China Flanker thread

[tphuang]

The max load of J-10A in this case is not important, since you are not going to use it in a role that will make use of that. When you are going up for air combat, you don't want to carry too much armament since that decreases your maneuverability and increases radar signature.

And J-10 doesn't necessarily loose out to flankers in BVR. Although it is considered to be in F-16's weight class, it actually has a fairly large nose (around 74 cm like J-8II), compare that to 96 cm of flankers. Sure, its radar and processing power is weaker, but it also has a much much smaller radar signature than flankers.

 

[tphuang]

according to huitong, this is J-11B cockpit, any comments?

also, what kind of flanker does this look like?

 

[crobato]

according to huitong, this is J-11B cockpit, any comments?
[qimg]http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1539/j11bcockpithv3.jpg[/qimg]
also, what kind of flanker does this look like?
[qimg]http://www.war-sky.com/forum/attachment/Day_061124/118_108936_6eeda80eee4d59f.jpg[/qimg]

That is the cockpit from the poster. Its definitely has its share of MFDs, although it does not strike me as attractive like the J-10's or the FC-1's. Its definitely nothing I have seen before and it's not Russian since the HUD os the same Chinese HUD seen in exhibits.

The other picture is not showing up. I presume it's the yellow black nosed Flanker from the AVIC video?

The radar processing power of the J-10 is certainly not inferior to anything of the Su-27 or MKK. Processing power has nothing to do with the size of the radar or the nose, just the selection of the CPU and DSP itself. The emitter for a larger radar may be bigger, you can put more powerful transformers to drive it and a larger antenna has better reception gain than a smaller antenna. These factors do help in extending the radar range and resolution though they're not the only ones.

 

[tphuang]

That is the cockpit from the poster. Its definitely has its share of MFDs, although it does not strike me as attractive like the J-10's or the FC-1's. Its definitely nothing I have seen before and it's not Russian since the HUD os the same Chinese HUD seen in exhibits.

The other picture is not showing up. I presume it's the yellow black nosed Flanker from the AVIC video?

The radar processing power of the J-10 is certainly not inferior to anything of the Su-27 or MKK. Processing power has nothing to do with the size of the radar or the nose, just the selection of the CPU and DSP itself. The emitter for a larger radar may be bigger, you can put more powerful transformers to drive it and a larger antenna has better reception gain than a smaller antenna. These factors do help in extending the radar range and resolution though they're not the only ones.

I would agree with the assessment on the cockpit.

Here is the other picture

 

[crobato]

I don't know if this is to sinister imply that the J-11 in the foreground has a WS-10A engine or not, but the clip belongs to J-11s of the 1st Division, and my impression is that this is a rather typical and innocent J-11, "exercising" the nozzles just before it is about to take off.

 

[maglomanic]

From the post I will have to ask you a simple question. What is the max load on the J-10A? I mean the weapons load. Secondly copying and pasting comments made by someone is easy. What's the version of the F-16 is he talking about the F-16C/D Block-52 or the F-16A/B MLU.

And where did i say i know the exact figure. But ACM said more than F-16s. PAF is going for an MLU and newer ones in Block 52. I am sure that will be the baseline for al PAF F-16.

And after i explicitly told you that it's not about 1-1 comparion you are again getting into details of speccific platforms here.

What exactly were you trying to imply by "copy pasting is easy".Those are the comments of PAF ACM. Not someone on the forum trying compare two platforms on the basis of payload and TVC. I am sure he knows better than both you and me when he said what he said.

 

[mehdi]

That's why I don't copy and paste from other forums unless it is very important like a pic no one saw.

 

[crobato]

What maglomaniac is trying to say is correct. If you want to counter the MKI you don't need a J-11 or any Flanker. What you need is an AWACS for long range detection, a good BVR missile, and a helmet sight with a missile to match for those close in encounters.

Sometimes people like to wrestle with the concept of "platform" superiority. As platform you mean the thing with the wings. If an opposing plane is technically better, we need a plane of our own that is even more technologically superior. And on and on. The concept of obsession is the platform.

We don't try to study more ingenious methods of killing something instead. Focus on the weaponry, rather than the platform. Things like AWACS, BVR missiles and HMS with HOBS missiles are mighty good equalizers. Even something as dated as a MiG-21, supported by one and armed with the two others, can be a most dangerous opponent.

You probably don't even need J-10. FC-1 with proper AWACS support, a good BVRAAM, an HMS and HOBS can do what you need to do, even against something like the MKI.

 

[Scratch]

Well, with all those augmentations like AWACS and good BVRAAMs, wich both sides may aquire one more thing is probably also important. That's a high ITR to breake missile/radar locks.
And from what I seem to know, those J-10 like delta-canard configs support high ITRs really well. On the other side I seem to rember the Su-27 hasn't had a high ITR, at least in comparison to todays data. And, again as far as I know, TVC seems to support STRs more then ITRs.

 

[crobato]

Deltas in general tend t support a high ITR, but generally leading to weaker STR.

Flankers and Fulcrums tend to have high ITR, as the Russians tend to emphasize this more than STR.

I know that having both good ITR and STR (not ITR alone) is important to breaking fighter and missle locks.