A good article about the J-10 and J-10B, from J-10's deputy chief designer.
On November 6th Zhang Jigao, deputy chief designer of the J-10 fighter, spoke about the improved model J 10 publicly for
the first time in the AVIC flight test center. Zhang Jigaotold People’s Daily Online reporters that the overall performance of the J10 will be comprehensively improved in areas such as aerodynamic layout,mission system, and the approach to maintenance.
In March 2009, pictures of our improved model J10 fighters appeared for the first time on the Internet, and netizens
quickly began to call it the ”J-10B”.
Over the last five 5 years, several images of the test J10B have appeared online,attracting widespread attention from netizens, military enthusiasts, and even foreign media.U.S. military expert Richard Fisher recently pointed out that the J-10B is a so-called”fourth and a half” generation fighter equipped with modern airborne technology and an advanced radar
system, which is about to be delivered to the PLA Air Force.
Zhang Jigao disputed the term ”fourth and a half” generation. In contrast, he suggestedthat the current international criteria to classify generations are more applicable.
He pointed out that single combat is rare in modern warfare, and that the majority of casesnow involve system combat
and network operations, so that the combat capabilities of a fighter depend on many factors.”This does not mean that the optimization of an aircraft’s radar, avionics, and missile detection ranges are bound to improvements in operational performance.”
Zhang Jigao added that further improvements to the performance of the J10 would focus on the aircraft’s aerodynamic
layout and mission systems, and the approach to maintenance.”Aircraft development requires constant optimization
and improvement,” he said, “and our modifications will be comprehensive rather than being confined to a specific area.”
---
It's very refreshing for a high level military aircraft designer to come out and basically rubbish the entire "4.5" generation idea. While I think the prefix is somewhat necessary to discern some additional capabilities which newer 4th gen aircraft do have, Zhang's emphasis on the irrelevance of a single fighter types "top level" capabilites in a system versus system battle is quite heartening.
I've always believed that battles, and especially large air battles between two highly capable air forces, is less a matter about who has the slightly better radar or slightly lower RCS or slightly better missile, and more about how well the planes talk to each other, logistics, how well they're trained, and (more importantly) for us military observers who cannot identify training and procedure competency from pictures, the number of support aircraft available like AEWC, ELINT/SIGINT/ECM, and tankers.
That is why I am enthusiastic about the PLAAF's continued induction of various GX platforms and the new KJ-500, it shows that they know what's important about getting the entire air force up to scratch instead of a few gold plated capabilities. Of course, the PLAAF's tanker fleet is ridiculously impotent for its fleet size, but that won't be remedied for a few years yet.
Of course, some capability differences are enough to tilt even a systems vs systems air battle. I believe 5th generation fighters will definitely have advantages even against a capable, well integrated 4th generation armed air force.
But if you offered me a 4.5 generation air force gold plated with JHMCS, HOBS SRAAM, "rcs reduction," and fancy AESA, but with relatively weak AEWC, SIGINT/ELINT support versus a 4th generation air force with a wider array of AEWC, and the other support aircraft, I'd choose the latter every time.
On November 6th Zhang Jigao, deputy chief designer of the J-10 fighter, spoke about the improved model J 10 publicly for
the first time in the AVIC flight test center. Zhang Jigaotold People’s Daily Online reporters that the overall performance of the J10 will be comprehensively improved in areas such as aerodynamic layout,mission system, and the approach to maintenance.
In March 2009, pictures of our improved model J10 fighters appeared for the first time on the Internet, and netizens
quickly began to call it the ”J-10B”.
Over the last five 5 years, several images of the test J10B have appeared online,attracting widespread attention from netizens, military enthusiasts, and even foreign media.U.S. military expert Richard Fisher recently pointed out that the J-10B is a so-called”fourth and a half” generation fighter equipped with modern airborne technology and an advanced radar
system, which is about to be delivered to the PLA Air Force.
Zhang Jigao disputed the term ”fourth and a half” generation. In contrast, he suggestedthat the current international criteria to classify generations are more applicable.
He pointed out that single combat is rare in modern warfare, and that the majority of casesnow involve system combat
and network operations, so that the combat capabilities of a fighter depend on many factors.”This does not mean that the optimization of an aircraft’s radar, avionics, and missile detection ranges are bound to improvements in operational performance.”
Zhang Jigao added that further improvements to the performance of the J10 would focus on the aircraft’s aerodynamic
layout and mission systems, and the approach to maintenance.”Aircraft development requires constant optimization
and improvement,” he said, “and our modifications will be comprehensive rather than being confined to a specific area.”
---
It's very refreshing for a high level military aircraft designer to come out and basically rubbish the entire "4.5" generation idea. While I think the prefix is somewhat necessary to discern some additional capabilities which newer 4th gen aircraft do have, Zhang's emphasis on the irrelevance of a single fighter types "top level" capabilites in a system versus system battle is quite heartening.
I've always believed that battles, and especially large air battles between two highly capable air forces, is less a matter about who has the slightly better radar or slightly lower RCS or slightly better missile, and more about how well the planes talk to each other, logistics, how well they're trained, and (more importantly) for us military observers who cannot identify training and procedure competency from pictures, the number of support aircraft available like AEWC, ELINT/SIGINT/ECM, and tankers.
That is why I am enthusiastic about the PLAAF's continued induction of various GX platforms and the new KJ-500, it shows that they know what's important about getting the entire air force up to scratch instead of a few gold plated capabilities. Of course, the PLAAF's tanker fleet is ridiculously impotent for its fleet size, but that won't be remedied for a few years yet.
Of course, some capability differences are enough to tilt even a systems vs systems air battle. I believe 5th generation fighters will definitely have advantages even against a capable, well integrated 4th generation armed air force.
But if you offered me a 4.5 generation air force gold plated with JHMCS, HOBS SRAAM, "rcs reduction," and fancy AESA, but with relatively weak AEWC, SIGINT/ELINT support versus a 4th generation air force with a wider array of AEWC, and the other support aircraft, I'd choose the latter every time.
