JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Wolverine]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

that's fine, but JF-17 would be over-matched by a J-10 in A2A combat, whereas not even J-11B would be able to over match J-10 in A2A combat.

I suppose you mean in a close range dogfighting type of combat. That may possibly be true. On the other hand, in long range fighting J-11B will have the advantage hands down. More MRAAMs carried, larger nosecone = larger radar = longer range, especially if the both of them start sporting PESAs or AESAs in the next few years.

 

[tphuang]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I suppose you mean in a close range dogfighting type of combat. That may possibly be true. On the other hand, in long range fighting J-11B will have the advantage hands down. More MRAAMs carried, larger nosecone = larger radar = longer range, especially if the both of them start sporting PESAs or AESAs in the next few years.

in WVR, J-10 has huge advantage. In BVR, slight disadvantage, because J-10 does have much smaller RCS. But the main point is that they will both detect each other well before the useful range of PL-12. Does it matter that much that one detects the other 150 km away where the other detects the first one 120 km away? But J-11B does have numerous advantages like IRST, more powerful EW suite. But that's going away when J-10B comes into play whose situation awareness will be an entire generation ahead of J-11B from what I read.

 

[Wolverine]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

in WVR, J-10 has huge advantage.

I would agree, but only provisionally, since nobody really knows how agile these planes are compared to each other.

In BVR, slight disadvantage, because J-10 does have much smaller RCS. But the main point is that they will both detect each other well before the useful range of PL-12. Does it matter that much that one detects the other 150 km away where the other detects the first one 120 km away?

Actually, it does matter a great deal. That's one of the advantages of the F-22 and its radar. By detecting an enemy beforehand, it can choose to engage or disengage based on perceived outcome, it has time to coordinate with other planes, it can choose to a greater extent the timing and circumstances of the engagement, such as by placing itself in a more kinetically advantageous position prior to engagement, changing the aspect of the engagement, etc. Longer range radar always translates into advantage. Also, we don't know that the J-10 has a "much" smaller RCS. According to reports the J-11B incorporates many RCS reduction features, especially in the frontal aspect, features which may or may not be present on the J-10, as I haven't read anything to suggest that the J-10 has the same attention to RCS reduction.

But J-11B does have numerous advantages like IRST, more powerful EW suite. But that's going away when J-10B comes into play whose situation awareness will be an entire generation ahead of J-11B from what I read.

A situational awareness which will certainly be translated into the J-11B in later tranches, if such an ability materializes. On the other hand, I haven't read anything to suggest that J-10B will be a generation ahead of J-11B in situational awareness. Perhaps you could point us to an article.

 

[tphuang]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Actually, it does matter a great deal. That's one of the advantages of the F-22 and its radar. By detecting an enemy beforehand, it can choose to engage or disengage based on perceived outcome, it has time to coordinate with other planes, it can choose to a greater extent the timing and circumstances of the engagement, such as by placing itself in a more kinetically advantageous position prior to engagement, changing the aspect of the engagement, etc. Longer range radar always translates into advantage. Also, we don't know that the J-10 has a "much" smaller RCS. According to reports the J-11B incorporates many RCS reduction features, especially in the frontal aspect, features which may or may not be present on the J-10, as I haven't read anything to suggest that the J-10 has the same attention to RCS reduction.

Just look at the two planes, J-10 clearly has a significantly smaller RCS. It's intake does not engine blade at all, that's probably the most visible RCS reduction feature. Whereas for J-11B and all other flankers, I see nothing other than claims based on RAM.

Yes, longer range radar does allow for advanced maneuvering, but both of the ranges are so much longer than NEZ for PL-12 (which is probably 30-40 km away) that the advantage can be negated, especially if the stories that we read about J-10 having better turn and roll rates is true. But you know we could argue all day about this, I will just stop here.

A situational awareness which will certainly be translated into the J-11B in later tranches, if such an ability materializes. On the other hand, I haven't read anything to suggest that J-10B will be a generation ahead of J-11B in situational awareness. Perhaps you could point us to an article.

There are no J-10B article at all, let alone on its situation awareness. What I read is from what I have identified as solid sources on Chinese bbs. Remember, J-10B and J-11B are from different aircraft designers. CAC is certainly ahead of SAC when it comes to avionics architecture. What they are trying on J-10B right now will be trying out technology on the 5th gen fighter, which also has 611 institute as the main developer.

 

[Wolverine]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Just look at the two planes, J-10 clearly has a significantly smaller RCS. It's intake does not engine blade at all, that's probably the most visible RCS reduction feature. Whereas for J-11B and all other flankers, I see nothing other than claims based on RAM.

Just look at the planes? When was that ever enough? All other things being equal, you might be able to say that J-10 has a smaller RCS. But very rarely are all other things equal. According to reports the J-11B DOES have it's intake redesigned to hide the turbine blades better in addition to RAM. Also, a plane that's designed (or redesigned in J-11B's case) with RCS reduction in mind will have tend to have other features less glamorous and noticeable like changes in the cockpit, HUD, etc. to further reduce RCS. The Su-27 supposedly has a frontal aspect RCS of 15 m^2. The J-11B supposedly has an RCS of 5 m^2. If the J-10 has an RCS of 10 m^2, all of a sudden the J-11B looks alot more stealthy than the J-10. Though all of this is admittedly speculation, it clearly is NOT enough to "just look" at the planes.

Yes, longer range radar does allow for advanced maneuvering, but both of the ranges are so much longer than NEZ for PL-12 (which is probably 30-40 km away) that the advantage can be negated, especially if the stories that we read about J-10 having better turn and roll rates is true.

Sorry, but I don't think you are going to win this one. I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for every last fighter pilot on this planet and say that there is not one who would not want to have a longer ranged radar than their adversary and who believe that such a range advantage would not confer any advantage to them in combat.

There are no J-10B article at all, let alone on its situation awareness. What I read is from what I have identified as solid sources on Chinese bbs. Remember, J-10B and J-11B are from different aircraft designers. CAC is certainly ahead of SAC when it comes to avionics architecture. What they are trying on J-10B right now will be trying out technology on the 5th gen fighter, which also has 611 institute as the main developer.

That's neither here nor there. All internet sources are speculation, and "solid" is a matter of opinion. Regardless, we'll just have to see how the avionics on the J-10B and the J-11B play out. Besides, we were talking about the J-10 vs. the J-11B, not the J-10B. Otherwise I could start on all sorts of speculating on the J-11BS.

 

[tphuang]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Just look at the planes? When was that ever enough? All other things being equal, you might be able to say that J-10 has a smaller RCS. But very rarely are all other things equal. According to reports the J-11B DOES have it's intake redesigned to hide the turbine blades better in addition to RAM. Also, a plane that's designed (or redesigned in J-11B's case) with RCS reduction in mind will have tend to have other features less glamorous and noticeable like changes in the cockpit, HUD, etc. to further reduce RCS. The Su-27 supposedly has a frontal aspect RCS of 15 m^2. The J-11B supposedly has an RCS of 5 m^2. If the J-10 has an RCS of 10 m^2, all of a sudden the J-11B looks alot more stealthy than the J-10. Though all of this is admittedly speculation, it clearly is NOT enough to "just look" at the planes.

It's hard to believe that you are arguing J-11B has smaller RCS than J-10.

Sorry, but I don't think you are going to win this one. I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for every last fighter pilot on this planet and say that there is not one who would not want to have a longer ranged radar than their adversary and who believe that such a range advantage would not confer any advantage to them in combat.

if you say so. My points have been made and pretty clear what it's saying

That's neither here nor there. All internet sources are speculation, and "solid" is a matter of opinion. Regardless, we'll just have to see how the avionics on the J-10B and the J-11B play out. Besides, we were talking about the J-10 vs. the J-11B, not the J-10B. Otherwise I could start on all sorts of speculating on the J-11BS.

It just takes time, and you would know which sources are good and which are not. And it's good to use logic sometimes. And J-11BS is more expected to be a strike platform than an air superiority platform. A two-seater does loose some agility compared to a single-seater.

Let's get back to JF-17 now.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

That's neither here nor there. All internet sources are speculation, and "solid" is a matter of opinion. Regardless, we'll just have to see how the avionics on the J-10B and the J-11B play out. Besides, we were talking about the J-10 vs. the J-11B, not the J-10B. Otherwise I could start on all sorts of speculating on the J-11BS.

You are aware that the J-11BS is just a two-seat trainer variant of the J-11B?

The Su-27 supposedly has a frontal aspect RCS of 15 m^2. The J-11B supposedly has an RCS of 5 m^2. If the J-10 has an RCS of 10 m^2, all of a sudden the J-11B looks alot more stealthy than the J-10.

Those numbers look iffy to me... If you look planes most aerodynamically similar and in the same size of the J-10, you have F-16C at 1.2m^2, and EF-2000, Gripen, and Rafale all under 1m^2. Even Super Hornets have RCS of under 1m^2. The baseline Su-27 is truly an anomaly at 15m^2... it is just not unstealthy, but to unstealthy to an extreme. Even a Tornado has RCS of under 10m^2.

IMO, the main advantage of the J-11B in A2A combat against J-10 is its ability to fire off a lot more missiles, and its ability to disengage afterwords.

 

[Wolverine]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

You are aware that the J-11BS is just a two-seat trainer variant of the J-11B?

You are aware that the J-11BS is a two-seat strike variant of the J-11B? I'm sure it will be used to train as well, but strike/attack is clearly going to be a role for this plane. Want to bet?

In any case, my point was not whether J-11BS would be more agile than J-11B. It would not. We are talking about the kind of electronics on board future variants such as J-10B and J-11BS, stuff that is at least a "generation" ahead, etc., and if we are going to speculate, we can speculate all kinds of things based on internet sources, or based on nothing but our own opinions. That was the point.

Those numbers look iffy to me... If you look planes most aerodynamically similar and in the same size of the J-10, you have F-16C at 1.2m^2, and EF-2000, Gripen, and Rafale all under 1m^2. Even Super Hornets have RCS of under 1m^2. The baseline Su-27 is truly an anomaly at 15m^2... it is just not unstealthy, but to unstealthy to an extreme. Even a Tornado has RCS of under 10m^2.

Then it shouldn't necessarily require a miracle to get the extremely unstealthy RCS down to the claimed 5 m^2, now should it? By the way, all the planes you mentioned except the Tornado almost certainly had some degree of RCS reduction in mind when they were being designed. And my suspicion is that the major problem in the unnaturally high RCS of the Su-27 is due to the direct path from air inlet to the turbine blades, a feature which has supposedly been addressed at least to some degree with the J-11B redesign.

IMO, the main advantage of the J-11B in A2A combat against J-10 is its ability to fire off a lot more missiles, and its ability to disengage afterwords.

More missiles is certainly true, but I'm not sure whether it has any increased ability over the J-10 to disengage from a long-range combat encounter. You'd have to know if the J-11B has superior acceleration and g-tolerances compared to the J-10, and I don't think anyone knows that.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

You are aware that the J-11BS is a two-seat strike variant of the J-11B? I'm sure it will be used to train as well, but strike/attack is clearly going to be a role for this plane. Want to bet?

From what I understand, the J-11B was designed with full spectrum air-to-surface and maritime strike capability on par with that of the Su-30MKK2s. It can carry the latest precision guided munitions in PLAAF service. I don't see how you can make a strike version of an aircraft that is already designed to be a strike jet. Anyhow, the point is mute considering we're discussing A2A lethality and nearly all training jets in air forces the world over have a secondary strike role. Of course in war-time, J-10S and J-11BS will be used on strike missions.

Then it shouldn't necessarily require a miracle to get the extremely unstealthy RCS down to the claimed 5 m^2, now should it? By the way, all the planes you mentioned except the Tornado almost certainly had some degree of RCS reduction in mind when they were being designed. And my suspicion is that the major problem in the unnaturally high RCS of the Su-27 is due to the direct path from air inlet to the turbine blades, a feature which has supposedly been addressed at least to some degree with the J-11B redesign.

I'm not in direct disagreement with you over the J-11B RCS; many Chinese sources claim it is the ballpark of 3m^2 rcs. However, J-10 with a RCS of 10m^2 is absurd.

 

[Wolverine]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

From what I understand, the J-11B was designed with full spectrum air-to-surface and maritime strike capability on par with that of the Su-30MKK2s. It can carry the latest precision guided munitions in PLAAF service. I don't see how you can make a strike version of an aircraft that is already designed to be a strike jet. Anyhow, the point is mute considering we're discussing A2A lethality and nearly all training jets in air forces the world over have a secondary strike role. Of course in war-time, J-10S and J-11BS will be used on strike missions.

Um, Su-30MK2's are two-seaters, like the Su-30MKK's from which they are derived. Single-seat strike aircraft aren't ideal to say the least, that's why in so many air forces the roles are separated into pilot and WSO. That's why the J-11B IMO will be primarily A-to-A with some A-to-G and J-11BS will be primarily A-to-G with some A-to-A. Like the F-15C and F-15E.

I'm not in direct disagreement with you over the J-11B RCS; many Chinese sources claim it is the ballpark of 3m^2 rcs. However, J-10 with a RCS of 10m^2 is absurd.

Maybe, but I did say I was speculating. The point was that the J-11B isn't automatically going to have a larger overall RCS just because it's bigger. Anyway, we are way off topic now, so I'll just leave it at that.