J-10 Thread IV

[siegecrossbow]

The point, though, is that the Rafale is probably superior WVR because it has something quite similar to the J-20's aerodynamic layout and the J-10 is a generation behind (roughly Gripen / Lavi) layout.

Tabbing on 142-155kN engines gives the J-10 a substantial T/W advantage, and tabbing on TVC means that the Rafale (which is less of an energy fighter than the Eurofighter) no longer has any WVR advantage.

Put another way, would the Pakistanis be willing to pay 10 million more for a J-10DE that's better than the Rafale in almost every way? I know this forum hates Indians way too much. It'd be a real slapper against the Indians if the J-10DE outperformed the Rafale in almost every way, and did it for 40% less, no?

I don't think the J-10C is better than Rafale in every way and nor do most people here. Engine serviceability, true-omni-role capabilities, air to air/air to ground load, range, etc. are all better for Rafale. But Pakistan did get a very good deal out of the J-10C, which is a comparable airframe at a fraction of the cost. India paid something like 200 million dollars per airframe for Rafale. From a civilian standpoint that's the average production cost of a Marvel blockbuster.

 

[Inst]

I don't think the J-10C is better than Rafale in every way and nor do most people here. Engine serviceability, true-omni-role capabilities, air to air/air to ground load, range, etc. are all better for Rafale. But Pakistan did get a very good deal out of the J-10C, which is a comparable airframe at a fraction of the cost. India paid something like 200 million dollars per airframe for Rafale. From a civilian standpoint that's the average production cost of a Marvel blockbuster.

I mean, is it really that hard to sell J-10DE instead of J-10CE? How much effort is required to modify the J-10CE for TVC support (note the changes in ECM on the J-10B TVC demonstrator) and put in old J-20 TVC engines into the J-10DE?

The point is, if you want to embarrass the Indians, and even give the Americans a run for their money, put fully modern WS-10X engines into the J-10 and slap TVC onto it. The platform will be superior to the Rafale in almost every way (barring range, payload, and possibly EW). Hell, you can even refurbish old J-10Bs into the J-10DE standard and sell them at a fraction of what the French and Americans are asking for their respective aircraft (Rafale, F-16V).

IMO, the only aircraft that would have a substantial superiority over the proposed J-10DE standard would be the Eurofighter in terms of BVR (the Eurofighter's AESA is actually roughly on the level of a Super Hornet, and it has excellent T/W), but the J-10DE would probably be substantially cheaper than the Eurofighter.

 

[Jason_]

The point, though, is that the Rafale is probably superior WVR because it has something quite similar to the J-20's aerodynamic layout and the J-10 is a generation behind (roughly Gripen / Lavi) layout.

Rafale is not remotely similar to the J-20 in aerodynamic layout and certainly not a generation ahead of Gripen/Lavi/J-10.

Tabbing on 142-155kN engines gives the J-10 a substantial T/W advantage, and tabbing on TVC means that the Rafale (which is less of an energy fighter than the Eurofighter) no longer has any WVR advantage.

In the age of HOBS Fox-2 missiles with IIR seekers, there are no WVR advantage to either side.

Put another way, would the Pakistanis be willing to pay 10 million more for a J-10DE that's better than the Rafale in almost every way?

No. Especially since 10 millions is literally 25% more for a $40 million J-10CE.

I know this forum hates Indians way too much. It'd be a real slapper against the Indians if the J-10DE outperformed the Rafale in almost every way, and did it for 40% less, no?

It'd be a real slapper too if Pakistan buys more J-10CE at the cheaper price which would then outnumber the 36 Indian Rafale. Or more JF-17 Block III. Or MLU Block I and II to Block III standard.

Re: claims that the Rafale has -20 dBsm:

The Indians were touting the Rafale having a minimum -20 dBsm. But that's a minimum -20 dBsm, and likely only in clean configuration and at very specific angles. When it comes to average RCS, the Rafale is probably in the same league as the J-10C, but somewhat better.

There are no scenario and no angle where Rafale has -20dBsm in any configuration.

 

[Schwerter_]

I mean, is it really that hard to sell J-10DE instead of J-10CE? How much effort is required to modify the J-10CE for TVC support (note the changes in ECM on the J-10B TVC demonstrator) and put in old J-20 TVC engines into the J-10DE?

The point is, if you want to embarrass the Indians, and even give the Americans a run for their money, put fully modern WS-10X engines into the J-10 and slap TVC onto it. The platform will be superior to the Rafale in almost every way (barring range, payload, and possibly EW). Hell, you can even refurbish old J-10Bs into the J-10DE standard and sell them at a fraction of what the French and Americans are asking for their respective aircraft (Rafale, F-16V).

IMO, the only aircraft that would have a substantial superiority over the proposed J-10DE standard would be the Eurofighter in terms of BVR (the Eurofighter's AESA is actually roughly on the level of a Super Hornet, and it has excellent T/W), but the J-10DE would probably be substantially cheaper than the Eurofighter.

I guess it's best if we stop talking about J-10D when we have zero info on its spec and not even sure if one exists. Furthermore aircraft development and weapons purchasing is very rarely about putting all the fancy toys together and create something seemingly out of this world with no regard to reliably, cost-effectiveness or development time.

At the end of the day its irrevelant what we as bystanders would like, its about what the military think is best given their situation, and thinking purely in terms of equipment specs on paper is rarely the way to go.

 

[aubzman]

I mean, is it really that hard to sell J-10DE instead of J-10CE? How much effort is required to modify the J-10CE for TVC support (note the changes in ECM on the J-10B TVC demonstrator) and put in old J-20 TVC engines into the J-10DE?

The point is, if you want to embarrass the Indians, and even give the Americans a run for their money, put fully modern WS-10X engines into the J-10 and slap TVC onto it. The platform will be superior to the Rafale in almost every way (barring range, payload, and possibly EW). Hell, you can even refurbish old J-10Bs into the J-10DE standard and sell them at a fraction of what the French and Americans are asking for their respective aircraft (Rafale, F-16V).

IMO, the only aircraft that would have a substantial superiority over the proposed J-10DE standard would be the Eurofighter in terms of BVR (the Eurofighter's AESA is actually roughly on the level of a Super Hornet, and it has excellent T/W), but the J-10DE would probably be substantially cheaper than the Eurofighter.

Is thrust vectoring really so important in a modern air to air scenario? Isn't it a bit like taking a knife to a gun fight? Better to kill opponents at a distance than to get close enough that they can kill you.

 

[blindsight]

Is thrust vectoring really so important in a modern air to air scenario? Isn't it a bit like taking a knife to a gun fight? Better to kill opponents at a distance than to get close enough that they can kill you.

Yes. If you're good at it, you can surely have a chance to stab your enemy to death, spectacularly even. But if you really put all your effort to train yourself for that, it's definitely a losing strategy.

 

[SinoSoldier]

With the J-10C's airframe size limitations, there is no way it could outclass the Rafale in every single aspect, no matter how much you upgrade it. However, the J-10C could use a bit of extra teething, including the addition of wingtip pylons, further incorporation of composite materials for the airframe, a WS-10B-3 TVC engine, more dual-ejector racks, and general incremental avionics updates.

They really out to maximize the J-10's airframe, given its size limitations.

 

[ougoah]

With the J-10C's airframe size limitations, there is no way it could outclass the Rafale in every single aspect, no matter how much you upgrade it. However, the J-10C could use a bit of extra teething, including the addition of wingtip pylons, further incorporation of composite materials for the airframe, a WS-10B-3 TVC engine, more dual-ejector racks, and general incremental avionics updates.

They really out to maximize the J-10's airframe, given its size limitations.

Wingtip pylons can't be added without cropping the deltas.

Also don't think TVC adds much value if anything at all. Certainly not for the price of higher acquisition costs, more complex maintenance, and reduced range and payload capacity due to relative decrease in thrust and more weight compared to non-TVC engine.

 

[Blitzo]

Why are people getting into such detailed comparisons of XYZ parameters, for two aircraft that are of the same generation with broadly similarly capable weapons and sensors, and in an overall similar weight class, considering any sort of air combat would be system of systems with each side having their own friendly fighters and force multipliers?

This obsession over minutiae of aircraft/platform performance is only good for academic quibbling over "fighter versus fighter death match" or "specsheet comparisons".

Availability/presence of friendly fighters with modern radars and weapons, friendly AEWC and EW/EA, and the ability of those assets to network with each other, should be the factors of interest for any sort of "matchup" like this...

 

[Deino]

Why are people getting into such detailed comparisons of XYZ parameters, for two aircraft that are of the same generation with broadly similarly capable weapons and sensors, and in an overall similar weight class, considering any sort of air combat would be system of systems with each side having their own friendly fighters and force multipliers?

This obsession over minutiae of aircraft/platform performance is only good for academic quibbling over "fighter versus fighter death match" or "specsheet comparisons".

Availability/presence of friendly fighters with modern radars and weapons, friendly AEWC and EW/EA, and the ability of those assets to network with each other, should be the factors of interest for any sort of "matchup" like this...

I fully agree and even more I would kindly ask to stop these „wishful-thinking“ variants like a TVC- and wingtip-launch rail equipped J-10DE or a tail-less J-20.

Stop thsee what if ideas here!