Why Chengdu J-10C 4.5th Gen Fighter Can Easily Eat Alive F-16 Block 52 ?

[White and Green with M/S]

It's quite obviously J-10C is vastly superior to F-16C. It's a much newer design incorporating DSI. Comparing J-10C to F-16C is like comparing Walvax mRNA to Pfizer / Fosun or Moderna mRNA.

LOL can DSI make fighter jets more lethal?? does your J 16 has DSI does DSI used by F 22/Su 57

And J 10 has CANARDs which increases RCS significantly as compare to conventional fighter jets

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

LOL can DSI make fighter jets more lethal?? does your J 16 has DSI does DSI used by F 22/Su 57

And J 10 has CANARDs which increases RCS significantly as compare to conventional fighter jets

China licenses Flanker frame from Sukhoi. They cannot legally modify it. That's why no Chinese Flanker has DSI.

Canards reduces DSI compared to traditional design.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

If you have frontal control surfaces you don't have rear control surfaces. Canards on its own does not increase RCS. The deletion of rear control surfaces offsets increase in RCS due to addition of frontal control surfaces. J-10 has lower RCS than F-16 due to DSI.

Head on is most important aspect of air to air combat, CANARDS increases RCS from front and from BELOW

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Head on is most important aspect of air to air combat, CANARDS increases RCS from front and from BELOW

Nope. Canards reduces RCS from every direction.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

China licenses Flanker frame from Sukhoi. They cannot legally modify it. That's why no Chinese Flanker has DSI.

Canards reduces DSI compared to traditional design.

CANARDS are INCREASES RCS FROM FRONT AND FROM BELOW,IT GIVES A EXTRA SURFACES TO RADARS

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

CANARDS are INCREASES RCS FROM FRONT AND FROM BELOW,IT GIVES A EXTRA SURFACES TO RADARS

Nope. Canards reduces RCS from front, back, top, below compared to traditional design.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Nope. Canards reduces RCS from every direction.

LOL YOU'RE AVIATION EXPERT TO PUT THAT STUPID VERDICT, I CAN SHOW YOU A ARTICLE FROM AN EXPERT THAT'S SAID CANARD INCREASES RCS FROM FRONT

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

LOL YOU'RE AVIATION EXPERT TO PUT THAT STUPID VERDICT, I CAN SHOW YOU A ARTICLE FROM AN EXPERT THAT'S SAID CANARD INCREASES RCS FROM FRONT

Where are your sources? Share it please.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Nope. Canards reduces RCS from front, back, top, below compared to traditional design.

LOL WHY YOU SO STUPID, IF ADD SOMETHING EXTRA FOR EXAMPLE YOU ADD WINGS ON A CAR ITS REDUCES RCS OR INCREASES,

YOU"RE JUST BSELESSLY FARTING FROM YOUR BACKSIDE WITH NO BACKUP

 

[Song Hong]

The BVR missile has limited capability to change trajectory. Normally such missile do not have a good chance against the agile fighter.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Where are your sources? Share it please.

canardsS03.pdf (vt.edu)

 

[White and Green with M/S]

This guy logic is very amusing
According to him, as long as american doesn't make it, technically it's impossible.


While keep Ignoring the Fact that PL-15 AAM using Dual-Pulse Motor Technology to Extend their Range without any significant increase in size. Compared to Conventional AIM-120D.

Even USAAF Officer admit that China's PL-15 AAM which uses Dual-Pulse Rocket Motor was the Key Factor that drove the american to begin JATM program (replacement of AIM-120 amraam)
View attachment 761399
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...nd-navys-future-long-range-air-to-air-missile


His mind still stuck in 90s China. He doesn't realize that China's Military have Superiority in some aspect.
Just like World's First Operational HGV (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Technology) DF-17

According to him it's Fake too. Because it's technically impossible for others to deploy what the US not yet achieve before

Oops! Your quotation of tweet is also said that PL 15 is also uses DUAL PULSE SOLID ROCKET MOTOR

IS IT WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT MOTOR AND ENGINE IS A DIFEERENT THING

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

canardsS03.pdf (vt.edu)

Too simplified. Not applicable to real world.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Too simplified. Not applicable to real world.

lol, this is not i am saying but university experts are saying, and which REAL WORLD do you living in, you are not an expert but they are, we believe on expert not you

 

[White and Green with M/S]

@Tai Hai Chen here is more detail analysis of Canard equipped fighter jets
FT2016_I03_Uandha_Barbosa-et-al_full-paper (1).pdf