J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
You wanna the Taiwanese version or the other version?
Comparable radar/avionics, lower weapons load, shorter combat radius but higher sustained/instantaneous turn rate. Do keep in mind that the current F-16V is merely upgraded F-16A/B airframes. Once they receive new F-16V with new airframes/new engines then it should out turn the J-10C in terms of sustained turn rate.
Apparently the inner most pylons on J-10 can in fact be used for missiles but attaching missiles there is a huge pain in the ass. You have to get on top of the wings and remove part of the skin to get at the wires to hook it up.
Unless there's good reason to do this you would avoid it, hence normally it's only used for drop tanks.
I would argue that for all intents and purposes, J-10C and F-16V are close enough in role, weight class, and generation of avionics and weapons suite that neither one has any sort of decisive advantage over the other in the domain of modern networked warfare.
The result of any sort of hypothetical contest between the respective aircraft instead would depend on the ability of other friendly forces in the aerial domain, naval domain, strike domain, with particular attention to force multiplier AEW&C and EW/ELINT forces.
My answer to styx would be -- "close enough to a degree that other supporting offboard/joint/networked assets are more important".
For practical purposes the J-10C could have a maximum AA load out of 4 PL-15 and 2 PL-10, with the 2 PL-15/2 PL-10 combo far more common. For all practices and purposes, the F-16 has a higher load out.
But the J-10C’s role in PLAAF is different from that of the F-16V in ROCAF. The former is considered a lower end defensive fighter whereas the latter forms the backbone of the fleet. For air dominance the mainland depends on J-20/J-16 combo.
Sure, and all of those requisite aircraft types in a conflict would be operating with substantial offboard friendly aerial support and force multipliers in a joint environment.
I think "spec by spec" comparisons between J-10C and F-16V is a useful way to approach his question, but I think it is also important to state the context in how they would both operate.
Given he is asking about the J-10C and F-16V in a PLAAF and ROCAF context, I feel like the offboard and joint context cannot really be separated out.
It doesn't mean F-16 likes being overloaded any better, especially in such a close proximity conflict.
Their practical intercept/air superiority loads are equal for all intents and purposes(4-6 missiles).