But Greece has closer ties to China compared to Turkey. And Turkey been sponsoring ETIM (UN recognized terrorist group) to wreck havoc in Xinjiang which pissed China off big time, and eliminated all of them in the region.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
J freaking 10 c
I don't know why there is such a long comparison between the range of Meteor and PL-15. The range they publish is a top of the line number under optimal flight condition against large, non-maneuvering target. Any range outside of NEZ is pretty much meaningless when encountering advanced fighter jet. Even NEZ probably overstates the effective range against advanced fighter jet. If you can get 50 to 60 km NEZ in real world conditions, you have an amazing AAM already. I'd think Meteor and PL-15 are both in that realm. Ramjet propulsion could potentially make Meteor more lethal in end stages. On the flip side, AESA seeker on PL-15 would give it better chance of locking on to correct target against advanced fighter jet's EW suite/decoys. I tend to think the AESA seeker is probably more important than ramjet propulsion. Either way, both great AAMs. I don't know if people at our level will know more than that.
I'd say Rafale is a more well rounded aircraft. It probably does have better multi-role capability because PLAAF never developed J-10 in that direction. Due to its recent success in export market, I'd say Rafale probably does a lot of things pretty well and matches customer requirement in a lot of these countries in the things it can do. We will see what they add to J-10 to make it more export focused going forward. I think people have been debating more on just A2A combat abilities. I think that's more evenly matched. The French claim of Rafale having really low RCS is meaningless when you consider all of that gets wiped away the moment they start hanging fuel tanks and missiles. In real combat, I don't see it have a material difference from J-10C when both are carrying a lot of payload. The one interesting thing is that RBE2-AA has not that many T/R modules. I don't see how that can be anything but a strike against it. IIRC, the original RBE2 PESA radar also had reduced range due to their effort to have LPI properties with it. So, it seems like Rafale was designed from earlier on to sacrifice some detection abilities to enhance its ability to stay undetected. As such, I'd be very surprised if J-10C does not have a more power AESA radar (given the higher T/R modules, larger radar aperture and similar engine thrust). J-10B/C was designed from the very beginning to host this new avionics architecture layout and was designed to be able to eventually carry the largest possible AESA radar for its size. I don't know enough about Rafale to know if they did a better redesign of internal layout when RBE2-AA was developed or if it was more of a plugging a more advanced radar system in with rest of their avionics network. Aside from radar, there is the question of EW suite. There is a lot of articles out there about how advanced SPECTRE is. But based on what we know, the AESA radar is a large part of the EW suite. So if Rafale has a less powerful radar, can its EW suite really be that capable of jamming advanced AESA radar/EO tracker from outside. I'd say that when all things are considered, some of this may be French Marketing. Rafale and J-10C are probably fairly evenly matched in A2A combat.
I'd say Rafale is a more well rounded aircraft. It probably does have better multi-role capability because PLAAF never developed J-10 in that direction. Due to its recent success in export market, I'd say Rafale probably does a lot of things pretty well and matches customer requirement in a lot of these countries in the things it can do. We will see what they add to J-10 to make it more export focused going forward. I think people have been debating more on just A2A combat abilities. I think that's more evenly matched. The French claim of Rafale having really low RCS is meaningless when you consider all of that gets wiped away the moment they start hanging fuel tanks and missiles. In real combat, I don't see it have a material difference from J-10C when both are carrying a lot of payload. The one interesting thing is that RBE2-AA has not that many T/R modules. I don't see how that can be anything but a strike against it. IIRC, the original RBE2 PESA radar also had reduced range due to their effort to have LPI properties with it. So, it seems like Rafale was designed from earlier on to sacrifice some detection abilities to enhance its ability to stay undetected. As such, I'd be very surprised if J-10C does not have a more power AESA radar (given the higher T/R modules, larger radar aperture and similar engine thrust). J-10B/C was designed from the very beginning to host this new avionics architecture layout and was designed to be able to eventually carry the largest possible AESA radar for its size. I don't know enough about Rafale to know if they did a better redesign of internal layout when RBE2-AA was developed or if it was more of a plugging a more advanced radar system in with rest of their avionics network. Aside from radar, there is the question of EW suite. There is a lot of articles out there about how advanced SPECTRE is. But based on what we know, the AESA radar is a large part of the EW suite. So if Rafale has a less powerful radar, can its EW suite really be that capable of jamming advanced AESA radar/EO tracker from outside. I'd say that when all things are considered, some of this may be French Marketing. Rafale and J-10C are probably fairly evenly matched in A2A combat.
It is pretty much confirmed. Su-35 fits Iran's needs better than J-10C.
Iran needs more than SU-35, imo they need awacs, some EW capabilities and probably SU-30s too.
One step at a time. But I think we are going off topic.
It looks like Iran will pick up some Su-35s after it got rejected at Indonesia and Egypt. Still, Iran has a large air space and a lot of energy resources. There is no reason why China cannot get some export deals with Iran. Shilao's podcast yesterday mentioned some of the political difficulties around exporting J-10s to North Korea. I'd imagine China would be less inclined to export J-10s to Iran if that means it will lose out on some of the more lucrative Middle East export bids down the road to places like Saudi Arabia. But we will see. Export of advanced fighter jet is a great tool of gaining political influence around the world. China should be using it as such.
Why do you feel the J-10C is more limited in A2G roles? Do you have some numbers to back that up?
That could be a good sales pitch to the Gulf petromonarchies: Loosen the purse strings a little or we sell some nasty toys to Iran.
Yes but a rocket motor still have to carry its own oxidizer which is about 70% of the weight and therefor delivers much less total energy then a same sized jet/ram engine.
It also depends on altitude of the shooter and target, rocket motors work very well at high altitudes where they can keep the initial high speed for longer.
While a ramjet that both carries more total energy and can throttle down to not waist energy going fast in dense air is going to give a substantial range increase over a same sized rocket motor at low altitudes.
here is a rough rule of thumb for how fast a missile lose speed after burnout. credit to "" from f-16.net
The time it takes for a missile to lose 25% of its velocity after burn out at supersonic speeds.
Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space
~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft)
~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft)
~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft)
~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft)
~5 seconds @ Sea Level
This is why a 100km range rocket can still run out of energy trying to catch a target 20km away if you are both low to the ground.
You can't jam EO... it's a passive sensor.
Also Rafale's EW suite's marketing term is called SPECTRA not SPECTRE. Nothing that is revealed of SPECTRA is special even for the 1990s. Except for signal sampling but I'd wager that even that was done in the 1990s by others. Wouldn't even be suprised if Chinese EW by the 1990s were already at the level of processing signals and capable of actively returning those. Piece of piss technically for any competent engineer.
Surely you know this is elementary knowledge.
We're discussing calculus while you're here saying 2 is a larger integer than 1.
If you haven't noticed, everyone here knows about theoretical range limits and the physics of NEZ and how a missile's energy status changes. Dual pulse missiles like PL-15 and the AIM-260 being developed by the US have that one extra means of picking up its energy. Exactly when and how they kick the rocket boost is unknown along with how much more effective it is.
Meteor is great for low altitude I'll give you that.
As discussed before, it has great sustained speed but range is still all in net potential energy and if the turns etc are all the same, if all missiles have the same potential energy, it then comes down to the thermodynamic efficiency of the motor vs the ramjet engine, drag, kinematic performance like lift and control surfaces, and how excessive they made the weight. Before balancing cost and production factors into it all, we should balance the physical. There is absolutely no reason for ramjet + rocket booster to have significantly more potential energy than dual pulse rocket... no more effective in most cases between the two in most cases explained before.
Now factor in the production and cost into the equation and future air combat direction. It becomes clear why the US, China, and Russia despite all having had ramjet tech for decades, do not pursue ramjet air to air missiles for their mainstays. They have all experimented with the concept and probably done hundreds of evaluations before MBDA came out with Meteor. Ramjet missiles are a 1960s idea and were already out by the 1970s.
1. Air combat is moving towards stealth, networked small drones and large UCAVs.
2. Missile trucks and missile carrying pods (that glide) one Chinese version potentially evaluated somewhere sometime was shown not long ago.
3. EW and stealth makes long range BVR not quite as likely.
4. Attrition is important.
5. Focus is on attacking systems and dismantling overaching air combat strategies rather than get bogged down in monkey brained x vs y fighter brawls.
oh and 6. China's testing hypersonic air to air missiles and new generations of seeker technology that allow for hypersonic air to air missiles. They've even been transparent and confident enough to say this and admit to the US that at least one of the hundreds of hypersonic flights they are performing have to do with developing a hypersonic air to air weapon.
So the conclusion? Has ramjet + rocket got better kinematics than the others? No!
Has it got less drag? No!
Has it got more lift? No!
Is it lighter? Possibly but certainly if so, not by much worth considering. It could very well be heavier than other missiles without ramjet.
Has it got a lot more potential energy? If so, why wouldn't everyone use it? Meteor has been revealed for over a decade and in service for half. No one bothered to field mainstay ramjet A2A missiles except Meteor. Even the Meteor isn't all that popular among airforces with the data comparing Meteor to even missiles lesser than AIM-120C. It's expensive enough to keep even AIM-120C and lesser missiles around as mainstays.
Last edited: