J-10B - Information

[Broccoli]

DSI technology clearly has it's advantages.

The unassuming fuselage bump at each inlet on the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter performs miracles that only aeronautical engineers can fully appreciate. At high aircraft speeds through supersonic, the bumps work with forward-swept inlet cowls to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlets, essentially doing the job of heavier, more complex, and more costly approaches used by current fighters.

In essence, the DSI does away with complex and heavy mechanical systems.

Code One Magazine: JSF Diverterless Supersonic Inlet

The diverterless supersonic inlet avoids a signature problem caused by a conventional boundary layer diverter plate – the F-22 has a conventional inlet, which is likely to require extensive radar absorbent material (RAM) treatment.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:2bbb8a32-8bf4-47c5-86c4-48f3c78e53c2

 

[Jungibaaz]

Another who believes that DSI was designed for 'stealth'.

Nope, just that concealing engine blades reduces an aircraft's frontal RCS

And I have no idea on what are 'silent avionics' and 'passive stealth'.

Avionics, radar that hare hard to trace, take an AESA with LPI for example that could detect other fighters without triggering the enemy's RWR.

Passive methods to avoid detection, measures other then RCS reduction... Jammers, EW and ECM components.

 

[Machoman]

Did we know when this is coming to PAF? I thought they were thinking starting of 2012, is it still valid?

 

[Broccoli]

Nope, just that concealing engine blades reduces an aircraft's frontal RCS

DSI technology does not have anything to do with concealing engine blades, it's "simply" a new type of inlet design.

DSI = Diverterless supersonic inlet.


DSI's "stealth" comes from this.. nothing to do with hiding the engine blades.

The diverterless supersonic inlet avoids a signature problem caused by a conventional boundary layer diverter plate – the F-22 has a conventional inlet, which is likely to require extensive radar absorbent material (RAM) treatment.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:2bbb8a32-8bf4-47c5-86c4-48f3c78e53c2

 

[Jungibaaz]

The argument was against canards as a point FOR agility and maneuverability beyond the standard set by the F-16. Simply put, just because an aircraft has canards, or any other features not commonly seen, do not assume that said feature somehow rendered the aircraft superior to another, especially when that aircraft is the F-16 when it comes to agility.

Mate, where did I ever comment on the canards...?
I was talking about the Cobra.

Do you know what is the J-10A's instantaneous roll rate?

Don't know the exact figure, but it is said to be superior to the Su-27's roll rate since the J-10 the shorter wingspans and since the engine is set on the bore axis, which means that single engine birds tend to have better roll rates then twin engine, which the engines on the twin engines would take weights off the aircraft's center bore acting as inertial resistance against the rolling maneuver.

This does not really contribute to any understanding as to how the J-10A/B is comparable to the F-16, let alone superior. The F-16 will be surpassed some day, but for many of the world's air forces, that day is not yet here.

Gambit... the comment I was replying to was implying that the J-10's maneuverability is inferior.
I was talking about the performances J-10 put on at an impressive speed.

Said to have means nothing.

Indeed, but that's all we can go by, I will use what we do know as final until proven otherwise.

The amount of T/R modules that is not accompanied by commensurate software exploitation mean those modules are useless.

You realise that I used the words... 'From what we do know' time and time again?
Once can only assume, unless someone has a crystal ball that we don't know about.

A larger radome only imply a potentially larger antenna.

Yes, larger radome, good power output, quantity of T/R modules and supposed LPI features.
This indicates that it may just be a good radar, of course it's not enough to conclude that it definately is, but going by what we know, it seems capable.

That is not how it works. You cannot make assumptions and demand others prove you wrong. But if you want to go that route, you would still lose the debate because people do not make decisions based upon figures. They make these national defense related purchases based upon experience and records if they are available. To use an extreme example, an aircraft like the SR-71 is too specialized and therefore too expensive for just about everyone else. Moving away from that extreme and down the scale is where people begins to look at accomplishments like combat records and personal testimonies. So the burden of proof is actually upon YOU.

All of this is mere speculation at best... pessimism vs optimism.
You have to keep up with the debate mate, you had Amalakas proclaiming that the J-10A/B would be inferior, his argument was baseless and at times non-existent.

 

[amalakas]

Of course not, my point was that many a people elsewhere tried to debate this with me, from noobs to the fly boys and Think Tanks. None have succeeded.

wow ..that is pretty confident.

Well what do you have to say about the points I raised, it seems you're unwilling to debunk the points I raised while you disagree with them. Please Prove me wrong, instead of beating around the Bush.

getting there...

What about the points I raised?

'If you are talking about overall maneuverability... J-10A had decent wing loading, lower then the F-16's, F-15s wing loading, it pulls about the same level of G's as other aircraft and in terms of AoA, I can tell you this by just from watching videos of the J-10 that the AoA is at the very least comparable to the F-16A if not better!'

Have you chose to ignore them?

nope,

Would you like a medal from me mate? anyway... you of all people should know what low wing loading, high AoA, and a good turn rate despite being a delta wing configuration means in terms of maneuverability.

no, I don't want a medal.
the A-4 had all those. That doesn't mean I have to go to war in an A-4 (nothing against the A-4).

If you have flown and served, I expect your knowledge to be above mine, so far your post haven't suggested anything of that order. So please prove me wrong instead boasting about what you've done and how that means anything about this debate.

...getting there..

Ah... so you've never witnessed them in that way now have you... tell me what kind of grounds do you hold to criticize things you don't understand?

And please don't go on to what your experiences with everything taught you, that has nothing to do with anything we are debating.

No, I haven't, although common sense indicates that just like the chinese haven't come up with an inter galactic spaceship yet, and most of what they produce is of the same stock as the rest of the world, their missile weapons cannot be anything different... follow me so far?

since then I have witnessed some of the peak weapons of the west and east being fired and evaluated, I am telling you I have no reason to believe a chinese AA missile is going to be better than any of the ones I have seen. And I know what those missiles can do and cannot do.

Please prove me wrong...

in a minute...

Ah more Chest thumping... then you of all people could tell me...

OF what we know about the J-10B's radar, why can't it face up to it's Russian/Western counter parts?

The russians have array radars operational for a very long time. perhaps even the first to field array radars.. the west ..well the benefits of technology know how are evident.

Why would I come to believe that the AESA radar on a J-10 would be any better than the AESA on the MiG-35? The number of modules does not guarantee anything more than the potential of the design, or even hides some weaknesses.. How come you are so sure that the number of T/R on the J-10 AESA is such to mask software or signal processing deficiencies ??? Do you know ? Have you been involved with the tests? or the building of said radar ?

you think that perhaps if the J-10 AESA radar has 1200 modules and the one on the F-16 has 1000 the J-10 radar is 20% better or something along those lines? I'd say .. maybe not..

Going back to these points.
'The J-10B's AESA is said to have 1200 T/R modules and LPI features...
Next the Radomme should be larger than the JF-17's... therefore larger then even the Eurofighter's Captor, further justification of this view is the larger nose made to accommodate DSI. Not to mention it will have an outstanding power output to go along with it...'

the largest radomme simply means there is more room, and dictated by the fuselage design, it doesn't necessary mean that a larger radar will be fitted nor that a larger antenna will be better off.

Please do so.

yes....

The F-16 is undoubtedly one of the most reliable jets in the world, it's a reliable and proven machine... I'm not debating that.

good for you

Well you tell me then... G limits, Turn rates, AoA, wing loading, control surfaces, thrust/powerplant, drag weight, inertia.
Tell me which the J-10B lacks and please by all means if you know more then i do, then kindly enlighten me.

the F-16 of the top of my head I can tell you that yes the two planes have 9/-3.5 (16) and 9/-3 )10).

But .. and an important but here.. we don't know what the fuel load on the J-10 is for that rating.

also the sustained rate for the F-16 is 18/sec and inst. 26/sec. it has a 1.1:1 twr and a very good transonic acceleration.

In combat conditions, the twr gets to about 1.25:1 as the fuel goes down.

J-10A has.. I believe around .95 or so .. not so good. also it has a delta wing. Bleeds speed. So the relative agility advantage you claim it has, needs the extra power, that it does not have.

The F-16 has up to 144Kn rated engines.. and an amazing FBW system. Combat proven.
J-10A much less than that .. i think about 80KN or so .. and FBW of what heritage ???

Now the J-10B is said to have TVC and a bigger engine .. perhaps it does. although you have to know that TVC engines work best in pairs. Think about it.
as for the RAM coatings and the stealthier redesign, .. ''mate'' it is carrying its weapons on pylons under the wings.. what are you talking about.. in any decent cap mission the missiles and pods and pylons and tanks would be the major contributors ..

Well mate, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, judging from the specs and overviews i've given of what we do know, you must admit that it seems formidable!

if my grandmother had a propeller she would have been a fishing boat.. things on paper are things on paper. Remember how formidable the ABLS was ? people started saying that it would deny airspace to fighters and that a new era in air superiority was here... right... where is it now ?

China's yet to use them that way.... but please do ask some of the Chinese members here the history of the J-10A in the PLAAF, it's performances in PLAAF exercises against Chinese Migs, Russian and Chinese Flankers.

I should ask.. they should come forward and say by themselves..

By this measure you would also doubt the F-35, the F-15 Silent Eagle?

I have doubted the F-35 numerous times.. I have fought with Gambit over that plane countless times.. but at the end of the day, LM has proven in the past that they can make planes.. so a minimum level of performance is given and granted.
Why would I doubt the F-15SE .. ??? it can only be improved and it is an excellent plane. It is not something that is nobody has seen before.

Disagree.... matching J-10A to Block 40, they are quite similar and have equal capabilities.
IMHO the J-10B will probably be superior to the F-16 Block 60.

No. Considering things, the J-10A may have comparable, (but perhaps not equivalent) avionics to F-16s delivered for service in the 90s .. i.e. designed in the 80s.

by that token I was generous to have likened it to F-16A and B in overall performance since it has weaker engines and a delta wing.

The J-10B, is an upgrade, so it can be anything, but can it be comparable to something like the block 52/60 ?? have a read to see what those planes can do in some of their configurations, and don't judge by the ones in your country, they may have come with downgraded avionics.

Well with AESA (with LPI), IRST, HMDS, low RCS (composites,RAM,DSI), an excellent ECM/EW suite, an avionics suite to be installed on the J-20, an excellent airframe and powerplant and good weaponry how can you come to such a conclusion?

how good is that LPI? what did they test it against? how good is their IRST? do we know? the HMDS is good, but everyone has one these days, F-16s included, the avionics suite of the J-20 cannot be installed on the J-10.. there is a size element here.
as for the airframe and the powerplant.. speculations.. we don't know.

the F-16 tech buddies were telling me that if a 16 pulled a 9.5g they would have to do a structural check (which it did in my AF regularly) .. and to this date only a handful of cases were some repair work or more inspection was needed came up. that is in 21 years of service. One of those cases the plane pulled a 9.8g .. we had LM people flying in to give us a hand with the structural inspection.. can't remember what the outcome was, but I remember seeing the plane again on scramble duty after the inspection... (!)..

when the J-10 does that for someone.. then we will talk..like I said. .

Instead of telling me that you are capable of proving me wrong, why don't you just prove me wrong?

I gave it a shot...

 

[Jungibaaz]

DSI technology does not have anything to do with concealing engine blades, it's "simply" a new type of inlet design.

DSI = Diverterless supersonic inlet.


DSI's "stealth" comes from this.. nothing to do with hiding the engine blades.

J-20's Stealth Signature Poses Interesting Unknowns

Speak about it in context mate... ! Hell even the Y duct on LCA and JF-17 conceal the engine blades.
The new inlet successfully conceals the engine blades on the J-10.

By adding DSI, the max speed of the J-10 would decrease to mach 2 and below.
DSI can't be made with variable geometry, it looses effectiveness by mach 2.

 

[gambit]

Nope, just that concealing engine blades reduces an aircraft's frontal RCS

Mate, I was on the F-16 for five years. EFFECTIVE engine radar detection in the frontal aspect depends on inlet tunnel length and inlet tunnel contour. If the goal is to reduce that effectiveness for the seeking radar, the shorter the length, the focus then should be on the shaping of the tunnel, such as the typical 'S-duct' design. The goal is to reduce the straight-on view like how the F-15 has its engine.

Stealth

Engine inlets are often designed so that the radar energy cannot go straight into them and reach the face of the turbine blades. Instead, the radar energy is bounced back and forth inside the inlet.

That is how little is 'one degree off-angle'. For the F-16, we found out a long time ago that its inlet tunnel length and shaping is such that if the seeking radar is off-angle by merely by 5 degrees, frontal effective radar detection of its engine dropped by more than half. That result was for a while debated in the F-16 community as whether intentionally designed by General Dynamics or if it was incidental with most sentiments leaning towards the latter -- incidental. It is extremely rare that any radar trying to find any airborne target would have true frontal aspect view in any situation. This is why the F-22 has no need for a DSI system. Its intakes and inlet tunnels are such that they are more effective than the F-16's. And the clean F-16 is the official unofficial standard for entry into the 'stealth' region.

So please, stop believing that DSI was designed FOR 'stealth'. Any low radar observability from the engine(s) as a benefit is purely incidental.

Avionics, radar that hare hard to trace, take an AESA with LPI for example that could detect other fighters without triggering the enemy's RWR.

That is hardly 'silent'.

The truth and reality are that an RWR system can and often does detect those transmissions but because of certain transmission characteristics that are out of bounds as originally programmed when the system was designed, those seeking transmissions are dismissed as part of the background clutter spectrum. There are currently development in RWR systems to study more closely how radar transmissions MUST STILL conform to certain parameters, such as pulse freqs, pulse length variables, pulse repetition freqs, amplitude, in order to form a credible target total resolution. For now, the LPI capability has the upper hand.

Passive methods to avoid detection, measures other then RCS reduction... Jammers, EW and ECM components.

EW tactics are still active.

The truth and reality are that the moment a seeking radar transmission impinged upon a target and said target reflect some of that transmission, the target is no longer a 'passive' body. It became a 'generator'. Some people have a misconception about what qualify a body as a 'generator'. In radar detection, any transmission from a body, whether that transmission is deliberative such as from a radar array or from a blade communication antenna or from a REFLECTION of an external source signal, that body becomes a 'generator'.

The best way to truly be 'stealth' from radar detection is not to be in the seeking radar transmission field in the first place. But if one must be inside said field, then body shaping techniques are essential to REDUCE the INTENSITY of being that generator.

 

[Broccoli]

The new inlet successfully conceals the engine blades on the J-10. .

And how you come to this conclusion?

 

[Jungibaaz]

And how you come to this conclusion?

By using my eyes?
Take a look at the J-10B from the side, line up where the engine blades are, the bump covers them.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Mate, I was on the F-16 for five years. EFFECTIVE engine radar detection in the frontal aspect depends on inlet tunnel length and inlet tunnel contour. If the goal is to reduce that effectiveness for the seeking radar, the shorter the length, the focus then should be on the shaping of the tunnel, such as the typical 'S-duct' design. The goal is to reduce the straight-on view like how the F-15 has its engine.

To assume that it doesn't have the required shaping to reduce RCS would be wrong, although there is no way for me to be sure, but since they changed the inlet to DSI bump inlet their goal must have been to reduce RCS, the main advantage of DSI is it's weight the inlet without variable geometry looses efficiency at speeds of mach 2 and above. This is what leads me to believe that the Chinese have made the J-10B how it is with RCS reduction in mind.

So please, stop believing that DSI was designed FOR 'stealth'. Any low radar observability from the engine(s) as a benefit is purely incidental.

DSI was not designed for stealth, the DSI inlet for J-10B conceals the engine blades. You must put it into context with the inlet of the J-10B.

That is hardly 'silent'.

The truth and reality are that an RWR system can and often does detect those transmissions but because of certain transmission characteristics that are out of bounds as originally programmed when the system was designed, those seeking transmissions are dismissed as part of the background clutter spectrum. There are currently development in RWR systems to study more closely how radar transmissions MUST STILL conform to certain parameters, such as pulse freqs, pulse length variables, pulse repetition freqs, amplitude, in order to form a credible target total resolution. For now, the LPI capability has the upper hand.

Again as ever, there is no way for us to confirm that J-10B's radar has LPI features, fast scan of the emitter.

 

[gambit]

Mate, where did I ever comment on the canards...?
I was talking about the Cobra.

So was I. The original dispute was how supposedly 'superior' is the J-10 to the F-16 when it comes to maneuverability. Canards cannot be assumed to be the enabler of that supposedly 'superiority'. The often misconception here is that they are.

Don't know the exact figure,...

Instantaneous (or contextual approximation) roll rate mean how much quicker can an aircraft respond to a command to effect an attitude change. Generally the higher the more desirable.

...but it is said to be superior to the Su-27's roll rate since the J-10 the shorter wingspans and since the engine is set on the bore axis, which means that single engine birds tend to have better roll rates then twin engine, which the engines on the twin engines would take weights off the aircraft's center bore acting as inertial resistance against the rolling maneuver.

While true, what you describe depends on engine physical separation as in the difference between the F-15 and F-22. For the latter, its two engines are close enough that any inertial resistance can be more easily compensated via an increase in approximate values in the flight control laws that governs degrees of surface deflection and rate of deflection. With any FBW-FLCS and the necessary flight control laws, this is not a major issue.

Gambit... the comment I was replying to was implying that the J-10's maneuverability is inferior.
I was talking about the performances J-10 put on at an impressive speed.

Maneuverability and speed are different issues. We can build a biplane that is more maneuverable than the F-16. In fact, technically speaking, the F-16 was not the pioneer in 'negative stability'. Those WW I era biplanes were. Accompanying stability is control authority. The less stable the aircraft, the greater the need for control authority to the pilot. The early aviation engineers had only rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics and stability, in other words, they proverbially knew 'just enough to be dangerous' and that was why it took extraordinary men to learn how to be successful pilots, especially the killing kind.

With the F-16, what made it a pioneer was that we transferred the control authority regime to the computer. We did not reduced it, if anything, we increased it. But with the accelerometers, gyros, and sophisticated electronics combination, the aircraft itself was made to determine its own control authority in any flight condition, leaving only the decision making process to the pilot, as in where he want to go. So in a manner of speaking, technology broadened the qualification field to being a 'fighter pilot' in some areas and narrowed it in other areas. For example: In the early days of aviation, men did not have to deal much with g-forces but today all 'fighter pilots' must proved themselves capable of handling this physical ordeal or be disqualified from the field, no matter how smart is a person or how good is his vision.

You mentioning how fast the J-10 can go in an airshow tell us nothing about the J-10's capability compared to a known standard.

Indeed, but that's all we can go by, I will use what we do know as final until proven otherwise.

You realise that I used the words... 'From what we do know' time and time again?
Once can only assume, unless someone has a crystal ball that we don't know about.

Yes, larger radome, good power output, quantity of T/R modules and supposed LPI features.
This indicates that it may just be a good radar, of course it's not enough to conclude that it definately is, but going by what we know, it seems capable.


All of this is mere speculation at best... pessimism vs optimism.
You have to keep up with the debate mate, you had Amalakas proclaiming that the J-10A/B would be inferior, his argument was baseless and at times non-existent.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. So far you have provided nothing of the sort.

The F-16 is the current standard in a class that was created in WW II: Small and agile fighter. We temporarily moved away from that in Viet Nam with consequences we did not like. But the F-16 continues to evolve and with each evolution, the standards increases in achievement difficulty, not counting the fighter's combat record up to the current evolution. We may soon see how good is the CFT-ed F-16s in combat ala Israel-Iran.

The J-10 have what...???

 

[Jungibaaz]

wow ..that is pretty confident.

It tends to build when one faces an onslaught of anti-Pakistan noobs after every post in other forums.

getting there...

I'll be waiting

nope,

Then your conclusion on the J-10s maneuverability was based on what?

...getting there..

Please do so.

No, I haven't, although common sense indicates that just like the chinese haven't come up with an inter galactic spaceship yet, and most of what they produce is of the same stock as the rest of the world, their missile weapons cannot be anything different... follow me so far?

since then I have witnessed some of the peak weapons of the west and east being fired and evaluated, I am telling you I have no reason to believe a chinese AA missile is going to be better than any of the ones I have seen. And I know what those missiles can do and cannot do.

I agree with you here, I'm not claiming superiority of Chinese A2A weaponry, I want to know what makes you think it is inferior, what is your assessment based upon? How did you come to the conclusion that the J-10B will be inferior to it's Western Counterparts?

The russians have array radars operational for a very long time. perhaps even the first to field array radars.. the west ..well the benefits of technology know how are evident.

Why would I come to believe that the AESA radar on a J-10 would be any better than the AESA on the MiG-35? The number of modules does not guarantee anything more than the potential of the design, or even hides some weaknesses.. How come you are so sure that the number of T/R on the J-10 AESA is such to mask software or signal processing deficiencies ??? Do you know ? Have you been involved with the tests? or the building of said radar ?

Now for the war of 'if's?

What makes you think that the 1200 T/R modules are there because of a deficiency?
Going by that the APG 63v2 and APG 77 must have some sort of deficiency

you think that perhaps if the J-10 AESA radar has 1200 modules and the one on the F-16 has 1000 the J-10 radar is 20% better or something along those lines? I'd say .. maybe not..

Not at all, number T/R modules alone doesn't cut it, you must also understand that just because you can't see something, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. There is nothing to suggest the J-10B's AESA's inferiority, but going by what we know... all that we know about is the number of T/R modules, possible power output and Radome, that's it!

the F-16 of the top of my head I can tell you that yes the two planes have 9/-3.5 (16) and 9/-3 )10).

But .. and an important but here.. we don't know what the fuel load on the J-10 is for that rating.

also the sustained rate for the F-16 is 18/sec and inst. 26/sec. it has a 1.1:1 twr and a very good transonic acceleration.

In combat conditions, the twr gets to about 1.25:1 as the fuel goes down.

J-10A has.. I believe around .95 or so .. not so good. also it has a delta wing. Bleeds speed. So the relative agility advantage you claim it has, needs the extra power, that it does not have.

The F-16 has up to 144Kn rated engines.. and an amazing FBW system. Combat proven.
J-10A much less than that .. i think about 80KN or so .. and FBW of what heritage ???

No mate, the Al-31 has 122.5kN, the WS-10A 132kN, but the supposed variant of the WS-10 for J-10...
has 155kN which would bring the TWR to around 1.2. Not under powered at all!

Now the J-10B is said to have TVC and a bigger engine .. perhaps it does. although you have to know that TVC engines work best in pairs. Think about it.

TVC for single engine? I doubt it.

You see the 2nd dimension (other than pitching) will aid in yaw and not in improving the roll rates...which does bring any significant change in the maneuverability of an aircraft....

as for the RAM coatings and the stealthier redesign, .. ''mate'' it is carrying its weapons on pylons under the wings.. what are you talking about.. in any decent cap mission the missiles and pods and pylons and tanks would be the major contributors ..

Not once did I mention the word stealth, but RCS reduction.
You see... obviously without internal weapons bays there birds will have their RCS increase exponentially with exposed weapons and tanks.

But every bit of RCS reduction buys you valuable space before detection. Also, I'm pretty sure this is the case for even the Eurofighter and Rafale, and unless the J-10B uses weapons pods, the RCS will almost always climb way above 2-3m^2 in a real engagement.

I have doubted the F-35 numerous times.. I have fought with Gambit over that plane countless times.. but at the end of the day, LM has proven in the past that they can make planes.. so a minimum level of performance is given and granted.
Why would I doubt the F-15SE .. ??? it can only be improved and it is an excellent plane. It is not something that is nobody has seen before.

In case you forgot, you were knocking J-10 for not being battle proven, my point was that just because an aircraft is yet to see a real engagement doesn't mean that it is in anyway superior, by that measure Spitfires and P-51s would rule the skies while the F-35 and F-15SE would be the lower end.

Off topic: IMHO the F-35 will be a success, of course the money invested is ridiculous but in terms of avionics the F-35 is the best there is.

No. Considering things, the J-10A may have comparable, (but perhaps not equivalent) avionics to F-16s delivered for service in the 90s .. i.e. designed in the 80s.

by that token I was generous to have likened it to F-16A and B in overall performance since it has weaker engines and a delta wing.

The J-10B, is an upgrade, so it can be anything, but can it be comparable to something like the block 52/60 ?? have a read to see what those planes can do in some of their configurations, and don't judge by the ones in your country, they may have come with downgraded avionics.

Matey, my own patriotism and love for the PAF has lead me to know enough of what the F-16 is capable of.

But I can't understand why you can't match up the j-10 to the Block 40. They are not only similar in size, weight but also avionics and weaponry.

Now the J-10B is said to use avionics straight form the J-20 project, similarly the F-16 E/F would use technologies found on 5th gen birds.

how good is that LPI? what did they test it against?

may well have, but we wont know, the Chinese are very secretive.

how good is their IRST?

At least as good as the IRST on Su-30s....

What leads me to believe this is that, they could have easily reverse engineered the Su-30's IRST, but it's likely after almost 2 decades of having that technology they would have improved it.

So expect it to be at least as capable as the Russian IRST on the Su-30 variant Flankers if not better.

do we know? the HMDS is good, but everyone has one these days, F-16s included,

Search the Chinese TK series HMDS.

the avionics suite of the J-20 cannot be installed on the J-10.. there is a size element here.

It can be installed, only some components like the Radar have to be downsized... for example the J-10B's AESA has 1200 T/R modules, the J-20's is said to be the same radar but with a planned 2200 T/R modules.

as for the airframe and the powerplant.. speculations.. we don't know.

We do know about the AL-31.
We can be sure about the WS-10, but the WS-10G/X and FWS-10 are still a little shady.

the F-16 tech buddies were telling me that if a 16 pulled a 9.5g they would have to do a structural check (which it did in my AF regularly) .. and to this date only a handful of cases were some repair work or more inspection was needed came up. that is in 21 years of service. One of those cases the plane pulled a 9.8g .. we had LM people flying in to give us a hand with the structural inspection.. can't remember what the outcome was, but I remember seeing the plane again on scramble duty after the inspection... (!)..

when the J-10 does that for someone.. then we will talk..like I said. .

I gave it a shot...

Well mate... we can't really debate this properly unless all is revealed about the J-10, till then I can only assume that it would be comparable to the F-16E/F because of the upgrades planned, because of the aim of the variant of the aircraft, the role it will play..

Take the PAF... they have F-16 Block 52+ with good Avionics/weapons packages, but still they went for the J-10B/FC-20 as their top end fighter and cut numbers of F-16s.

I'm not knocking the F-16, it is an excellent fighter.

 

[Luftwaffe]

yes the F-16. and by the way, the DSI does not equal stealth redesign.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/48342-j-10-vs-f-16-technical-comparison.html

Read. J-10A/B are relatively new input technologies based upon proven or stable technologies, J-10A is atleast a 10 Years old product it has seen its days and had been improved, J-10B a new platform but the technologies it is incorporating are from 4th-5th Gen (in western term) thus it would have best of both worlds similar to F-35 that also has newer technologies so I do not understand why people have trouble accepting J-10B as a good product taking it as a new untested where as F-35 is in the same arena termed untested and recently coming up with alot of difficulties-troubles eventually both will pass thought and get inducted in some point of time. Yes China is still perfecting technologies to reach the level of West but by West we mean US and companies joint ventured US-European companies otherwise insider news tells currently the new products coming out of China in aviation sector are on par or very close to European counterparts.

I still reserve it would take few years more for China to reach the level of Typhoon-Rafale's technologies but most of it has been covered in ares even exceed. The best thing is continuous investment and R&D where China is in forefront along with US, the more you invest time/cash in new and other technologies and test and work around with it the more you will learn and the more product out come would be almost perfect & reliable and with quality control. Give a few more Years to China they will come up above standard products as they are even now. It is the advent of Chinese Aviation where as the loser and exiting company is french Dassault along with less investment in BAE due to bad economies. Clearly europe is suffering and will continue to struggle atleast a decade more so we do not know where China would stand by then but surely it would be in a very strong position with huge investments-patents-technologies-largest R&D companies.

 

[gambit]

To assume that it doesn't have the required shaping to reduce RCS would be wrong, although there is no way for me to be sure, but since they changed the inlet to DSI bump inlet their goal must have been to reduce RCS, the main advantage of DSI is it's weight the inlet without variable geometry looses efficiency at speeds of mach 2 and above. This is what leads me to believe that the Chinese have made the J-10B how it is with RCS reduction in mind.



DSI was not designed for stealth, the DSI inlet for J-10B conceals the engine blades. You must put it into context with the inlet of the J-10B.

Look at this...

The J-10 has the single vertical stab. For a clean F-16, its single vertical stab is the killer preventing it from entering the 'stealth' regime. For the airliner example above, if we managed to reduce all other contributors to below the threshold as shown, that single large spike produced by the corner reflector structure produced by that single vertical stab will make ALL reduction efforts elsewhere on the aircraft -- meaningless. The J-10's DSI was not for any RCS control/reduction intention.

Again as ever, there is no way for us to confirm that J-10B's radar has LPI features, fast scan of the emitter.

Then let us leave to each other's faith, or lack thereof, regarding these claims.