F-35 versus J-10

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Whiteman_B2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 05 May 2005, 21:13
  • Location: MO, USA

Unread post09 Sep 2006, 20:37

Anyone care to speculate as to how the Lightning (or even the Raptor) would fare against the "best" the PROC has to offer? :lol:
Offline

TS

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2006, 06:47

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 01:39

Gladly ....

OK let's see...

BVR Battle .... showers of entirely undetected AIM-120Ds demolishing PLAAF squadrons in no time......

WVR Battle ... (it won't be even remotely necessary to happen but just a comment to have further fun) : showers of AIM-9Xs taking out any pitiful soul that may have survived from BVR slaughter above and was 'lucky' to escape.

NET Score : J-10 Vs America's Best : 10000000..........000000000 - 0 in favor of the best Air Force in the world called USAF.

FACTORS ON WHICH ASSUMPTIONS PRESENTED HERE-IN ARE BASED :

THE CONSTANTLY PROOVEN AND UNDENIABLE SUPREMACY OF :

A. AMERICAN MILITARY AVIATION HARDWARE

and even more importantly...

B. THE TRAINING AND DEDICATION OF THE BEST MEN AND WOMEN PILOTS AND MAINTAINERS IN THE WORLD
.

Sorry I will have to take-off now to get that pint of beer and do some girl hunting at the club......

More on Air-Air Tactics comments of Sky Emperors F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lighting II and WHY NO-NE SHOULD EVER EVEN THINK OF GOING AGAINST THEM later......

TS

P.S. : I am sorry if I sounded too much for what I said above but only the thought of a pitiful J-10 going against these two aircraft in particular is making my belly having a pain because of loughing for hours on end......
Offline

asiatrails

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 865
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 02:11

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 05:18

Whiteman_B2 wrote:Anyone care to speculate as to how the Lightning (or even the Raptor) would fare against the "best" the PROC has to offer? :lol:


Lets see, the J-10 has been in development since 1986 and the first prototype was gravity challenged. Designed as a fighter, it is now entering service in the ground attack role.

With a delta wing about the same size as a Mirage 2000; and a slab sided (F-4 Style) fuselage with external underwing stores, stealth has to be minimal (probably 3.5 generation).

Large radar signal = target.
Offline

174Cobra

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2006, 04:14
  • Location: Colorado- NY native

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 08:31

I agree with the majority of TS's comment except for, as we have established (much to my dismay), the -35 is not (yet) cleared for AIM-9X carriage and employment. So better hope that if any AMRAAM's fail to hit their mark that the Atolls crap out when the fight reaches WVR...considering that the Russians have long since developed helmet mounted cueing systems for their heat-seekers, and has no doubt forwarded said technology to China. Combine that with the Flanker's manuverability...lets just say I'll be a lot happier if/when the -35 gets a comparable WVR missile capability. At least then, worst case scenario, the battle would be a draw. Seems like a risk that is worth the additional cost...
holy s@*t, there's two of 'em!
Offline

174Cobra

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2006, 04:14
  • Location: Colorado- NY native

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 08:33

Seems a little too much like the no-gun F-4's getting out-turned and taken out by cannon-equipped MiG-19's and -21's over Vietnam a few years back.
holy s@*t, there's two of 'em!
Offline

174Cobra

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2006, 04:14
  • Location: Colorado- NY native

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 08:46

Didn't mean to disregard anyone's comment refering to indiginous a/c that Chendgu (sp?) has developed (can't remember the equivalent Chinese-Russian a/c designations), as that aspect seems a little antiquated to say the least, but the PLAAF DOES have a few Flankers, and they should be taken seriously.
holy s@*t, there's two of 'em!
Offline

TS

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2006, 06:47

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 15:55

I agree with the majority of TS's comment except for, as we have established (much to my dismay), the -35 is not (yet) cleared for AIM-9X carriage and employment.


Thanks 174Cobra :wink:

I am sure though that anyone here will also agree that the integration of the AIM-9X with both the F-22 as well as the F-35 is a matter of time let alone that in particular for the F-35 other IIR AAMs such as ASRAAM, IRIS-T and Python will be added to the aircraft's inventory in no time as soon as it starts filling squadrons both in the US as well as abroad.

Regards,

TS.
Offline

TS

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2006, 06:47

Unread post10 Sep 2006, 16:26

Also some further comments, regarding the issue of integration and practical employment of WVR AAMs from either the F-22 or the F-35.

I would say that it is attributed to the well understood realization of the fact that the huge majority of potential future Air-Air combat is to take place BVR and therefore it is logical that these weapons haven't enjoyed that level of priority regarding their desired arrival dates at front line squadrons or perhaps testing for the case of F-35 even though I am sure that both the USAF as well as the USN/USMC will have worked hard already for these issues.

In any case I think everyone agrees that if LM and the Air Forces may have delayed these weapons is because of other priorities and costs rather the respective aircraft's capabilities.

One thing is for certain :

F-22 and F-35 will be integrated with weapons along their lifetime and employ them in a fashion (operational effectiveness) that other jets will only dream off so WVR AAMs are even less than a piece of cake to be installed on them in my opinion.

Also :

The F-22 is a brand new chapter for the USAF it is only a matter of time before we will see AIM-9Xs on the side air intakes bays as for the F-35 my previous post I am sure will provide the picture of things to come.

As said previously their particular advantages as stealth aircraft will also massively boost their weapons effectiveness employment thus establishing them as the two premier fighters the world over in any conceivable role and mission scenario.

In any case, and to connect it with the thread here and the J-10 comparison, I am sure that both jets will be in a position to employ far greater amount of types of munitions whose - most importantly - overall quality from their Chinese counterparts will be several star systems apart.

TS.

P.S . : By the way the magazine Combat Aircraft, Ian Allan Publishing, had in its last issue published a quite interesting review of the PLAAF and its programs with the J-10 program to appear as a particular analysis in the next issue. I think it will offer some more interesting food for thought for future discussion and as soon as I get a copy I will try to post some more actual data regarding the J-10.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post11 Sep 2006, 06:21

J-10, according to the Chinese designer's description in an air-show a few years ago, was roughly equal to F-16C/D Block40 at that time.

Of course, Mainland China is studying several plans for upgrading J-10 right now, such as incorporating AL-31M1 or M2 turbofan + TVC, ESA radar, and BVRAAM of R-77M class into the J-10 (The name of this upgrading fighter project is called as superman......sorry....as "Super Ten"), but personally, I think the general capability and performance of Super Ten will still not be able to surpass Rafale F2/F3 after these upgradings, not to mention F-22 and F-35.

The only question is: The 1st squadron of F-35 will not be able to enter its IOC until post-2012, and the mass production & entering service of F-35 won't begin until post-2015 (or even later...........). If a military confliction between USA and China is happened during the period of 2008~2015, it may be a very little or no business for F-35................
Last edited by toan on 12 Sep 2006, 10:16, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

TS

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2006, 06:47

Unread post11 Sep 2006, 19:40

toan most thanks for your contribution post here.

I have literally only five mins to post therefore I can not offer extensive comments but simply a couple of pics for the J-10.

I know that we have excellent contributors here but just in case some don't know which aircraft exactly of the PLAAF we are comparing with the F-22 and the F-35 here are some pics. The Chinese designations for fighters are misleading some times.

One also shows some of the armament the jet can carry.

More later.....
Attachments
FAR EAST AIR FORCES (39).jpg
FAR EAST AIR FORCES (40).jpg
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2709
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Sep 2006, 23:02

Sorry, but I don't believe the J-10 could handle the Typhoon and/or Rafale let alone Lightnings or Raptors. Even the little Gripen could give her a run for her money........That said, the world is full of fighters she could handle. So, it really just depends the threat?
Offline

Shaken

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 01:52

Unread post12 Sep 2006, 17:00

174Cobra wrote:Seems a little too much like the no-gun F-4's getting out-turned and taken out by cannon-equipped MiG-19's and -21's over Vietnam a few years back.


This is counterfactual. The MiG-21 over Vietnam got the great bulk of its kills (roughly 85%) through high-speed slashing attacks from the rear against unaware targets. The dominant factor in its success was superior local radar coverage, expressed through GCI direction. In other words the North Vietnamese had good AWACS coverage (albeit ground based) and the US did not.


Not to say the F-4 had no problems due to lacking a gun; but this led to missing kills, not US fighter losses. Such encounters generally led to a MiG safely bugging out or a pilot having to work harder to back out into missile envelope.

I doubt the gun is an absolute need on an aircraft like the JSF. The quality of modern missiles (and bombs in the CAS case) is dramatically improved over the Vietnam era systems. The original argument that caused the F-4 to not carry a gun, which was incorrect at that time, is quite probably correct today.

How many modern air-to-air encounters were ended with the cannon? I can think of one in Ethiopia vs Eritrea, but that is it. This example would not have occurred had the missiles been well-maintained / well-designed; as it was predicated by the failure of a fair number of R-27/R-23 shots.

-- Shaken - out --
Offline

TS

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2006, 06:47

Unread post12 Sep 2006, 17:27

well said Corsair1963 :wink:

Oh... and just a clarification for all our kind friends here that I forgot to make yesterday :

I did not post the J-10 pics so as to say 'hey look how magnificent jet it is'.

I just gave the pics because most people from their posts both here at f-16.net - not in this thread in particular but generally - as well as in other forum boards that I have been have somehow have given the impression that J-10 is the designation for PLAAFs Flankers or something, either their two seater SU-30MKKs or the single seater SU-27SKs which of course is wrong....

So it was a case of helping to clarify in advance and say 'Hey guys THIS is the jet we discuss, NOT a Flanker'....Otherwise people may get the wrong impression of why I am so harsh against the Flanker even though I most confidently believe that even if we discussed about Flankers the total and overwhelming superiority of both the F-22 as well as F-35 would be prooven...

But to come to topic :

I more than agree that the J-10 doesn't stand a chance against anyone really let alone F-22s and F-35s and my original post in the thread is a real testimony to this fact....

In fact if we wanted to be more precise the thread should be J-12 or J-13 against the F-22 and F-35...

Now J-12 and J-13 are designations for the fighters that the Chinese have presented as their potential 5th Gen Fighters..

...which in turn are the carbon copies of experimental fighters from both the Mikoyan as well as Sukhoi bureaus or even copies of the drawings of the not yet released 5th Gen Russian Fighter that have fallen in their hands....

As it is the case for the proposed Russian 5th Gen Fighter the Chinese plans for a new fighter are equally if not more cloudy...others claim it is already canceled to take it back and say 'no hang-on' as soon as an artists impression of a new fighter with PLAAFs markings appears....

I know you will mention names like PAK-FA and the rest and the pics from the artists impressions are all over the net but I haven't seen in any board someone to have a solid clue how the Russian jet would look IF OF COURSE AND ONLY IF it materializes which is another whole matter.....

... and Yes Yes I know your belly has an unbearable pain because of the laughter as mine does to hear about all this talk about China wanting to copy US to make a stealth (LOL !!!!!!) fighter with copies in turn from another country called Russia which in turn has no clue on its own program let alone make technology transfers but I just try to maintain a certain level of seriousness, or professionalism if you will, in this thread even though I think that the Chinese are lagging so far behind in every major area of military aviation hardware development from airframes and engines to avionics and armament and so on...

Sorry if truth hearts for the PLAAFs supporters of our boards but if you think I am harsh I will be more than happy to justify anytime anywhere my seemingly ruthless dismissal of Chinese Military Aviation technology.

...so Corsair1963 once again well said and I hope everyone starts to realize that getting in front of the US in Defense related technology and tactics is nothing but a Nirvana Dream.

Thank God we have some REAL professionals from USAF the USN and the USMC to remind to the world WHO THE LEADER TRULY IS...

The above last statement is exactly what I feel not sarcastic comment in nature against the US Forces so don't get me wrong !

.. and by the way...

I came across some good research reports for China from RAND the other day but they are too general in nature rather that specific for this thread's discussed issues... I will try to post some more if indeed we have some more credible data for the future PLAAFs jets which at the moment from what I see in the Internet and the various aviation press are not that credible pieces of information actually if anything they constitute quite outdated data already for these programs....

later..

TS.
Offline

Whiteman_B2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 05 May 2005, 21:13
  • Location: MO, USA

Unread post12 Sep 2006, 21:17

My concern isn't at all about technological superiority, it's obvious who has the ace in that game, we do. However, the Chinese military doctrine is much like the old Soviet doctrine, "what we lack in technology, we'll make up for in sheer numbers". In other words, in their view, they can overwhelm a technologically superior enemy by simply throwing a huge number of "clay pigeons" up against them. So, I suppose the real question is, how would USAF and other NATO forces fare if the Chinese decide to build and field 10,000 of their "best" fighter jets, be it the J-10 or a future design?

<again questions the purchase of only 183 Raptors>
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post12 Sep 2006, 22:51

Whiteman_B2 wrote:My concern isn't at all about technological superiority, it's obvious who has the ace in that game, we do. However, the Chinese military doctrine is much like the old Soviet doctrine, "what we lack in technology, we'll make up for in sheer numbers". In other words, in their view, they can overwhelm a technologically superior enemy by simply throwing a huge number of "clay pigeons" up against them. So, I suppose the real question is, how would USAF and other NATO forces fare if the Chinese decide to build and field 10,000 of their "best" fighter jets, be it the J-10 or a future design?

<again questions the purchase of only 183 Raptors>


If the Chinese were ever to engage in such a build-up, the U.S. would doubtlessly respond. Raptors right now are being procured at some $130 million a copy, by no means a small number, but deffinitely "affordable" enough for it to be available in significant numbers. Moreover, the F-35 will be no slouch in air combat. Add to that back up in the form of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s standing off lobbing missiles guided by Raptors and Lightnings, and you could send up 20,000 sub-par fighters that would still be mincemeat for a U.S. force. Besides, the Chinese would not be able to build 10,000 fighters overnight. Let's say they can produce--and this would be EXTREMELY unlikely--5,000 4th gen aircraft by 2015. Long before that, their arms build-up would be apparent, at which point the U.S. ramps up production of both the Raptor and the Lightning. In short order you could easily have 1,000 Raptors and 2,000 Lightnings by that date. Add to that remaining Eagles, Vipers and Hornets. Even in terms of sheer numbers, the Chinese are not likely to represent a significant threat except to the U.S. treasury. We have outspent other enemies before, however. Also, you must remember the Raptor will have absurd kill ratios in any such conflict, backed up by Lightnings which will be similarly successful. Legacy aircraft would fly to their strengths and produce similar results. Honestly, no reasonable, sane nation would ever choose to take on the U.S. in a pitched, prolonged air war. And the Chinese may be a lot of things, but they are not insane. Your concerns are simply a no-starter.
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phantomzzz and 0 guests