Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

Akasa · Apr 19, 2018

randomradio said:
But not the J-10.

Based on what? Do back up your claims.

randomradio said:
The F-16 was rejected purely on tech specs. Purely on performance, endurance, weapons capabilities, sensors etc. Costs and other factors came in much later, after the Typhoon and Rafale were shortlisted. The IAF publicly announced the F-16 fell short in performance.

Of course. Just look up the published specs.

What "tech specs"? Please provide the "published specs" that you claim of but nobody else seems to have. And which variant are you referring to? You need to post raw data on flight endurance, weapons load, sensor range and tracking, cost per flight/hour, lifetime, and overall maintenance costs on the respective fighters before making these sort of claims.

randomradio said:
Rafale: same thrust, same empty weight, more fuel, more payload. How is this rocket science?

I asked for a source and raw data on those parameters; how is that rocket science?

randomradio said:
The Eurocanards predate the F-22 by at least 10 years. Designing something to compete with something else doesn't make it better. The J-10's basic design predates the Eurocanards.

You are seriously going to compare aircraft capabilities using the date of their debut? There you go, I can now claim that the JF-17 is more advanced than the Rafale because the former flew in 2003 while the latter did so in the late 1980s. By the same line of thinking, I can claim the following:

J-16 is more advanced than the F-22/F-35
J-15 is more advanced than the F-22/F35
J-10B is more advanced than the F-22/F35
JH-7A is more advanced than the Rafale

I hope it doesn't take too long to realize the error in your thinking.

randomradio said:
Incorrect. The J-10 cannot compete with the Rafale and EFT.

Once again, based on what?

randomradio said:
Find an equivalent configuration for the J-10.

How does this mean anything significant, other than in terms of aesthetics, with regards to their respective air-to-air performances? The dictating parameters, as I've mentioned previously, are the sensors, kinematics, weapons capability, and sheer pilot skill, none of which are visible to the naked eye or can be demonstrated by a single photograph.

randomradio said:
The problem with single engine jets is no one has really cracked the code on how to make one better than twin engine counterparts of similar size and weight. The Americans managed something with the F-35, but while trying to match the range and payload capabilities of twin engine jets, it is still deficient in performance.

The word "better" means nothing unless it's put into context. Better in terms of what? A single-engine fighter with advanced avionics, sensor fusion, and weapons can outfight a twin-engined jet with previous-generation subsystems any day.

randomradio said:
You can put a better radar and missiles on the J-10, but it will still show performance deficiencies versus twin engine jets. That's why even though the Rafale and J-10 have the same size, thrust and empty weight, the MTOW of the two aircraft are very different.

Once again, and it's something you've consistently failed to do, you need to back up the claim of "performance deficiencies" with raw data and sources. What are the comparative climb rates, roll rates, sustained turning rates, speed, maximum sustained g, etc.? I can just as easily claim that plane X and plane Y if I were not obliged to provide authoritative evidence for those claims.

randomradio said:
The J-10B/C do not have any visible enhancements in size that it can compete with the Rafale's fuel supply.

The J-10C has an extra fuel tank compared to the J-10A. It doesn't mean anything unless it adds 1.4T extra fuel, which is unlikely. So the Rafale will have a 1 hour advantage on internal fuel.

Fuel supply does not translate to better air-to-air performance. And, for the second time, please provide numbers and sources for the fuel capacities of the Rafale-C/M and J-10C.

randomradio said:
So you want me to prove that the F-16's spares are more expensive than the Rafale's and Typhoon's spares? Would you like me to prove the earth is flat while you're at it?

Yes, in fact I do want you to prove that. Please provide data on the individual spares, the cost per hour of flight and maintenance, the maximum overhaul interval in years, and the overall lifespan (in hours). I'm waiting.

randomradio said:
AL-31FN - 1500 hours
WS-10B - 2000 hours
EJ200 - 6000 hours
M88-4E - 7000 hours

Please be so kind as to provide your source of information

randomradio said:
Both aircraft have delta wings. One is a tailed delta, the other is a compound delta.

Even the J-20 has delta wings.

So in other words, the two have different configurations and thus a direct comparison is not appropriate.

randomradio · Apr 20, 2018

Akasa said:
Based on what? Do back up your claims.

What "tech specs"? Please provide the "published specs" that you claim of but nobody else seems to have. And which variant are you referring to? You need to post raw data on flight endurance, weapons load, sensor range and tracking, cost per flight/hour, lifetime, and overall maintenance costs on the respective fighters before making these sort of claims.

I asked for a source and raw data on those parameters; how is that rocket science?

You are seriously going to compare aircraft capabilities using the date of their debut? There you go, I can now claim that the JF-17 is more advanced than the Rafale because the former flew in 2003 while the latter did so in the late 1980s. By the same line of thinking, I can claim the following:

J-16 is more advanced than the F-22/F-35

J-15 is more advanced than the F-22/F35

J-10B is more advanced than the F-22/F35

JH-7A is more advanced than the Rafale

I hope it doesn't take too long to realize the error in your thinking.

Once again, based on what?

How does this mean anything significant, other than in terms of aesthetics, with regards to their respective air-to-air performances? The dictating parameters, as I've mentioned previously, are the sensors, kinematics, weapons capability, and sheer pilot skill, none of which are visible to the naked eye or can be demonstrated by a single photograph.

The word "better" means nothing unless it's put into context. Better in terms of what? A single-engine fighter with advanced avionics, sensor fusion, and weapons can outfight a twin-engined jet with previous-generation subsystems any day.

Once again, and it's something you've consistently failed to do, you need to back up the claim of "performance deficiencies" with raw data and sources. What are the comparative climb rates, roll rates, sustained turning rates, speed, maximum sustained g, etc.? I can just as easily claim that plane X and plane Y if I were not obliged to provide authoritative evidence for those claims.

Fuel supply does not translate to better air-to-air performance. And, for the second time, please provide numbers and sources for the fuel capacities of the Rafale-C/M and J-10C.

Yes, in fact I do want you to prove that. Please provide data on the individual spares, the cost per hour of flight and maintenance, the maximum overhaul interval in years, and the overall lifespan (in hours). I'm waiting.

Please be so kind as to provide your source of information

So in other words, the two have different configurations and thus a direct comparison is not appropriate.

You are a funny guy. I will leave you to your own thoughts then.

I think you should try to do your own research.

Cheers.

Akasa · Apr 20, 2018

randomradio said:
You are a funny guy. I will leave you to your own thoughts then.

I think you should try to do your own research.

Cheers.

In other words, you have neither the sources nor the reasoning to back your claims up.

Frankly, that's kind of what I expected from your argument in the first place. I rest my case.

Dante80 · Apr 20, 2018

randomradio said:
So you put more powerful engines into the aircraft, which in this case is true.

It makes perfect sense, just not in the way you have assumed. The fact that even the highly advanced fictional F-16 B70 could not beat the Typhoon and Rafale in MMRCA proves it.

Sorry for prolonging the off-topic fork in the thread, but MMRCA does not really prove what you said.

Have in mind that procurement competitions are (or should be) pretty complex affairs. Performance and Capability for competitor designs is defined, rated, weighted and baked on the competition results according to the priorities and goals that the AF wants to attain (this changes from one program and/or country to the other), but it is only one of the considerations to move forward.

Economic, political and other considerations are also baked on the results. Things like ToT, engagement by the local industry (percent of overall program cost that comes back to the country), economic or technology offsets, political considerations, ToT, weapon and platform export limits (and degradation of capability via said limits), financing, life-cycle costs, logistics, supporting infrastructure, future upgrades etc etc..

It is really impossible (and highly inappropriate) to reach definite or even relative conclusions about one single aspect of the program via reading the publicly disclosed information of said program in the whole. Like a child, each program is different.

Hope that helps, cheers..sorry for the off-topic post.

randomradio · Apr 20, 2018

Akasa said:
In other words, you have neither the sources nor the reasoning to back your claims up.

Frankly, that's kind of what I expected from your argument in the first place. I rest my case.

No, my point is your posts are too silly for me to waste time with.

I have given enough clues. You can easily google stuff like "M88-4E service life 7000 hours" etc and come to your own conclusions.

Akasa · Apr 20, 2018

randomradio said:
No, my point is your posts are too silly for me to waste time with.

I have given enough clues. You can easily google stuff like "M88-4E service life 7000 hours" etc and come to your own conclusions.

For someone who claims that plane X is better than plane Y because the former is newer than the latter, you certainly understand the concept of silliness.

Anyways, you can back up your points with evidence or you can continue with your circular logic; it doesn't change a thing.

randomradio · Apr 20, 2018

Dante80 said:
Sorry for prolonging the off-topic fork in the thread, but MMRCA does not really prove what you said.

Have in mind that procurement competitions are (or should be) pretty complex affairs. Performance and Capability for competitor designs is defined, rated, weighted and baked on the competition results according to the priorities and goals that the AF wants to attain (this changes from one program and/or country to the other), but it is only one of the considerations to move forward.

Economic, political and other considerations are also baked on the results. Things like ToT, engagement by the local industry (percent of overall program cost that comes back to the country), economic or technology offsets, political considerations, ToT, weapon and platform export limits (and degradation of capability via said limits), financing, life-cycle costs, logistics, supporting infrastructure, future upgrades etc etc..

It is really impossible (and highly inappropriate) to reach definite or even relative conclusions about one single aspect of the program via reading the publicly disclosed information of said program in the whole. Like a child, each program is different.

Hope that helps, cheers..sorry for the off-topic post.