F-16 versus J-10

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2005, 05:11
by F-16overDPRK
So how do u think the new Chinese J-10 would fare against an F-16C/D? The Chinese claim it can compete w/ the F-16, but they could be lying...

RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2005, 05:56
by Pathfinder
I do believe it when the Chinese stated that the J-10 is comparable to the F-16 block 50s. The reason I believe it is because the J-10 contains so much U.S contents. As we know the Israelis sold technologies from the Lavi when the Chinese began this program, and even after they formally ended cooperation in this project Israelis maintained an office in China(I think it's safe to say that they were aiding the Chinese). Overall the U.S invested around 2 billion dollars into the Lavi program and only to have the technolgies ended up in Chinese hands.

There were also rumours which the PLAAF(Chinese AF) obtained several F-16 block 15s from Pakistan in the mid 1990's.

RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2005, 12:22
by kubam4a1
The J-10 can be comparable to F-16A ADF, but not to the newest F-16C's I think.
Regards,

RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2005, 15:52
by F-16overDPRK
The J-10 can match the F-16C/D, it will soon be fitted w/ the SD-10, so it will have BVR capability, just like the F-16C/D.

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2005, 23:03
by Pumpkin
If the baseline of the design is LAVI, I believe the J-10 is comparable to the C/D. Reading the specification, the Chinese is pushing it to match up a late C/D (anti-ship, anti-radiation, FLIR targeting pod), if not beyond in the near future (thrust vectored powerplant).

From some very limited pictures of the J-10B, that has the provision of a WSO, I thought I see a mini-spine.

Bottom line, the J-10 looks like a marriage/copy of Russian, US, Israel technologies, packaged with a majority of indigenous design. Unless some F-16 operator can manage to have a joint-exercise with the Chinese, it will be difficult for one to qualify the performance of the J-10.

cheers,

PS: I have been trying to find out what is the white sensor right beneath of the canopy, forward of the canard, commonly seen only on the photo of the "1013" prototype. It is absent in the delivery batch and intentioanlly deleted in one photo. Appreciate if anyone can shed some light.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2005, 20:04
by RSAF-G2
Don't worry too much about all those bumps and sensors.. It's everywhere on the photos of the RSAF and Israeli F-16I.

They cover up on the pics too but if you spend time skimming through, you will find alot more just bumps on the F-16.

Since the J-10 probably involved Israeli design just like the RSAF/IAF's F-16D, they could have shared EW suites...probably a minimized version, you can never guess wads the sensor, unless you open it up.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 08:34
by kubam4a1
I think J-10 is quite comparable to F-16C/D Block 30/40. But it's not equal to the newest 52+s and 60s. On the other hand, it can beat F-16A/B.
Regards.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2005, 02:12
by crobato
Pumpkin wrote:
PS: I have been trying to find out what is the white sensor right beneath of the canopy, forward of the canard, commonly seen only on the photo of the "1013" prototype. It is absent in the delivery batch and intentioanlly deleted in one photo. Appreciate if anyone can shed some light.


It might be an RWR.

The answer to your other question is that you got the prototypes reversed. The plane without the white blister is an earlier prototype, likely to be 1002 or 1003. 1013 is actually a very early batch of production or finalized plane undergoing final tests before entering service. It is very likely this plane has been renumbered into a regular two digit serial, indicating service status, and joined the regiment in the Flight Test and Training Center in the Beijing Military Region jurisdiction. This regiment is tasked with training, tactical development, Blue Flag aggressor and Beijing area air defense.

Sorry that the answer took several months coming.

Re: RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2005, 09:18
by Red6
Pathfinder wrote:I do believe it when the Chinese stated that the J-10 is comparable to the F-16 block 50s. The reason I believe it is because the J-10 contains so much U.S contents. As we know the Israelis sold technologies from the Lavi when the Chinese began this program, and even after they formally ended cooperation in this project Israelis maintained an office in China(I think it's safe to say that they were aiding the Chinese). Overall the U.S invested around 2 billion dollars into the Lavi program and only to have the technolgies ended up in Chinese hands.

There were also rumours which the PLAAF(Chinese AF) obtained several F-16 block 15s from Pakistan in the mid 1990's.


The radar in the J-10 is said to be a direct copy of our older F-16 radars. Quite litterally a reversed engineered copy.

The Viper definetly seems to have an advantage in my opinion.

Red6

Re: RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2005, 01:59
by crobato
There were also rumours which the PLAAF(Chinese AF) obtained several F-16 block 15s from Pakistan in the mid 1990's.


Not verifiable. Knowing the Pakistanis, it would be more like the Chinese coming to take a look at their aircraft. But Pakistan is not the only F-16 equipped country that is friendly with China. The list also includes Thailand, Singapore, Venenzuela, Indonesia and Egypt.

The radar in the J-10 is said to be a direct copy of our older F-16 radars. Quite litterally a reversed engineered copy.


Not likely. Let us not forget that the US gave a lot of information on the APG-66 itself when Grumman was trying to sell an upgrade program on the Chinese Finbacks using the said radar.

But the current Chinese fighter radars probably has more with the Israelis and the Russians to thank for.

RE: Re: RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2005, 02:18
by crobato
I do believe it when the Chinese stated that the J-10 is comparable to the F-16 block 50s.


Which Chinese stated that? The PRC goverment and the PLAAF hasn't even officially or publicized its specifications.

RE: Re: RE: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2005, 07:05
by Velvet
A very interesting airfrrame! We'll have to see what it's avionics are capable of before we judge it. It sure is pretty, though!

Re: F-16 vs. J-10

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2005, 19:26
by Red6
F-16overDPRK wrote:So how do u think the new Chinese J-10 would fare against an F-16C/D? The Chinese claim it can compete w/ the F-16, but they could be lying...

Many claim a lot. They even have “jumping tanks” and MIGS that fly a “Cobra”. :lol: Funny how real world it never seems to hold up to the test. MIG29 in the Balkans, MIGs over Iraq 1991, Vietnam, Korea, Israeli wars......

No- The J-10 would loose in a bad way. My opinion.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2005, 18:19
by elp
Crobato has extensive knowledge in this area. Most information he provides in the area of Chinese capability is highly useful. Best thing to do on most Crobato posts, is just read them. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 02:45
by Corous
Lotsa conflicting info out there about the J-10, but it is a pretty good-looking bird. I thought it had a Russian Zhuk radar, but anyway. I think both Wikipedia and sinodefence.com have some solid info on the aircraft.

When it comes to engagement with an F-16, I think more info is needed, but again, the side with more and better BVRAAMs will win IMO.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 06:13
by Aks_20
Bye bye J-10. Against an APG 68 V(9) equipped Block 52 with the latest AMRAAMs, JHMCS and Aim-9X.... :P

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 16:52
by kaptor
I'm not impressed when I check the J-10s center of balance vs it's center of pressure, it might not even be pitch unstable regardless of what the Chinese say.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2006, 20:47
by Twix101
Hi all,

Below, a photo of the cockpit prototype of the J-10 to give an idea about avionics.


Another thing, J-10 will be far superior to JF-17 in terms of avionics, and I've seen the JF-17 radar in action, it is quite good, this same plane could fire the SD-10 BVR missile0.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 09:33
by RoAF
Twix101 wrote:
a photo of the cockpit prototype of the J-10 to give an idea about avionics:

A cockpit photo can't give you any idea about the avionics. The cockpit is only the interface between the pilot and the avionics.
You can't tell what radar, EW suite, RWR, computers are on board and what their capabilities are just by looking at the cockpit.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 13:01
by HunterKiller
Nice fancy LCD-s, but they are not for target spotting, they only show what sensors see and thats all. If you have some typical Chinese sensors, they are not worth anything. And Chinese can not make avionics like USA can - they can't even match the Russian technology - for what's sake they are paying for Flankers and Foxhounds? If russian avionics is inferior to western, than any other avionics is far-far behind.

What I can see, is pool pilot vision (I hope that guy is sitting on ejection seat. Dashboard is far to high and forward-downward view is pretty poor - like Mig-23 Floggers, where you can only see your noseprobe.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 13:45
by RoAF
HunterKiller, China never bought Foxhounds (MiG-31).

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 17:30
by kaptor
Ejection seats are dangerouse and dont spen much time in developement aircraft, he's probly sitting on the Chinese equivalent of a milk crate, not uncommon at all.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:44
by saker-hawk
I think J-10 if I can put it simply will be better than the blk15,40 comparable to blk 50/52 in performance and mission effectiveness and with a better radar can compete with the Blk60 and Israeli F-16I.

The reasons I can provide is the fact that Pakistan is developing the Jf-17 which is comparable to the blk 10/15 in yaw axis manouverability although not in the pitch due to the rd33 (mig 29 engine)with less thrust and with the cool DSI intakes (a rip-off from JSF) . BUt with this performance add the BVR capability that is going to be on this poor mans Viper which makes it pretty decent.

BUt the reason I rate J-10 is that Pakistan for its advanced fighter role has decided to immediately buy around 36 of the J-10. Now Pakistan has Grippen, Rafale and with that new Blk50/52 F-16s available for the slot. Along with the political aspect in this deal Pakistan choose the J-10 with which they seem to be very impressed with now. If you read the comments of PAF ACM( heading the Jf-17 Development and production program for PAF) a few years back when they evaluated the J-10, they clearly indicate that the J-10 had an excellent structure and aerodynamics and the Chinese were progressing very well with the avionics. Now that I suppose they have met the requirements of PAF (which they take very seriously 8) ) it tells you about the confidence in the avionics and the complete system of the J-10. Therefore the J-10 can definitely be compared to the F-16 and may perform better in some flight envelopes and missions. Over all IMHO the J-10 may become far more mission effective than the Viper, but it will take a little time. J-10 is just a new fighter with pretty of time for improvement.

And oh the Ejection seats is not even an issue if Pakistan will buy it surely, it will definitely have Martin baker seats as replaced before in all the previous fighters like F-7, F-7PG, A-5s and even F-5s from China.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2006, 06:50
by kaptor
J-10 may become far more mission effective than the Viper

Explain please. Every bit of electronic equipment in the F-16 is already superior to what the Chinese are trying to copy. I'm no HUGE fan of F-16 but I'll give it it's due respect and the only part of the flight regime that the Lavi er J-10 might have a superiority is high AOA at very low speeds. But to me it looks like the canard is to heavily loaded and I'm not at all convinced the J-10 is even pitch unstable. Talk is cheap, the Chinese have yet to prove anything.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2006, 07:37
by saker-hawk
Well u do make a reasonable argument about the electronics all I can say is that its just a matter of time. China is incorporating Russian, Israeli and EU technology so fast that in a few years time it will develop very competitive avionics. But as far as the design being unstable is concerned if you dont believe that it is then all I can say is :o :lol:

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2006, 10:28
by RoAF
Well u do make a reasonable argument about the electronics all I can say is that its just a matter of time. China is incorporating Russian, Israeli and EU technology so fast that in a few years time it will develop very competitive avionics.

Yeah, but the US and Europe won't sit idle and wait for the chinese to catch up with them.
Say China could reproduce today's technology of the west in 5 years. By that time today's standard will be already surpassed in the west...

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2006, 19:02
by kaptor
Starting with later F-35s American aircraft wont even have what we now consider "avionics", they will simply be com-nodes sharing info from hyperspectral surveilance assets from all over the globe. One of the very few pilots who has flown BOTH the F-22 and F-35 developement aircraft ( and thier simulators ) said that it's no contest between the F-22 and F-35, he'd choose the F-35 for combat due to it's sensor integration. Things are moving SO quickly in this field that simply copying something wont due, you have to be a leader or you'll be wasting your time.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2006, 19:44
by saker-hawk
Lets not sway away from the topic. We are comparing the J-10 to the Viper not the F-35 which is in a notch higher. It is a replacement for the Viper but a different class. The role of the j-10 will be that of the Viper, it clearly lacks even the stealth characteristics of the JSF. So its unfair to compare both these aircraft. BUt as far as F-16 is concerned it got upgraded over the years and now it has no more room for improvement else we wouldnt have seen the jsf yet. Chuck yeager stated he would prefer the F-15 over the F-16 anyday as F-16 lacks the room for so much electronics u wuld want for various roles. On the other hand J-10 is new with more room for upgrade and certainly better manuverability. Lets not forget China is developing its own engines and may even use TVC which would give J-10 the edge. BUt then the F-16 can use the AIm-9X with helmet mounted cueing system :lol: this is just great. Does anyone know if Chinese have developed/copied their own hmcs?

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2006, 20:06
by kaptor
On the other hand J-10 is new with more room for upgrade and certainly better manuverability

What in the world do you base that speculation on, no-one has any idea what's inside the J-10, the quality of that kit and how large and primative it is or isn't. Very little if any manueverability info for the J-10 ( other than near useless press releases to generate sales ).

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2006, 08:44
by HunterKiller
saker-hawk wrote:I think J-10 if I can put it simply will be better than the blk15,40 comparable to blk 50/52 in performance and mission effectiveness and with a better radar can compete with the Blk60 and Israeli F-16I.


Your statement is based on what?

Do you know or do you guess?

If you know, present your sources, not just troll.

All Easten planes were at first "better and more effective" that Western. Remember Mig-21, Mig-29 and so on. But only in theory.

Airforce is complicated issue and sucess does not depend only on aircraft performance, but on who can exploit his performance better.

European avionics was never comparable with American one and will never be, because European countries do not have enough money, even if they co-operate. And this co-operation is hard and unflexible - remember Tornado - first technical requirements were issued in 1965! Planes came operational mid 1980-s!!! Same about Eurofighter. Too many controversary requirements and interest.

So that cooperation with Russia (who is 20 years behind) and some European companies wont help them to dominate in the world. Because what they got is not the most up-to-date and I doubt if Europeans will sell them all their secrets.

Russian/Chinese traning, tactics, support, intel and other issuses are sometimes comparable to post WWII era.

After AIM-9X and JHMCS and its possible new deveopments maneuverability is not first issue anymore. Missiles can any way turn better than manned airplane.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2006, 00:52
by Viper786
wanna know something funny that Pakistan is the only country to get J-10's and they have american F-16's too and with there induction of JF-17s with latest avionics and there good pilots i see PAF a very good airforce

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2006, 12:49
by RoAF
and there good pilots i see PAF a very good airforce

They are so good they managed to shoot down one of their own Mirages in peacetime - April 20th 2006 near Karachi.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2006, 04:39
by Viper786
:lol:, I never heard of that but PAF is known as one the best airforces.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2006, 07:35
by RoAF
PAF is known as one the best airforce

Among its supporters, yes. But I really doubt that's true.
I don't want to be misunderstood, but I'm sick and tired of reading on almost all aviation forums about how good PAF pilots are.

No matter how talented PAF pilots are, they can't log hundreds of hours per year because their jets can't stay in the air that long. Mirages are old and there's a lot of maintenance to be done on them. Chinese-built planes (F-7) are a maintenance nightmare and the F-16 are just a few (34)

Here is an interview with a PAF F-16 squadron leader
http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article6.html

He clearly states this: "I have been flying the viper since 1990. But there was a break of 2 1/2 years in between when I did a tenure as a Flight Instructor in PAF Academy. Due to some restrictions, we do not fly as much as USAF or Turkish AF pilots do, therefore I only have about 500 hours on the F-16."

Now this site is active since 2003 in its present form. This interview was among the first ones. So 2003 - 1990 is 13 years minus 2and a half years he spent not flying is roughly 10 years for 500 hours. That means that a PAF F-16 squadron leader flew 50 hours per year . A pilot needs to fly at least 100 hours per year to be considered operational and 180 to be combat ready…

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 03:53
by Viper786
RoAF and your point being what, obviously Pakistan can long as many hour as USAF or Turkish Airforce because they have a more capable airforce, and look at Pakistan they're pretty good for what they have in there inventory, please be realistic here and compare them to India where they dont even log as many as a 100 hours, ( im look for the link)

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 09:03
by RoAF
RoAF and your point being what

My point is that they can't be one of the best air forces as long as they don't fly enough - according to their own statements compared to NATO standards. I tend to believe numbers, not stories.
obviously Pakistan can long as many hour as USAF or Turkish Airforce because they have a more capable airforce, and look at Pakistan they're pretty good for what they have in there inventory

Looks like you didn't read the quoted text in my previous post.
please be realistic here and compare them to India

Why? So we could start a flame war here? When assessing flying hours for country X or Y everybody uses NATO standards as a comparison term. Why should this time be different?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 06:22
by blain2
RoAF wrote:My point is that they can't be one of the best air forces as long as they don't fly enough - according to their own statements compared to NATO standards. I tend to believe numbers, not stories.


As you should. PAF has and continues to fly along NATO standards barring the times when they were the most sanctioned airforce in the world (1989-2000). Also the guy you quote Sqn Ldr Sameen Mazhar was stating the # of hours he has flown the Viper and he had breaks from it due to his assignments as a flight instructor which is not very typical of all PAF F-16 pilots. Also during the sanction prone days obviously the number of hours flown on the F-16s were impacted. However prior to it and now, PAF continues to fly around 180 hrs/year.

Here is a recent one from the horses mouth (Chief of the PAF) about the challenges with the flying hours and how they have been restored to 180 hours per year (which is considered competent by NATO standards as well):

PAKISTAN - PLUGGING THE GAPS
Robert Karniol JDW's Asia-Pacific Editor
Bangkok

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) lost an average of nine aircraft annually through attrition over the period 2000-03, but this has halved over the past two years. "We enhanced our flying," explained Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat, the chief of air staff. While acting as PAF chief of operations ACM Kaleem launched an initiative to reduce losses due to pilot error. He spoke to Jane's shortly before his retirement on 20 March, when Air Marshal Tanveer Ahmad Khan assumed the top post.

"In 2000, our flying per pilot was in the region of nine hours per month. We have progressively taken this up to 15 hours, or 15 sorties," he said, adding that the figure has now stabilised.

This expansion of flying hours is paralleled by increasingly complex exercises. These include the introduction of surface effects in dissimilar air combat training exercises and intensified operations. The latter saw one air base generate 175 sorties in a day during a trial, for example, while the PAF as a whole flew 8,000 sorties of various types in a month during the September 2005 Exercise 'High Mark'.

Another core development is the PAF's rewrite of its basic doctrine, which dated back to 1988.

"We tried to amplify the characteristics of air power for our sister services," said ACM Kaleem, noting that this also outlines force goals and new missions. The doctrine was released in April 2005 and a revised edition has just been completed following input from the army and navy.

The focus in combat aircraft is on preparing for the introduction of the JF-17 (FC-1 Super-7) attack fighter: a collaborative programme with China involving 150 platforms. This will become the PAF's mainstay fighter as older models are phased out, with delivery of four aircraft from the first small batch production due in March 2007.


Russian sources have told Jane's that the RD-93 engine powering the Chinese model will not be re-exported to Pakistan, but ACM Kaleem says that Beijing has provided solid assurances otherwise.

Three prototypes now undergoing evaluation are fitted with a Chinese radar, probably the NRIET KLJ-10, and this will outfit the Pakistani fighter if it performs as required.

Beyond this, ACM Kaleem says there is an outstanding requirement for 35-50 additional advanced fighters. Plans to acquire more Lockheed Martin F-16s were suspended due to the October 2005 earthquake that devastated Pakistan. This could delay any deal by at least two to three years. The air chief is concerned that both circumstances and requirements may have changed by then, necessitating new negotiations and still further delays, and he suggests that Islamabad may end up turning again to China.

This could also impinge on plans to obtain the Joint Direct Attack Munition, which has been requested from the US.

The PAF has meanwhile finalised a contract for Italy's Galileo Falco medium-altitude endurance tactical UAV, with delivery due in December. Four systems are involved and these will supplement an indigenous UAV already deployed but requiring further development.

ACM Kaleem says tactical and strategic-lift assets are currently sufficient. Strategic-lift assets have been supplemented by six Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport aircraft to bolster the 10 currently operational. The first of these arrives in March and all will be delivered before 2007. Twelve C-130s should then be upgraded to C-130H standard, including a glass cockpit, with the remainder placed in storage.

The PAF is also upgrading its air-defence network, including indigenous development of a multiradar tracker and graphic user interface. The service has also acquired several new radar systems from China, including the YLC-2 long-range 3-D phased-array surveillance system and previously unknown YLC-6 low-level system. Six of 10 YLC-6 radars on order have so far been delivered and Pakistan is also gaining six US-made AN/TPS-77 tactical mobile radars for medium-level application.


ACM Kaleem says that Pakistan has also finalised a contract with Sweden for the Saab-Ericsson airborne early warning and control aircraft, thought to involve seven platforms. This has the Ericsson Microwave Systems Erieye airborne radar mounted on a Saab 2000 turboprop aircraft.

Talks are now under way to replace the Thales Defence Systems Crotale low-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, with the current inventory including 11 acquisition units and 23 firing units.

Discussion involves acquiring the MBDA Spada 2000 low- to medium-altitude SAM system, which offers both tactical and strategic mobility that includes air-transportability by C-130 Hercules. A contract could be finalised before the current financial year ends in June.

A pilot needs to fly at least 100 hours per year to be considered operational and 180 to be combat ready…


I think PAF is right about there (I.e. 180 mark).

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 09:12
by RoAF
blain2, thank you for your comprehensive answer!

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2006, 05:41
by Viper786
so does this thread come to a conclusion on whos the better one ???

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2006, 18:12
by Ayubi
Viper786 wrote:so does this thread come to a conclusion on whos the better one ???


How can you compare something when you don't really have something to compare in the first place? Do you know what kind or radar the J-10 uses? It's range etc, do you know the avionces it uses. Agreed that it's a new fighter which obviously means that it has room for upgrades. The only thing we actully have to the J-10 is that pakistan air force is very impressed with it and want to buy it, along with the thunder and the falcon blk50/52.

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2006, 07:00
by Corsair1963
Ayubi wrote:
Viper786 wrote:so does this thread come to a conclusion on whos the better one ???


How can you compare something when you don't really have something to compare in the first place? Do you know what kind or radar the J-10 uses? It's range etc, do you know the avionces it uses. Agreed that it's a new fighter which obviously means that it has room for upgrades. The only thing we actully have to the J-10 is that pakistan air force is very impressed with it and want to buy it, along with the thunder and the falcon blk50/52.



If, Pakistan was so impressed with the J-10 why purchase F-16's at all............... :shock:

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2006, 18:21
by Viper786
so your trying to say that Pakistan should stick to one aircraft, so what if there interested in J-10, J-10 does cover all the gaps in PAF and with the purchase of F-16 it improves there air force wouldn't you say.

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2006, 22:56
by Corsair1963
Viper786 wrote:so your trying to say that Pakistan should stick to one aircraft, so what if there interested in J-10, J-10 does cover all the gaps in PAF and with the purchase of F-16 it improves there air force wouldn't you say.



I am just saying if the J-10 was truely the equal of the F-16. Why would Pakistan bother with the Viper in the first place? Especially, considering that the American Fighter is alot more expensive and the US has place embargoes on it in the past.................. :?:

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2006, 22:56
by Corous
Corsair1963 wrote:I am just saying if the J-10 was truely the equal of the F-16. Why would Pakistan bother with the Viper in the first place? Especially, considering that the American Fighter is alot more expensive and the US has place embargoes on it in the past.................. :?:


I think if we try to get into the Pakistanis' shoes, it comes down to this: on the one hand, you have a mature platform that has been proven to be capable but is expensive; on the other hand, you have a newer, cheaper platform that has potentials but still needs to be worked on. So what the Pakistanis are doing is a logical move: get a bunch of the mature platform to fulfill their immediate needs while investing into the newer and less-expensive platform in the hope that it will be as capable and thus more cost-effective in the near future.

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2006, 23:12
by Corsair1963
Corous wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am just saying if the J-10 was truely the equal of the F-16. Why would Pakistan bother with the Viper in the first place? Especially, considering that the American Fighter is alot more expensive and the US has place embargoes on it in the past.................. :?:


I think if we try to get into the Pakistanis' shoes, it comes down to this: on the one hand, you have a mature platform that has been proven to be capable but is expensive; on the other hand, you have a newer, cheaper platform that has potentials but still needs to be worked on. So what the Pakistanis are doing is a logical move: get a bunch of the mature platform to fulfill their immediate needs while investing into the newer and less-expensive platform in the hope that it will be as capable and thus more cost-effective in the near future.



In Pakistan case a mix of both is not a bad idea...........yet, the J-10 as it is currently available is not even close in capability to Blk 50/60 F-16's. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2006, 05:07
by Corous
Corsair1963 wrote:
In Pakistan case a mix of both is not a bad idea...........yet, the J-10 as it is currently available is not even close in capability to Blk 50/60 F-16's. :roll:


Agreed, especially in turns of A-G capability.

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2006, 20:31
by Grounded1971
I'm not too well informed on the J-10, nor do I wish to get an India/Pakistan fight going, but from the official Indian websites they seem pretty confident about their successes in 1965, 1971 and Kargil in 1999:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/index.html

There is a claim floating around that a Fulcrum successfully achieved lock-on to a Pakistani F-16 in May 1999 but there is a disproportionate amount of attention on any incident betweent the 2 airforces however minor.

The official Indian Airfoce site contains some info re training regime, flight hours logged and so forth:

http://indianairforce.nic.in/

Back to the main issue, my money would be on the Viper but the circumstances and variables are so great the original question would really need to be rephrased.

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2006, 22:53
by Corsair1963
Clearly, Indian has a much more capable Air Force. Yet, its really more about deterrents for Pakistan than to win any likley conflict................... :?

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2006, 19:13
by blain2
Grounded1971 wrote:I'm not too well informed on the J-10, nor do I wish to get an India/Pakistan fight going, but from the official Indian websites they seem pretty confident about their successes in 1965, 1971 and Kargil in 1999:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/index.html

There is a claim floating around that a Fulcrum successfully achieved lock-on to a Pakistani F-16 in May 1999 but there is a disproportionate amount of attention on any incident betweent the 2 airforces however minor.

The official Indian Airfoce site contains some info re training regime, flight hours logged and so forth:

http://indianairforce.nic.in/

Back to the main issue, my money would be on the Viper but the

circumstances and variables are so great the original question would really need to be rephrased.


The issue about the lock-on has been making circles around the web without any foundation or basis. ACIG is the only place on the entire web which has this lock on against the PAF when in fact, around the world, nobody considers a lock-on (and that too one that has been made through the grape-vine) to be of any major significance. Also keep in mind that unlike in the Aegean sea where TuAF and HAF are constantly involved in mock combat, PAF and IAF did not engage in this in Kargil. Both sides kept to their own in order to keep the situation from escalating.

Also if you add lock-ons as a judging criteria, then I think quite a few airforces (including the PAF) would have some more lines added to their credits. I am sure USAF has a few lock-ons from the days of NFZ over Iraq etc. etc...hopefully you get the drift.

IAF is a big AF and a professional arm, but again their claims in 65 and 71 are hotly contested by the other side and the other way around. In Kargil, nothing extraordinary was done by the IAF (which lost a few aircraft to SAMs and ) aside from 5-7 LGB sorties against ground troops. Most of the combat was burdened by the land forces.

Having said that, I would not want the two to mix up now as IAF does have considerable edge in terms of new platforms at its disposal making the task of air defence even harder for Pakistani aircrews.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2006, 17:18
by RoAF

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2006, 23:00
by Corous


LOL, someone scanned the entire article from Air Forces Monthly?

Anyways, found a picture of some kind of IOC ceremony of the first J-10 squadron on Sinodefence.com, thought I'd share it with ya all.

Image

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2006, 14:04
by Scorpion1alpha
Corous wrote:


LOL, someone scanned the entire article from Air Forces Monthly?

Anyways, found a picture of some kind of IOC ceremony of the first J-10 squadron on Sinodefence.com, thought I'd share it with ya all.

Image


That is a good and interesting photo.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2007, 01:54
by Loader2088
If anyone is interested, International Air Power Review has a long article on the J-10 in the current Volume 22. Full of photos and lots of discussion on the development of the fighter. They claim to debunk the Lavi-clone theory.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2007, 00:19
by eerie
Could the J-10 be the answer to the F-16. I forsee an export to smaller countries, such as AFrican continent and some small European market. I ll not be surprise if i see it in South East Asia in the future.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2008, 02:37
by MiG
The F-16 rules

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2008, 18:15
by yasirbhojani
I THOUGHT THAT J-10, RAFALE, GRIPEN AND EUROFIGHTER WERE ALL COMPARABLE TO EACH OTHER AND SO, WERE BETTER THAN ANY VERSION OF F-16'S....

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2008, 22:47
by outlaw162
yasirbhojani wrote:I THOUGHT THAT J-10, ........ AND SO, WERE BETTER THAN ANY VERSION OF F-16'S....


The PAF should eventually have the definitive answer on that. Please, let us know what they determine.

regards, OL

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2008, 00:59
by MiG
outlaw162 wrote:
yasirbhojani wrote:I THOUGHT THAT J-10, ........ AND SO, WERE BETTER THAN ANY VERSION OF F-16'S....


The PAF should eventually have the definitive answer on that. Please, let us know what they determine.

regards, OL


Many equate canards to a total superiority in an airframe, others forget that each aircraft has a totally different configuration despite even being close couple delta-canard aircraft.

Aircraft like the Gripen might have even less impressive sustained turn rates than even the MiG-29 or F-16, despite in instantaneous turn rate are usually better.

The F-16 armed with python V or IRIS-T totally outclasses the J-10 with PL-9 or PL-8.

the PL-10 and teh AIM-120 comparasion should be different but i do not think the J-10 outclasses the F-16 specially since newer F-16 versions have more thrust to weight ratio and very advanced AAMs

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2009, 13:42
by foxbat25mig
I think J-10 is comparable to F-16C/D。However, maybe F-16C/D is a little better

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2009, 08:16
by kingcobra
Grounded1971 wrote:I'm not too well informed on the J-10, nor do I wish to get an India/Pakistan fight going, but from the official Indian websites they seem pretty confident about their successes in 1965, 1971 and Kargil in 1999:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/index.html

There is a claim floating around that a Fulcrum successfully achieved lock-on to a Pakistani F-16 in May 1999 but there is a disproportionate amount of attention on any incident betweent the 2 airforces however minor.

The official Indian Airfoce site contains some info re training regime, flight hours logged and so forth:

http://indianairforce.nic.in/

Back to the main issue, my money would be on the Viper but the circumstances and variables are so great the original question would really need to be rephrased.



Pakistani airforce won every battle with India.
1965,1971,1999

13th December2008, Pakistani F-16s successfully locks-on Indian su-30mki and mirage 2000. :thumb:


When we arrived in Pakistan in 1971, the political situation between the Pakistanis and Indians was really tense over Bangladesh.

The Pakistanis whipped their asses in the sky, but it was the other way around in the ground war. The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I'm certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks on Pakistani soil, documented them by serial number, identified the components such as engines, rocket pods, and new equipment on newer planes like the Soviet SU-7 fighter-bomber and the MiG-21 J, their latest supersonic fighter. The Pakistani army would cart off these items for me, and when the war ended, it took two big American Air Force cargo lifters to carry all those parts back to the States for analysis by our intelligence division.
(General (Retd.) Chuck Yeager (USAF) , Book: Yeager, the Autobiography).
:cheers: :salute:

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2009, 09:34
by yasirbhojani
Pakistani airforce won every battle with India.
1965,1971,1999

13th December2008, Pakistani F-16s successfully locks-on Indian su-30mki and mirage 2000.


When we arrived in Pakistan in 1971, the political situation between the Pakistanis and Indians was really tense over Bangladesh.

The Pakistanis whipped their asses in the sky, but it was the other way around in the ground war. The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I'm certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks on Pakistani soil, documented them by serial number, identified the components such as engines, rocket pods, and new equipment on newer planes like the Soviet SU-7 fighter-bomber and the MiG-21 J, their latest supersonic fighter. The Pakistani army would cart off these items for me, and when the war ended, it took two big American Air Force cargo lifters to carry all those parts back to the States for analysis by our intelligence division.
(General (Retd.) Chuck Yeager (USAF) , Book: Yeager, the Autobiography).



Thanks " kingcobra " for great information.
I wish there was a picture or video out there about our vipers locking onto Indian Flankers and Mirages. Is there any ? I know its kind of weird but I am crazy on this. Could anyone post it right here if he/she has the permission to do so ?

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2011, 12:00
by tonini
F-16 (c/d) is more economical and better armed but J-10 is faster and (according to Chinese military) have better radar and BVR.

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/j-10-vs-f-16/

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2012, 18:28
by sherdils
At the moment, Chengdu is embarking upon the series production of the newest version of the Jian-10. The J-10B consists of Divertless Supersonic Intake (DSI) design, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Infra-Red Search & Track (IRST) sensor/probe, Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) on airframe, New-Gen Electronic Warfare (EW) suite, and most importantly, powered by WS-10 Taihang engines. With such new technologies being introduced, the J-10B is well set to match and/or outclass the F-16 C/Ds, in nearly every air combat parameter.

The Shenyang WS-10 Taihang engines are rated more powerful than the Saturn AL-31 engines. Producing 30,000lbs of thrust (WS-10B), which is the engine variant designated for the J-10B Dragon. Engine's design is centered on FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and the technology on the engine has matured since it's inception, which was back in 2002, a decade ago. The engine gives the J-10B the capability of challenging any adversary in it's class. The WS-10 Taihangs are also set for TVC (Thrust Vector Control) technology, which is intended later production Blocks of J-10Bs.

FYI, there is an intended acquisition plan of a total of (150) J-10Bs, by Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The initial agreement was signed in 2006 and Pakistan Air Force (PAF) would take the first delivery J-10Bs, by end of 2013. The first batch of J-10Bs for Pakistan Air Force (PAF), would be of 40 aircraft.

In related news, China has, over the years, pitted it's J-10A's against Russian made Su-30MKK Flankers and Su-27s. The over all result, in air-to-air combat, has been decisively in favor of the J-10A, who has consistently defeated the Su-30MKK Flanker in engagements. This is perhaps the single most inviting reason why Pakistan has chosen the J-10B, an improved and more advance version of the Chengdu fighter. Effectively insuring Pakistan Air Force having a potent deterrent against the enemy, hindustan's Su-30MKi Flanker.

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2012, 21:16
by southernphantom
My question would be: will the J-10B enter service in sufficient numbers to accomplish anything, and if it does, will the F-35 have reached IOC and moderate-scale service by that date??

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2012, 21:53
by wrightwing
sherdils wrote:At the moment, Chengdu is embarking upon the series production of the newest version of the Jian-10. The J-10B consists of Divertless Supersonic Intake (DSI) design, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Infra-Red Search & Track (IRST) sensor/probe, Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) on airframe, New-Gen Electronic Warfare (EW) suite, and most importantly, powered by WS-10 Taihang engines. With such new technologies being introduced, the J-10B is well set to match and/or outclass the F-16 C/Ds, in nearly every air combat parameter.


I'd be curious to see the comparisons between the APG-80/RACR/SABR, and a first generation Chinese system, in terms of real world capability/functionality. Additionally, it's sort of ambiguous, mentioning RAM, as most 4th Gen fighters have some sort of RAM usage. It'd also be interesting to see how capable the EW suite is compared to the latest available for the F-16. Now let's talk about weapons integration/flexibility. How many different types of PGMs are available for the J-10. The F-16 can carry a huge variety of stores, sensor pods, etc... I suspect that the F-16 would have an edge in air to air weapons as well, with JHMCS/AIM-9X, and AIM-120C7/D.

The Shenyang WS-10 Taihang engines are rated more powerful than the Saturn AL-31 engines. Producing 30,000lbs of thrust (WS-10B), which is the engine variant designated for the J-10B Dragon. Engine's design is centered on FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and the technology on the engine has matured since it's inception, which was back in 2002, a decade ago. The engine gives the J-10B the capability of challenging any adversary in it's class. The WS-10 Taihangs are also set for TVC (Thrust Vector Control) technology, which is intended later production Blocks of J-10Bs.



What's the TBO on the WS-10s these days? They were pretty unreliable not too long ago.

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 15:37
by sherdils
southernphantom wrote:My question would be: will the J-10B enter service in sufficient numbers to accomplish anything, and if it does, will the F-35 have reached IOC and moderate-scale service by that date??


The intended total acquisition of J-10s by China is between the 500-700 mark. Mind you, this is only for the PLAAF and does not count any possible interest or intent by PLANAF.

Given the current state of the JSF program, it is hard to say. As I read in this month's issue of Air International, things aren't looking all that well for the F-35 Lightning ll. In fact, there are rumors that everyone (in the US Congress and White House) are waiting or wanting for the other to pull the plug on the JSF program.

The simple reason for this atmosphere is because the estimated cost of the F-35 Lightning ll, is mushrooming to the extent that it is threatening to exceed the cost of it's big brother, the far superior, F-22A Raptor.

Now considering the fact that the JSF program touted the F-35 to be an affordable, cost-effective and advance fighter, and was marketed to the partner nations as such. The news of the growing costs on the JSF program, has in fact, discouraged the partner nations. In turn, these partner nations (Norway, Netherlands, Britain, Canada, Italy, Australia and Turkey) are actually looking to either reduce the number they originally intended to buy or scrap the procurement plans all together.

Today, there is a heated debate going on in Canada, to scrap the procurement of F-35 Lightning ll.

So to say whether the J-10B would be operational in sufficient numbers, before or by the time the F-35s are in service, is anyone's guess. We shall have to wait and see how China goes about it's design, development and full scale production of it's new fighter-jets, such as the J-10B, J-11B, J-20 & J-15s.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 22:52
by firstimpulse
sherdils wrote:
southernphantom wrote:My question would be: will the J-10B enter service in sufficient numbers to accomplish anything, and if it does, will the F-35 have reached IOC and moderate-scale service by that date??


Given the current state of the JSF program, it is hard to say. As I read in this month's issue of Air International, things aren't looking all that well for the F-35 Lightning ll. In fact, there are rumors that everyone (in the US Congress and White House) are waiting or wanting for the other to pull the plug on the JSF program.


The JSF is a pretty good example of "Too big to fail". Regardless of how good the program's doing, which actually isn't anywhere near cancellation, several countries have lined up to buy the fighter. And more are doing so- some good examples being Japan and Taiwan (although ROC might not get what they want because of the appeasment the US is using on the PRC).
The F-35 is one of (if not THE) largest technical challenge ever attempted in aeronautics. Not surprising they've hit several snags.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 23:05
by firstimpulse
southernphantom wrote:My question would be: will the J-10B enter service in sufficient numbers to accomplish anything, and if it does, will the F-35 have reached IOC and moderate-scale service by that date??


And my answer to this is... Probably not. The J-10B is a pretty big technical leap over the original verison, similar to how the very latest block 60 Viper compares to a C/D model, IIRC. I believe the current focus of the PLAAF is to get rid of its antiques, and then hit the 4.5/5th generation platforms. They're replacing the antiques with classics- going from F-4E class J-8s to F-15C class J-11s.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2013, 07:34
by bayernfan
firstimpulse wrote:
southernphantom wrote:My question would be: will the J-10B enter service in sufficient numbers to accomplish anything, and if it does, will the F-35 have reached IOC and moderate-scale service by that date??


And my answer to this is... Probably not. The J-10B is a pretty big technical leap over the original verison, similar to how the very latest block 60 Viper compares to a C/D model, IIRC. I believe the current focus of the PLAAF is to get rid of its antiques, and then hit the 4.5/5th generation platforms. They're replacing the antiques with classics- going from F-4E class J-8s to F-15C class J-11s.


Recent news is that J-10B enters mass-production phase. Apparently China is making a big deal out of it. It certainly no match for fifth generation F-22 and F-35, but how about with F-16 newer version? or even F-15, F/A-18 (sorry for the little off-topic)?