. This is at most two BVR more than J-10 with similar range on all three fighters. Both these fighters are larger and heavier class also much more expensive and complex with two engine designs. F-16 tip pylon should not carry AIM-120 due to damage to wings so F-16 with three tanks also can only carry at most 6 BVR with dual rail and 2 short range. This is better than the others but it is also carrying dual or triple rail. So it should also drop everything when J-16 fire PL-xx?

If things work this way, the AIM-54 or R-37 and PL-xx style long range missiles is all you need. Su-27 to 35 and J-11 to J-16 cannot be beaten and all airforce should just design only heavy weight. Missiles and radar are not perfect and no one really knows each other's electronic warfare technology levels well. J-10 designers really strangely decided not to give inner pylon missiles capability because for sure they know it is useless and will need to carry fuel tank anyway.

 

[UKBengali]

We cannot what if these kind of things because in this case the enemy fighter cannot launch their BVR first. The PL-15 has better range and the J-10C has better radar than most fighter even 4.5 generation fighter. Su-35 with R-77 and R-37 doesn't stand a chance against J-10C in BVR. Typhoon doesn't even have AESA or even just a basic multi antenna radar. Rafale is much better and has Meteor so in 4.5 generation this is only one that can shoot at J-10C before J-10C can do anything.

Anyway what is the science to prove the dual rails deplete the performance and really by how much? I personally don't think the performance degrade that much. Also why does the J-10 need to immediately do evasive maneuver if the enemy already has upper hand? So in this case the one who shoot first always will win because the other will always immediately defend using evasive maneuver?

Whenever BVR fight starts, the pilots do not know they are already fired on with BVR missiles until missile seeker is active much closer. They usually understand the enemy's rough range and assume missile is probably on the way and most pilots will have to stay until they give their own shot.

I feel you don't understand how BVR fight works. It is difficult to understand but can say that range and radar are very important along with missile numbers but there is also fighter range, fuel, engine power, acceleration, climb, turning, RCS, electronic jamming etc.

To summarize more missiles is good and the J-10 can most likely only carry 4 BVR missile with 2 short range missiles and three fuel tanks. This is not good but also actually not bad load for single engine fighter. It is not F-16 level unless last pylon can actually carry BVR as well.

Consider the Rafale's and Typhoon's manufacturer own advertisement for air superiority is three tanks and 4 or 6 BVR missiles with 2 short range. This is at most two BVR more than J-10 with similar range on all three fighters. Both these fighters are larger and heavier class also much more expensive and complex with two engine designs. F-16 tip pylon should not carry AIM-120 due to damage to wings so F-16 with three tanks also can only carry at most 6 BVR with dual rail and 2 short range. This is better than the others but it is also carrying dual or triple rail. So it should also drop everything when J-16 fire PL-xx?

If things work this way, the AIM-54 or R-37 and PL-xx style long range missiles is all you need. Su-27 to 35 and J-11 to J-16 cannot be beaten and all airforce should just design only heavy weight. Missiles and radar are not perfect and no one really knows each other's electronic warfare technology levels well. J-10 designers really strangely decided not to give inner pylon missiles capability because for sure they know it is useless and will need to carry fuel tank anyway.

You forget that Taiwan has ordered 66 F-16V with APG83 AESA radar, with the existing F-16s being upgraded to this standard.

Some reports suggest that it will even have triple rails and so would seriously outgun J-10C in BVR.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

You forget that Taiwan has ordered 66 F-16V with APG83 AESA radar, with the existing F-16s being upgraded to this standard.

Some reports suggest that it will even have triple rails and so would seriously outgun J-10C in BVR.

What is your point?

 

[serenity]

You forget that Taiwan has ordered 66 F-16V with APG83 AESA radar, with the existing F-16s being upgraded to this standard.

Some reports suggest that it will even have triple rails and so would seriously outgun J-10C in BVR.

But then for those J-16 can hold 10 BVR missiles and 2 short range and still fly much longer range than F-16V. So the F-16V is outgunned.

It is not like a situation because Taiwan send 100 F-16V because they only have 100 available that means China send 100 J-10. Yes you are right the F-16V has better carrying ability than J-10. Just like J-16 has better carrying ability than F-16.

But that is different side. Another point you guys are saying is J-10 and F-16 are same class of fighter because engine of AL-31FN and WS-10G is similar to F-100 and F-110 so both fighter should carry similar number of missiles.

This only prove if F-16 carry 8 BVR missiles with no fuel tanks compared to J-10 with only 4 BVR and three fuel tanks, that the comparison is different. If F-16 is carrying fuel tanks as well and still has 2 more BVR than J-10 then the F-16's performance will be less since both fighter has similar engine performance and similar weight. J-10 has better lift and pitch authority at high angle.

We can only say J-10's designers did not give inner pylon missile capability because either they need those points for fuel or because they consider 4 BVR as enough for the lightweight fighter.

 

[serenity]

Perhaps custom order can give inner pylon missile carrying ability if it is too important for the customer. J-10 was made for PLAAF requirements and maybe the PLAAF think they have enough J-10 that 4 BVR missile is enough but range is more important to them so the fighter is designed for over 3000km ferry range with fuel tanks and combat radius that is close to flanker. Of course range to PLAAF is more important than to carry 2 more BVR. PLAAF has hundreds of J-10. They can send many against some enemies so each one may need longer legs even if sacrifice two missiles.

For Pakistan, J-10's internal fuel is probably good enough for most mission. If they need longer range they can carry one fuel tank and there is also refuel pod. Maybe if Pakistan is interested in J-10 they will ask Chengdu to give inner pylon missile capability.

At the moment J-10's missile carrying capability when measured with range is about the same as Gripen but the J-10 is heavier class and should be same as F-16. If PLAAF's J-10 can carry BVR or dual rail in inner pylon it can compare as missile truck like the others but with very short range.

Maybe PAF J-10 in imagination now can use missiles in those pylons or even have purpose designed dual or triple rail and if PAF want to carry 10 BVR it can but with poor range and bad performance until those missiles are launched. It is possible and not too hard. There is nothing really stopping it since J-10's engine performance and thrust to weight is good and so if canard and design.