To be fair we knew all along J-16 was to effectively be an Su-30 lookalike
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
To be fair we knew all along J-16 was to effectively be an Su-30 lookalike
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
A fighter without thrust vectoring can beat a fighter with thrust vectoring, however the odds are not on their favour.
It`s possible the J-10 could beat a Su-30SM or Su-30MKI, it was proven the F-18 could beat from time to time the thrus vector capability X-31, however it was verily rare.
Now adding a good off bored missile and a good HMS, the J-10 can increase the odds, but the Su-30SM also has a HMS and high offbored missiles.
- RVV-MD short-range close - in highly dogfight air - borne guided missile is oriented to weapon modern fighters and advanced multirole fighters, battle-planes and combat helicopters. In comparison with its predecessor (R-73E) new missile has extended-range of flight, high-maneuverable performance, jamming immunity (including optical), angle - elevation. The missile has all-aspect passive IR guidance (two-color detector) with combined aerogasdynamic control;
- RVV-SD medium-range guidance missile is intended to weapon modern fighters and advanced multipurpose fighters. With launch range up to 110 km RVV-SD missile is able to engage targets with overload up to 12 g at any time of day or night, in all aspects, in jamming coverage conditions, on ground and water surface, including multiple channels firing in a launch and forget way. The missile feature is inertial guidance system with radio correction and with active radar seeker;
So pretty much they could be even if both are armed with offbored missiles, thus jamming and stealth will play the most important part to decide who is the winner, but here is the difference of Su-35, Su-35 can supercruise so it will first use BVR missiles and speed to decimate J-10s, see Su-35 can detect targets of 3 square meters up to 400km, so a J-10 more or less will be detected at a pretty good range
They [the F-22s] always start defensive as you might imagine because anything else is kind of a waste of gas. So the F-22 always start defensive. On rare occasions the F-22 guy -- first of all, the [F-15] Eagle guy, you have to fly a perfect lag fight (flight?). You have to have AIM-9X and JHMCS [joint helmet mounted cueing system] to get an off-boresight IR [infrared] capability. And the F-22 guy has to put up his power a nanosecond too early and not use his countermeasures and you may get a fleeting, one nanosecond AIM-9X shot, and that's about it."
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Oh...
vesicles
Colonel
Oh...
LOL. I can't stop laughing...
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
The TVC adds the ability to react faster see
of negligible extra weight, and allowing the maximum AoA of
the aircraft to increase to 70”.
Figure 15 shows the time advantage for the modified aircraft.
The contour trends are similar to those shown for Case 2. As
with the case study for reduced weight, the biggest advantage
to the TVC/PSM aircraft lies close to the manoeuvre stall
boundary. The advantage decreases as altitude is decreased.
The maximum advantage is again up to 10 seconds, with a
minimum of 3 seconds for all speeds, as long as altitude is
adjusted. Although it is not shown directly, comparing
Figures 12 and 15 shows that the TVC/PSM aircraft has a
minimum of a 3 second advantage over the lighter aircraft for
most of the Right envelope. At lower speed, the advantage
would fall to the lighter aircraft.
Returning to the comparison between the standard aircraft and
the TVC/PSM aircraft, it is seen from Figure 15 that the
standard aircraft will never have a time advantage. At low
altitude and high speed, both aircraft will be load factor
limited throughout the manoeuvre. This means that the
modified aircraft will not be allowed to go to post stall AoAs,
and so it will gain no advantage in having this technology.
Conversely, the standard aircraft will have no advantage in
turn time, and best that it can do is to fly low and very fast,
reducing the performance difference to zero.
Figure 17 shows that the turn diameter is as much as 20%
smaller than the standard aircraft (high altitude and high
speed), and also that it is as much as 10% smaller than the
lighter aircraft (Case 2, not shown). The standard aircratt can
only at best match this performance, by flying low and slow
For the vertical turn reversal, the addition of TVC and PSM
technologies to the aircraft can give very large time and
diameter advantages, even in excess of those seen in Case 2
(reduced weight). However, the use of TVC/ PSM will not
confer an energy advantage. The SEP at the end of the
manoeuvre can be so negative that if a hill is not obtained,
then the modified aircraft will be tactically in a very poor
slow situation, in only a few seconds. Here, NMA allows the
designer to see the trade off between energy and tmn
performance required for TVCIPSM aircralt
however the advantage is most of the time for the fighter with TVC nozzles
. The X-31A won only 15% while the degraded F/A-18 scored 46% of all 28
engagements thus no perfect equality was established However looking at the right-hand side of Figure I I the X-31A
using its unique PST capabilities won 91% of all engagements from neutral, line-abreast starting conditions
So only if J-10 can use a good high Offbore missiles and better detection and jamming it might win, but the fighter with TVC nozzles has increased turn, range, thrust and stealth, advantages that are important to mention, so J-16 won`t be easy to kill if indeed it has TVC nozzles
Last edited:
Schumacher
Senior Member
J16 is a very important new addition to PLAAF. Perhaps good news only for CAC, I would hardly call it good news for PLAAF if a decade J10A can still beat it.
I expect J16 to be PLAAF's first Flanker series to be able to beat J10A, with or without TVC and I doubt it will get one. J10B may be another matter.
One of the most hotly contested competition in recent time is the Singapore order where the Eurocanards spearheaded by Rafale went down to the wire with F15E.
F15E prevailed but not before US offered AESA and the more powerful GE engines giving RSAF the most advanced Eagle, the SG.
There was never doubt the Strike Eagle trumped the Eurocanards in strike capabilities, so what forced the AESA and engines decisions was likely to be to tip the balance to F15 in AA as well.
I expect it to be the same with J16vsJ10A as well with its AESA and souped up WS10.
Having said that, they say J10 is better than even the Eurocanards in AA but then they say the same about the Flanker vs Eagle airframe design so I guess it evens out.
The singapore competition could hardly called fair. RSAF had a long history of using American arms. Choosing F-15SG is more of simplifying logistics and futher strengthening bond between each countries.
I expect J-10A will still beat J-16 even equip with TVC. Canard design is a modern design giving it far superior aerodynamic than conventional tail design lay out while rectifying the shortcoming of old delta design.
Just like Sherman tank used by Israel in the 67 wars, no matter how you modify it to become Super Sherman. It will still be an design of the past. Which is the reason why Israel need to go for a radical new tank design of Merkava..
Same apply to fighter jet. Su-35 or J-16 no matter how you modify it. It still can't break away the physical limitation it inherit during its 70's era.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
J-10 is more modenr it flew 20 years after Su-27, but canard designs are not a guarantee of superiority
X-31A exploiting its full PST capabilities is
significantly superior in CIC against an F/A-18 degraded to
resemble the X-31A in conventional perfomance. That this
goal of equal conventional performance wasn’t quite achieved
is visible in the left-hand side of Figure I I. The X-31A won
only 15% while the degraded F/A-18 scored 46% of all 28
engagements thus no perfect equality was established
If you see this X-31 lost against a degraded F-18s. X-31 has canards.
Of course J-10 has a relatively more advanced configuration than X-31, but here you have to see becuase canards are used does not mean they beat a fighter with LEX and tailplanes all the time.
J-10 probably is comparable to Gripen and most be competitive up to some level to Eurofighter and Rafale, but F-16 and MiG-29 have really good sustained turns better or equal to Gripen`s.
The advantages of the Eurocanards and J-10 is in instantaneous turn rates due to lower wing loading.
J-11B is a heavy fighter, its instantanous turn rate is around 27-28 deg/sec, Gripen has one of the 30 deg/s, so very likely J-10 must be in that region.
However gripen has a sustained turn rate of 20 deg/s while MiG-29 one of 23 deg/s.
The reason is thrust to weight ratio and and wing design, the Gripen with delta bleeds more energy.
So what Gripen does is what Mirage 2000 does to F-16, is quick nose pointing but never turn against a MiG-29.
Very likely J-11B can turn as well as J-10 but it has a lower instantaneous turn rate.
Mirage 2000 can not turn against a F-16 in sustained turn but can out turned in instantaneous turn rate a viper.
So what Mirage 2000 does is quicker roll rates but never engages the F-16 in sustained turn.
Thrust vectoring will increase the Su-35 turn rates compared to the original Su-27 by at least 10%, add the increases thrust it will allow a further higher sustained turn rate.
Su-35 simply will reach turn rates of Rafale or Eurofighter without adding additional lifting area.
J-16 if adds thrust vectoring will match and even surpass J-10 in turn rate easily, canards are like tailplane, is max lift what matters, for such reason F-15 was a great aircraft a huge wing with low wing loading for 1970 and high thrust to weight ratio
see
Patrik Sebek interviewed Swedish Air Force Captain Mikael 'BUTCHER' Tormalm of 211 Squadron on behalf of MILAVIA. Captain Mikael Tormalm had flown various Saab Viggen variants, including the Jaktviggen (Fighterviggen) before transitioning to its replacement, the Saab Gripen.
What is your opinion about the Viggen compared to other fighters from the same era? For example the Tornado, F-15 Eagle, Mig-29 and so on.
Well... Not an easy question to answer. The air-to-air combat arena is very complex and involves factors like; how many are you? Distance? Weapons carried by both the opponent and your own group, etc. It’s not as easy as to say that whoever turns best comes out on top. But to give some kind of answer would be that I, having a choice, would not go into a dogfight with the Fighter viggen versus the F-15 or the MiG-29. Tornado Yes. Basically based on rate-of-turn performance. On the other hand I would consider to face both the F-15, MiG-29 and Tornado if I had enough distance at setup, flying with a wingman who knows what he is doing and my sensors gave me good situation awareness.
Last edited:
Schumacher
Senior Member
Politics played a part in S'pore, not all of it. Certainly less than say the SK decision where the Eurocanards were never really considered.
I don't think it was a coincidence the F15K has neither the AESA nor the GE engines of the SG.
More powerful radars & engines can overcome limitations on airframe designs in many cases which I think it's the case with the SG over the Eurocanards.
If/When we get news of J16 beating J10 in the future, I certainly will be very happy much more so than the other way around. It'll indicate China's engine & radar tech have reached a new level. I'm a China fan more so than a CAC fan or a SAC hater.
- Status