Hyperwarp
Captain
What is your view on the J-10C possibly defeating the J-16 in BVR?
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
What is your view on the J-10C possibly defeating the J-16 in BVR?
Nothing crazy about it necessarily, though it naturally goes with what the rules of engagement were (particularly in terms of BVR missile load).
The RCS of a J-16 is still likely to be significantly larger than a J-10C despite both likely having RCS reduction measures for 4+ gen aircraft. Of course, J-16 has a larger radar to offset J-10C which should in theory be more powerful overall assuming their radars are of equivalent technology.
IMO it then becomes a matter of a combination of their other avionics systems (ESM, EW, sensor fusion, cockpit design), as well as the aircraft's ability to defeat opposing BVR missiles, and pilot skill in reacting accordingly to the nuances of BVR combat.
But another factor is missile load, i.e.: a heavier fighter like J-16 can in theory carry more BVR loads than a lighter fighter like J-10C. I assume they moved to simulate both aircraft with realistic missile "shots" to make things logical.
Based on all of the above, the idea of J-10C defeating J-16 is far from crazy -- I think between the two of them, one of them has to win, and they're close enough in avionics and weapons suite but with some of their own added advantages and disadvantages relevant to the BVR domain that it could definitely be a toss up.
.... I would say though, that we don't know how close the contest was between J-10C and any of the other competitors, afaik.
Apparently the F-16 has slightly? better kinematics WVR than the F-15. I've noticed this being commented upon a number of times over the years.
So it shouldn't be a surprise if the same applies with the J-10 and J-11
I think "counting details" in terms of each aircraft's respective potential kinematics is probably getting too granular if we are trying to explain the results of that golden helmet exercise if J-10C did win.
That is to say, between J-10C and J-16 in particular, it is not unrealistic to imagine either of them being able to win a particular series of engagements. For all we know the results may be reversed next year.
I think we have no basis to think that there's some kind of inherent advantage or disadvantage that either platform enjoys.
A similar thinking should apply for those two aircraft to vs Su-35 -- for all we know Su-35 may be next year. One persistent difference of course is that Su-35's avionics and weapons suite will likely continue to be markedly inferior to the latest weapons that contemporary PLA 4+ gen platforms enjoy, which I think we can consider to be degree of an inherent difference.
F-16 probably has better WVR kinematics than the F-15 under certain conditions (subsonic, low altitude). Different aircraft are optimized for different flight envelopes. Since the J-10 series are optimized for the supersonic regime, I don't think it has that big of an advantage against a flanker with similar avionics during a turning fight.
Agreed. While the flankers are some of the best WVR fighters in their class, they are relatively large and inert fighters. Those giant heavy turbofans don't help recover lost energy from TVC operation either (except thrust). Flanker T/W is way ahead of J-10C though unless somehow the WS-15 has miraculously made its way onboard the J-10 already. WVR success isn't that surprising because the flankers are the best WVR fighters in that large, heavy class. Doesn't mean F-16s and Typhoons wouldn't be flying circles around then. Compared to a F-15 or F-14 though... the flanker is impressive for sure. Still some of the best sustained turn rates in the world, under certain speed and altitudes.
WVR successes are more indicative of pilot ability and maybe HMD/S + HOBS factors. Beating the J-16 BVR is the real surprise here. That's the whole point of J-16!
Last edited:
The radar and RCS argument assumes the J-16 would have had a difficult time with the J-10C RCS which if true, would be seriously disappointing. The J-10C isn't stealthy in the least, especially with air to air missiles. Let's say all the equivalent levels of technologies are present, the J-16 may detect the J-10C slightly later but even PL-15s launched from the J-10C will be obvious enough to the flanker pilot who will have huge missile and fuel advantages. J-16 can carry 10 MRAAMs? I think the J-10C is at 6? Then the massive fuel advantage of the flanker. Fourth gen BVR between similar EW, ECM, avionics platforms are attrition which the J-16 should win overall if enough simulated engagements are played out. RCS and radar ability difference MUST therefore be the reason behind this surprise (to me at least) and that is surprising!
I find it hard to believe J-10C has whatever EW cloaking magic that somehow PLAAF isn't putting on a more expensive fighter with considerably more engine power and onboard space.
Do we have all previous records of Golden helmet competition? I mean if we know who won in 2018, 2019, we should know also the previous years 
?
?
I'm not suggesting that J-16 would have had a "difficult time" with the J-10C RCS, but more that the overall balance of each side's RCS, weapons loadout, active sensors and EW and ESM may have been enough to put both aircraft on an even footing.
I.e.: for one, I don't think a J-16 is necessarily significantly inherently superior to J-10C in BVR assuming a similar engagement profile for each side and similar fuel loads etc -- of course, having those "engagement parameters" be equal for a series of DACT engagements makes sense, but for system of systems warfare those parameters may not be useful or reliable and larger theater level exercises like Red Sword would probably alter those parameters to be suitably more realistic.
When you introduce force multipliers and other confounding factors then the effective net combat potential of each platform will likely differ -- if we take a very simple hypothetical e.g.: four J-16s + AEW&C vs four J-10C + AEW&C --- I would say that the effective net combat potential will likely slide meaningfully towards to the J-16s, because each J-16 carries more A2A missile than each equivalent J-10C, and each side's AEW&C will likely largely cancel out any differences in RCS between the individual fighter platforms, and also because the J-16's significantly greater endurance means they can maneuvre to defeat incoming missiles and then re-engage as well with greater freedom than a J-10C that has ejected its fuel tanks.
But even the addition of a mere AEW&C significantly changes the way that a four ship formation of each aircraft may have their combat capability enhanced or depleted, and in a real conflict with more confounding factors, the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft type will also be further altered depending on the environment.
And I also repeat, we don't know how close the margin of victory/defeat was. I would be surprised if J-10C completely dominated J-16 -- but I wouldn't be surprised if J-10C managed to eke out a small but notable margin of victory because I think the strengths and weaknesses of J-10C and J-16 on a fighter platform vs fighter platform comparison (i.e.: not system of systems warfare) are largely equal for the kind of tactical DACT type exercises that Golden Helmet is thought to be.
Putting it another way, on an individual fighter platform vs individual fighter platform kind of engagement or a limited multi ship vs multi ship type engagement, I don't think either J-16 or J-10C has any inherent overwhelming advantages or disadvantages versus one or the other.
But that isn't to say that they do not have advantages and disadvantages at more complex system of system environments.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You guys are trying to read way too much from a single data point. J10Cs coming up on top this year by itself does not categorically prove it to be the best non-stealth fighter in the PLAAF.
In previous years golden helmets, there have been times when J10s dominated one year and J11s the next. It’s only if J10Cs dominate year after year for at least 2-3 years that we can start to draw any conclusions on the respective capacities of the aircrafts themselves.
What I do not see even considered is often cited as the most important direct factor in air combat outcomes - pilot skill.
People often seem to think of the PLAAF as some giant homogeneous clone factory where everyone does everything exactly the same across China, but the very fact that we have so much variation in results from Golden Helmets proves that lie.
I think PLAAF regiments gets a surprising amount of leeway to innovate and deviate from standard doctrine if that improves their combat effectiveness.
After each year’s Golden Helmets, the winners write up their winning formula, which is then made compulsory reading for all other PLAAF fighter units, and that then becomes a core part of next year’s training syllabus, and in turn may inspire new tactics and strategies in other units who then go on to win it the next year, so on and so forth to create a positive feedback loop on continuous improvement, which is imo, a, if not the core point of golden helmets.
In previous years golden helmets, there have been times when J10s dominated one year and J11s the next. It’s only if J10Cs dominate year after year for at least 2-3 years that we can start to draw any conclusions on the respective capacities of the aircrafts themselves.
What I do not see even considered is often cited as the most important direct factor in air combat outcomes - pilot skill.
People often seem to think of the PLAAF as some giant homogeneous clone factory where everyone does everything exactly the same across China, but the very fact that we have so much variation in results from Golden Helmets proves that lie.
I think PLAAF regiments gets a surprising amount of leeway to innovate and deviate from standard doctrine if that improves their combat effectiveness.
After each year’s Golden Helmets, the winners write up their winning formula, which is then made compulsory reading for all other PLAAF fighter units, and that then becomes a core part of next year’s training syllabus, and in turn may inspire new tactics and strategies in other units who then go on to win it the next year, so on and so forth to create a positive feedback loop on continuous improvement, which is imo, a, if not the core point of golden helmets.