The J-11A’s electronics suite is quite old though. It was already losing to the J-10B before the Thailand exercise, as I recall.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
D
Don't think anyone will be Russian hardware for a while.
Rafale surely has superior T:W compared to J-10CE.
But I doubt J-10CE has equal BVR capability compared to Su-30MKI. In reality, Su-30MKI would struggle against JF-17 block 3 if it even can manage to perform BVR against JF-17.
Su-30MKI's BVR abilities are minuscule at best. The J-10C beats J-16 occasionally in BVR (has so for last 3 exercises I recall). J-16 would absolutely wreck MKI in BVR. J-16 comfortably defeats Su-35 100 out of 100 times lol in BVR that is. There is no comparison. It's almost as distant and as assured as 5th gen > 4th gen in BVR... when it's n vs n fighters only. The MKI is from two eras ago. Until they update them with modern BVR missiles those 20th century R-77s are barely half the range of export model PL-15s. The MKI also would need a totally new radar and fire control suite along with proper 21st century electronics and software to even compete... not a hodgepodge of French Israeli and Russian electronics and software from the 1990s and then sold and exported to India in the 2000s. Just like a modern superhornet would wreck any first batch legacy F-15 in BVR. The Indians want to upgrade their Su-30MKIs and it is about as desperately in need of modernisation as J-11B. These fighters are far from useless but they aren't going to be doing much against 4.5 gens with modern missiles. Certainly not in BVR.
But I doubt J-10CE has equal BVR capability compared to Su-30MKI. In reality, Su-30MKI would struggle against JF-17 block 3 if it even can manage to perform BVR against JF-17.
Su-30MKI's BVR abilities are minuscule at best. The J-10C beats J-16 occasionally in BVR (has so for last 3 exercises I recall). J-16 would absolutely wreck MKI in BVR. J-16 comfortably defeats Su-35 100 out of 100 times lol in BVR that is. There is no comparison. It's almost as distant and as assured as 5th gen > 4th gen in BVR... when it's n vs n fighters only. The MKI is from two eras ago. Until they update them with modern BVR missiles those 20th century R-77s are barely half the range of export model PL-15s. The MKI also would need a totally new radar and fire control suite along with proper 21st century electronics and software to even compete... not a hodgepodge of French Israeli and Russian electronics and software from the 1990s and then sold and exported to India in the 2000s. Just like a modern superhornet would wreck any first batch legacy F-15 in BVR. The Indians want to upgrade their Su-30MKIs and it is about as desperately in need of modernisation as J-11B. These fighters are far from useless but they aren't going to be doing much against 4.5 gens with modern missiles. Certainly not in BVR.
Forget about J-10B, 4 J-11A with EW have lost against the J-10A around 2006 when the latter has just achieved IOC.
Su-30MK2, with arguably superior radar/avionics than the Su-27 series, is stated numerous times by PLANAF to be inferior to J-10AH in the BVR department, so much so that in paired training J-10AH handles the BVR portion of the engagement. Prioritizing a medium fighter over a heavy fighter for BVR is pretty much unheard of among fighter aircraft of the same generation.
SU-30mk2 are su-30mkk that has enhanced A2G system... Earlier Su-30mkk has Su-24 systems iirc.
Shocking and also unsurprising. What China was able and willing to provide to Pakistan in terms of cockpit avionics for the JF-17 was unprecedented back in 2006. This cockpit layout eventually found its way into the J-10B and even the J-10C!
How did you get Rafale with RCS of -20 dbSM? That would be 0.01 m^2, right? That seems way too low for it. Even for clean configuration from front, that seems way too low for Rafale (which doesn't have close to level of stealth treatment you'd expect for that). I'd be surprised if Rafale RCS isn't at least 0.5 sqm when loaded with missiles. From anywhere not directly in front, the RCS will be even higher. Maybe J-10C RCS will be higher than that, but the difference problem isn't that large when both are loaded with fuel tanks and standard AAM layout.
I'm also not sure Rafale has better T/W ratio than j-10C. It's engine is probably at around 90% the thrust of the 2 M88s on Rafale. It's weight is probably also around 90% of Rafale's weight. Depending on the load, I could see either aircraft having better T/W ratio. I have no idea how well Rafale's layout will allow it to outmaneuver J-10 in WVR situation.
I do think a lot of it is also dependent on the missiles. Not just now, but in the future. I see that as quite even at the moment. But given China's huge progress here, I would not be surprised if they surpass Rafale options in the future.
Su-30MKi using early 2000s Russian avionics technology against J-10C using early 2010 Chinese technology is a huge mismatch. More importantly, the gap between R73M vs PL-10 and R77 vs PL-15 is quite large. It's hard not to see J-10C just eat MKI's lunch here.
Rafale could probably hit 0.01M^2 at a very, very, very optimized frontal angle with no external load. Move a slight inch to left or right then the RCS balloons.
As for Su-30MKI, Su-30SM brochure has a confirmed range of 110KM against fighter-sized (3 M^2) target. This is a magnitude worse than KLJ-7A on JF-17 block 3 (170KM against fighter sized target), let alone what J-10CP uses. This is not even taking into account the flanker airframe massive RCS. J-10C should have first shot advantage against the MKI until the latter has upgraded to AESA radar.
The point, though, is that the Rafale is probably superior WVR because it has something quite similar to the J-20's aerodynamic layout and the J-10 is a generation behind (roughly Gripen / Lavi) layout.
Tabbing on 142-155kN engines gives the J-10 a substantial T/W advantage, and tabbing on TVC means that the Rafale (which is less of an energy fighter than the Eurofighter) no longer has any WVR advantage.
Put another way, would the Pakistanis be willing to pay 10 million more for a J-10DE that's better than the Rafale in almost every way? I know this forum hates Indians way too much. It'd be a real slapper against the Indians if the J-10DE outperformed the Rafale in almost every way, and did it for 40% less, no?
The only advantage the Rafale would have vs a J-10DE would be, possibly, the Spectra EW countermeasures suite. And that's merely because the Rafale advertises the strength of its EW countermeasures suite, and the J-10CE or a proposed DE version doesn't.
Re: claims that the Rafale has -20 dBsm:
The Indians were touting the Rafale having a minimum -20 dBsm. But that's a minimum -20 dBsm, and likely only in clean configuration and at very specific angles. When it comes to average RCS, the Rafale is probably in the same league as the J-10C, but somewhat better.
Tabbing on 142-155kN engines gives the J-10 a substantial T/W advantage, and tabbing on TVC means that the Rafale (which is less of an energy fighter than the Eurofighter) no longer has any WVR advantage.
Put another way, would the Pakistanis be willing to pay 10 million more for a J-10DE that's better than the Rafale in almost every way? I know this forum hates Indians way too much. It'd be a real slapper against the Indians if the J-10DE outperformed the Rafale in almost every way, and did it for 40% less, no?
The only advantage the Rafale would have vs a J-10DE would be, possibly, the Spectra EW countermeasures suite. And that's merely because the Rafale advertises the strength of its EW countermeasures suite, and the J-10CE or a proposed DE version doesn't.
Re: claims that the Rafale has -20 dBsm:
The Indians were touting the Rafale having a minimum -20 dBsm. But that's a minimum -20 dBsm, and likely only in clean configuration and at very specific angles. When it comes to average RCS, the Rafale is probably in the same league as the J-10C, but somewhat better.