J-10 Thread IV

[Richard Santos]

wing loading is just a metric. The actual useful indicator that wing loading is attempting to correlate to is how much additional lift the airplane can generate by pulling higher angle of attack without causing drag to increase exponentially snd the airplane effectively stalling.

In real life, even in a fighter with big wings, the lift generated by the fuselage and air intake can account for more than half of the total lift generated by the fighter.

So take any comparison of wing loading as measure of sustained turn rate with a grain of salt.

That being said, a twin engine fighter like the Rafale and Eurofighter tend to deribe somewhat higher percentage of its total lift generated from its fuselage than single engine fighters such as F-16 and J-20. So if the wing loading of twin engine fighter as measured purely based on wing area is the same as that of a single engine fighter, the true aerodynamic lift loading of the entire aircraft is likely to be lower in the case of the twin engine aircraft.

So all else being the same, a twin engine fighter is likely to have somewhat higher sustained turn rate compared to a single engine fighter. This was one justification the TsAGI gave recommending to Mikoyan that the Mig-29 be a twin engine design. So in this one needs to give Eurofighter snd Rafale a slight handicap when comparing wing loading based on wing area.

conversely, all else being the same, a single engine fighter is likely to have less polar moment of inertia than a comparable twin engine fighter. it is would roll faster and this be more agile than the twin engine fighter.

 

[ougoah]

When did this become about Rafale?

Inst your initial point was about J-10 having assumed poor STR because of less than ideal wing loading. STR isn't a function of wing loading alone. You admit that. Therefore that line of conversation is over.

On the WVR capability topic, again it's hard to eyeball these things. I'm no aerodynamicist so can't comment but we do know the J-10 holds up pretty well against the Flanker. They have different WVR strengths but comparing with Rafale? Where did that come from? J-10 is capable WVR as evidenced by it holding up against Flanker. Against Rafale? I don't know. Let's suppose it is inferior overall in kinematic performance to Rafale. This isn't surprising if it is true but this also doesn't mean J-10 is a poor WVR fighter and features poor STR. The evidence suggest it isn't and speculation is riddled with conjecture.

If wing loading had any significant bearing on STR, then we'd see a proportional relation between the two and we don't. If one charts out the reported STR and wing loading of all fighters that have generally disclosed numbers, there is a random scatter. Again I'm no aerodynamicist but I'm sure there are dozens of other factors and conditions that influence STR more than simple wing loading. Both the J-10's and Rafale's pre-canard sections are certainly EW related and doubtful they have anything to do with enhancing aerodynamics.

 

[Inst]

If wing loading had any significant bearing on STR, then we'd see a proportional relation between the two and we don't. If one charts out the reported STR and wing loading of all fighters that have generally disclosed numbers, there is a random scatter. Again I'm no aerodynamicist but I'm sure there are dozens of other factors and conditions that influence STR more than simple wing loading. Both the J-10's and Rafale's pre-canard sections are certainly EW related and doubtful they have anything to do with enhancing aerodynamics.

Wing loading is a major factor when it comes to STR, but not the only factor. When it comes to STR, consider the Tejas, for instance. The Indians managed to get an aircraft with ridiculously low wing loading numbers, but something went wrong with their aircraft design and it had rather mediocre STR alongside relatively crap ITR as well.

As for your other arguments, both the J-10 and J-11 / Flankers tend toward ITR. Part of the deal is that most fighters are either designed as turn fighters or energy fighters; the former have very strong ITR but relatively poor STR, the latter have strong STR and poor ITR. The F-15 (although it's mediocre by more contemporary standards), F-16, and F-22 are designed as energy fighters; it's a key part of American doctrine. Stuff like the J-10, J-11, Typhoon, and Rafale all tend toward being turn-fighters with an emphasis on strong ITR. Within the American stable, the F-18s are turn fighters (i.e, high AoA performance).

The problem with ITR, however, is that it's really hard to exploit ITR since you usually end up reaching a 9G limit anyways at many speeds and altitudes. STR, on the other hand, is much harder to achieve and an STR advantage is easier to exploit. Moreover, if we're talking about the Pakistani situation, you want J-10s to be able to dogfight Rafales and reliably win; if the Pakistanis acquire J-10s, it'll be simply because the JF-17s don't cut the mustard for that.

And when we go back to wing-loading, the problem is, the Rafales have more aerodynamic tricks than the J-10 does, hell, almost all of the Rafale's tricks are adopted by the J-20. If we go back to "wing-loading" isn't the "be-all and end-all" of sustained turn rates, that's absolutely true, but when you consider the other factors, they're actually in the Rafale's advantage. About the only thing the J-10 has in its advantage in terms of sustained turn rates is the better TWR ratio, since the Rafale is mated to crappy SNECMA engines that might even be outclassed by a single future WS-10X.

 

[ougoah]

Wing loading is a major factor when it comes to STR, but not the only factor. When it comes to STR, consider the Tejas, for instance. The Indians managed to get an aircraft with ridiculously low wing loading numbers, but something went wrong with their aircraft design and it had rather mediocre STR alongside relatively crap ITR as well.

As for your other arguments, both the J-10 and J-11 / Flankers tend toward ITR. Part of the deal is that most fighters are either designed as turn fighters or energy fighters; the former have very strong ITR but relatively poor STR, the latter have strong STR and poor ITR. The F-15 (although it's mediocre by more contemporary standards), F-16, and F-22 are designed as energy fighters; it's a key part of American doctrine. Stuff like the J-10, J-11, Typhoon, and Rafale all tend toward being turn-fighters with an emphasis on strong ITR. Within the American stable, the F-18s are turn fighters (i.e, high AoA performance).

The problem with ITR, however, is that it's really hard to exploit ITR since you usually end up reaching a 9G limit anyways at many speeds and altitudes. STR, on the other hand, is much harder to achieve and an STR advantage is easier to exploit. Moreover, if we're talking about the Pakistani situation, you want J-10s to be able to dogfight Rafales and reliably win; if the Pakistanis acquire J-10s, it'll be simply because the JF-17s don't cut the mustard for that.

And when we go back to wing-loading, the problem is, the Rafales have more aerodynamic tricks than the J-10 does, hell, almost all of the Rafale's tricks are adopted by the J-20. If we go back to "wing-loading" isn't the "be-all and end-all" of sustained turn rates, that's absolutely true, but when you consider the other factors, they're actually in the Rafale's advantage. About the only thing the J-10 has in its advantage in terms of sustained turn rates is the better TWR ratio, since the Rafale is mated to crappy SNECMA engines that might even be outclassed by a single future WS-10X.

Rafale is a non-stealthy, 4th gen platform with the tiniest close coupled canard LERX blended with fuselage, no ventral strakes etc and lowish T:W compared to J-20 a long arm canard with LERX, stealth, 5th gen avionics and sensors, most likely far superior T:W, far superior lifting body, far superior drag. Tell us how the J-20 uses the Rafale's tricks again? The two can't be more different. That's like saying a 2021 F1 car uses the same tricks as a 1960s Le Mans racer because the F1 car uses four wheels and a emphasises aerodynamics. I could say the Flamker uses the same tricks as the F-15 because it also makes use of two vertical stabilisers. Where is the significance in this?

J-10C and Indian Rafale are far more closely matched in terms of being the same modernity and generation which assume similarly performing electronics (albeit J-10C's are actually slightly more modern). Rafale beats J-10C in range and payload which means more energy for itself and more energy for its weapons. Overall I would imagine Rafale being superior to J-10C in both A2A and A2G roles. Not to mention Meteor is likely far superior to PL-12 and possibly has a decent enough edge against PL-15. Pakistan going with J-10C to counter Rafales is a losing gamble. It'll do better than JF-17s for sure but AESAed and PL-15 equipped J-10Cs are exactly going to be cheap. The only comfort for PAF here is that IAF Rafales are in small numbers and likely to remain in small numbers unless India greatly expands its military budget. It's like a pauper buying a new mercedes. Go let them spend themselves further into poverty so their elites can feel good.

If it came to a war between Pak and India or China and India, those Rafales will have one chance to do anything and won't have an airfield to return to. Not to mention against China, even 360 Rafales have more J-10s to contend with along with far superior supporting assets, hundreds of J-16s, soon to be 100 J-20 (just of modern 4th gens and 5th gens). Against Pakistan, they can't beat Rafale in the air because JF-17 and F-16 are totally outranged and it's a crapshoot WVR. Pakistan would be wise to invest in offensive capability to neutralise IAF numerical and soon to be qualitative advantage over PAF, what it has in F-16s and JF-17s are capable to making it very expensive for India to do anything. Long term counter to IAF acquisition of Rafale is AZM but until that is ready which is probably decades unless it's an off the shelf FC-31 (assuming it is ever available for export once PLA-AF/N buys into it) the PAF will have to focus on being able to defeat Rafale when it is on the ground.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Again we are going off topic. Can we please get back?

 

[Deino]

@Inst .... PLAESE either STOP it or come back to the topic, but discussing long and endless posts WHY you think the J-10 is a Lavi is as much irrelevant as any hypothetical what-if JF-27!

 

[sndef888]

It won't be surprising if Pakistan indeed gets 36 J-10s.

There was a rumour that Xi gave Pakistan the 054As for below cost.

All this would be directly linked to the Indian skirmish

 

[SteelBird]

Is it a confirm news or just speculation -- Pakistan to get 36 J-10C with WS-10 from China?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Is it a confirm news or just speculation -- Pakistan to get 36 J-10C with WS-10 from China?

It is pure speculation, only the latest in a long series of them. I find it odd that Pakistan would acquire ws-10 J-10Cs without seeing how they would perform in Shaheen exercise first.

 

[Richard Santos]

J-10 might fill such a pressing need for Pakistani AF that it is willing to accept some risk snd uncertainty to get them sooner, The story that they will receive 36 in 6 months still seem implausible, but its circulation does suggest there is enough of a background of urgency to this delivery for whoever circulated the story to believe such accelerated delivery can plausibly be requested or contemplated.