J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[Delbert]

i find it kind of redundant how it has both foward canards and TVC. Having both doesn't really provide that much maneuverability if it only had either canards or TVC. It only ads more weight and structural stress. Even with TVC on that Flanker, J-10 being smaller, lighter with foward canards I suspect it can match that Flanker if not better. TVC is overrated in my views, its mind game, when people think TVC on a fighter it means extreme maneuverability. What if you put TVC on either J-8 or JH-7, does it make it more maneuverable then the J-10. No

So this means the current systems of J-10 are better than SU-27/30's of PLAAF?

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

So this means the current systems of J-10 are better than SU-27/30's of PLAAF?

Definitely, if you mean the original Su-27/30s that were imported from Russia. Not so sure about the J-11A/B.

 

[Blitzo]

Guys, do any of you fine people have a source which indicates if J-10 is 4.5th generation? Cause I think that since it came out people have assumed it just was 4.5, but I can't seem to find any real sources on the net indicating it is.
On SDF search I haven't found anything either..
Or is the J-10 not considered 4.5 at all?

Cheers.

 

[pla101prc]

The definition of what constitutes "Gen 4.5" is somewhat fuzzy. Wikipedia claims that the J-10 is Gen 4.5 but I disagree. The Eurofighter Typhoon is also said to be Gen 4.5, but it is clearly superior technologically to the J-10. If the J-10 was Gen 4.5, then one would also have to consider the F-16C to be also (but no one does). I prefer calling the J-10 a Gen 4+ aircraft, better than Gen 4 F-16's but not as capable as say Gen 4++ Eurofighters or F-16E's.

J-10 is definitely not 4.5,i dont even buy the 4+ claim. its just 4 lol. but i think with a bit of upgrade it has the potential of achieving 4.5...F-16I is 4.5 level

 

[HKSDU]

So this means the current systems of J-10 are better than SU-27/30's of PLAAF?

well not saying the Flanker is bad an all compared to the J-10. But the original Su-27/30, had avionics that weren't exceptionally outstanding. The mockup aerial battles between the Flanker and J-10, J-10 had new weapon systems, HMS, avionic upgrades to Chinese 21st century standards, while the opposing Flankers with Russian 20th century technology still being used in the exercise. If you looking just at the aerodynamic performance, I'm more towards the J-10, for payload delivery on strike missions it more Flanker, for mainland aerial defense its J-10. They're isn't a clear superiority the J-10 has over the Flanker, but I'm just stating that foward canards are better option of maneuverability increase then TVC. Cheaper, Easier and China already has the know how on foward canards for +20 years, while TVC is Nill, China currently is only focusing on a reliable turbofan that can power its current and future fighter forces. They should invest more into refining their turbofans rather then already jumping ahead to TVC, when they clearly are still having issues with its domestic AL-31 equivalents.

 

[challenge]

since composite material are not metallic,this make the material very vulnerable being damage from lightning strike,just how the aircraft manufacturer come out with solution to protect it from lightning strike?

 

[challenge]

well not saying the Flanker is bad an all compared to the J-10. But the original Su-27/30, had avionics that weren't exceptionally outstanding. The mockup aerial battles between the Flanker and J-10, J-10 had new weapon systems, HMS, avionic upgrades to Chinese 21st century standards, while the opposing Flankers with Russian 20th century technology still being used in the exercise. If you looking just at the aerodynamic performance, I'm more towards the J-10, for payload delivery on strike missions it more Flanker, for mainland aerial defense its J-10. They're isn't a clear superiority the J-10 has over the Flanker, but I'm just stating that foward canards are better option of maneuverability increase then TVC. Cheaper, Easier and China already has the know how on foward canards for +20 years, while TVC is Nill, China currently is only focusing on a reliable turbofan that can power its current and future fighter forces. They should invest more into refining their turbofans rather then already jumping ahead to TVC, when they clearly are still having issues with its domestic AL-31 equivalents.

acccording to the US,the avionic system for S-27SK are inferior
to F-16A,some refer it as "F-16 on steroid" computer speed is very low, running at 170,000 cal./sec.compare that with basic F-15A of the mid-70's with has speed of 500,000 cal./sec.

 

[crobato]

since composite material are not metallic,this make the material very vulnerable being damage from lightning strike,just how the aircraft manufacturer come out with solution to protect it from lightning strike?

Do you notice why aircraft radomes, which are made of composite, has those stripes? See it in the J-10, see it in the F-16, etc,. Those things are for grounding against static electricity and lightning strikes.

 

[pla101prc]

regardless of which being more advanced, there is still no reason to let J-10 have all the best pilots and Su-30 get the crappy ones, Su-30 are meant to fight US carrier battlegroups they should get the best pilots in my opinion

 

[Delbert]

regardless of which being more advanced, there is still no reason to let J-10 have all the best pilots and Su-30 get the crappy ones, Su-30 are meant to fight US carrier battlegroups they should get the best pilots in my opinion

If SU-30 will be conducting bombing and missile strikes, I don't see the need for all the best pilots on it.

If J-10 will be serve as air superiority fighter, in protecting China's air space, I think it really needs the best. Because it requires skills in fighting against another fighter.

I don't see much difference on the pilot issue, they can also train the SU-27/30's pilots to become as good as those in J-10 right?