*New J-10 Thread*

[tphuang]

Don 't think AESA is involved. Just multiple exercises across a wide range of conditions and scenarios like tphuang said.

The ratio sounds incredible though. That beats the suspiciously biased simulations where the Typhoon scored 4.5 against Su-30s and the Rafales a 1:1. I don't believe Shenyang AC would agree to that either. Interesting to see how the J-11B would go against the J-10. Such tests can make or break the J-11B project.

I believe those were achieved agains the much hyped su-35 rather than su-30.

In a way, I'm not too surprised by this. We consistently hear about J-10 beating su-27/J-11 5:0 (including an official PLA article) and beating su-30 5:0 in exercises.

Anyhow, a picture of 1006 fully loaded with all 11 hard points being used.

 

[coolieno99]

If the exercises just involved close range combat, the canard based aircraft would have a clear advantage over a conventional non-canard aircraft. Japan's FSX fighter has 1/3 the turning radius of the F-16. It has canard winglets. The U.S. govt squashed the FSX project, because it was superior to the F-16.

Source: forum.china-defense.com

 

[Deino]

Dont know how recent these are?

At least for me they are "completely" new !!! ...
By the way one of them is carrying a practice-bomb-dispenser !! :rofl:

Deino

 

[crobato]

Su-35 and Su-30 not that much of a difference really, especially in close combat.

It is understandable how the J-10 can have a few advantages.

Canards do have an advantage in close in fights, but the result does not change with the Su-35 which has canards on its own, as you can see against the Rafale and Typhoon.

Size does matter a lot, in close combat, he who sees the other first has won half the battle. Big planes are clearly in a disadvantage against small planes. Dark grey paint job on PLAAF Flankers don't help a bit, while light blue grey on the J-10s are almost perfect against the sky.

Slotted array radar on J-10s may have superior aperture (azimuth and elevation) against the radars on the Flankers. I'm not talking about the range, but the field of view, which is extremely important in close range fighting. Mechanically scanning slotted array radars are very difficult to beat when it comes to FOV, even against PESAs and AESAs. These radars can nearly gimbal for ninety degrees.

Quality of RWR. There is some that say the J-10's is better but the degree of better I don't believe to be that far. The Pastel RWR on the MKKs are pretty good, and the Beryoza RWR on the Su-27SKs/J-11s is still more than good enough to deal with any modern radar except for those with LPI.

At 31 degrees instantaneous turn rate, that certainly exceeds the Su-27 at 28 degrees and the MiG-29 at 26 degrees. That's right up there with the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale, all canarded planes. The 300 degrees roll rate per second is right there with the F-16 and the MiG-21, the two fastest rolling aircraft you see today. I expect the J-10 to roll faster than a Flanker, by the virtue that a single engined fighter will roll faster than a fighter with seperated twin engines. This has to do with the concentration of spinning mass in the plane's bore line.

I don't believe missiles play any part in this, as the wargames may be radar locking or gun/missile camera contests. I'm surprised that IRST and HMS dont play much of a factor in this; many of the J-10 pilots are not flying with HMS, though a J-10 test pilot has been shown to have HMS attachments on his helmet.

J-10 pilots may be highly experienced Flanker pilots by themselves. They would know all the ins and outs of their former steeds. Those flying the Flankers are already in an informational disadvantage. The ones on the 44th Division may have come from a J-7 background, but the J-10 pilots on the 3rd Division may have been those that once flew the MKKs which are still assigned in that division.

 

[Gollevainen]

The PLA considers "generation" based on the planes they make. Thus J-5/6 means first generation, J-7 and J-8II second generation.

Besides the other characters used to describe fighters are also the same ones used to describe Sukhois in particular

Just wanted to clear things out

Tough that "chinese way" seems bit illogical even if you look it in the frames of chinese own production. The J-7 clearly belongs to different generation compared to J-8s from both design and the development period and methods in chinese own use. So are you really sure about this "generatization"? Becouse in the light of practically anything, exspecially in the light of the chinese own aircraft manufacturing, its just doesen't make sense...

 

[crobato]

When it is described as in a PLA chinese article, you have to follow the chinese PLA context and view of things.

How can the J-8 be a generationally ahead of the J-7? The J-8 borrows the same aerodynamic design from the J-7, uses the same engine, and takes structural clues from the J-7 and even from the MiG-19/J-6.

There is a very clear generational difference between the J-8 and the J-11 in terms of aerodynamic and structural design.

 

[Gollevainen]

But if you look it how these two planes were intoduced to PLAAF, their development and manufacturing it shows clearly that they are different generation. J-7 was strugle from the early 60's and trought out the 70's chinese never really mastered it. J-8 was the first indegeniously designed fighter made and was improvement of the J-7 (tough only slight).

There is a very clear generational difference between the J-8 and the J-11 in terms of aerodynamic and structural design.

Yeas there is but I wasen't saying that J-11 and J-8 belongs to the same generation.

But this generation-depate is pointless if the article clearly mentioned that the planes in question were Flankers...
Didn't you say this?

Besides the other characters used to describe fighters are also the same ones used to describe Sukhois in particular

So what exactly did the article say?

 

[crobato]

But if you look it how these two planes were intoduced to PLAAF, their development and manufacturing it shows clearly that they are different generation. J-7 was strugle from the early 60's and trought out the 70's chinese never really mastered it. J-8 was the first indegeniously designed fighter made and was improvement of the J-7 (tough only slight).

Yeas there is but I wasen't saying that J-11 and J-8 belongs to the same generation.

You are comparing time periods. This is not the point, the aerodynamic and structural technology of the J-8II isn't much different from the J-7, and in fact, are the in the same level. The term for "generation" isn't what that covers time, but technological design. The J-8II does not belong to the same technological design level as the J-11 and the J-10, even though, like the J-7, it is still manufactured concurrently.

But this generation-depate is pointless if the article clearly mentioned that the planes in question were Flankers...
Didn't you say this?

Yes I did.

So what exactly did the article say?

I only need to point out a certain Chinese character in the title that clearly points to Sukhoi. I'm in a borrowed machine right now so I can't show it, but i made a post in the CDF using the right language enabled browser to show this. This character is also used in Chinese to denote Su-27 and Su-30. Under babelfish it translates to Soviet (SU) since the character is pronounced as "Su".

 

[Gollevainen]

You are comparing time periods. This is not the point, the aerodynamic and structural technology of the J-8II isn't much different from the J-7, and in fact, are the in the same level. The term for "generation" isn't what that covers time, but technological design. The J-8II does not belong to the same technological design level as the J-11 and the J-10, even though, like the J-7, it is still manufactured concurrently.

Not time periods, but development periods. J-7 was a reverse-engineered/licence production from completely soviet designed plane and J8 was chinese own designed plane.

I only need to point out a certain Chinese character in the title that clearly points to Sukhoi. I'm in a borrowed machine right now so I can't show it, but i made a post in the CDF using the right language enabled browser to show this. This character is also used in Chinese to denote Su-27 and Su-30. Under babelfish it translates to Soviet (SU) since the character is pronounced as "Su".

Thanks

 

[crobato]

Please note the J-8I is not the first Chinese designed indigenous fighter that ever flew or even attacined supersonic speed. The honor belongs to the original J-12, which is day only fighter built from a single Wopen-6 engine from the J-6, which uses two.

But generational is based on design. The J-5 is the first jet fighter made in China, and it corresponds to the MiG-17.

J-5, J-12, J-6 all belong to the first generation in Chinese terms. All sweep wing, mainly day fighters.

J-7, J-8I, and J-8II belong to the 2nd generation in Chinese terms. In a way, you can lump unfinished projects like the J-9, J-13 to this. What distinguishes this generation is the way they can go cleanly supersonic thanks to their delta wing and the ability to hold radar for all weather interception.

J-11 and J-10 represent the 3rd generation (4th in Western terms) that emphasized maneuverbility through special aerodynamic devices like LERX and canards, as well as electronic flight control systems.

The reason why the West has an additional generation is because the generation of the Me-262 to F-86/MiG-15 constitutes the first generation. China did receive MiG-9s and MiG-15s, but did not build them.