J-10 Thread IV

[Blitzo]

You are of course right. However it does sort of make one wonder. Thrust to weight is very useful for BVR, and the Typhoon’s supersonic maneuverability should help it gain a positional advantage, minor it maybe it still should be a point in the Eurofighter’s favor.

I don't think it's useful to talk about specifics in too much detail for an exercise whose results and parameters that we know nothing about.

My point is more general about the fact that if one wants to look at the most important domain that a modern fighter aircraft should excel in to gain greater advantages in air to air combat, then it is "electronic advancedness" (encompassing sensors, processing, networking, electronic warfare, and stealth, the first few of which are also key determinants of weapons suite compatibility) which matters much more than having slightly greater kinematic performance or endurance (assuming range, and time to arrival to station, etc are not key requirements).

This will be my last off topic post on the matter.

 

[Viperzero]

Hey fellows

I’m still looking for the rest of that old J-10 cockpit diagram

according to the March 2002 Janes defense weekly it originated from a “regional Air Force source” does anyone know who and if the document is publicly available and floating around? I have a simulator project and it would be very helpful to make the cockpit functionality.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I also do not put too much stock into these rumours (and even if they are true, RoE and exercise parameters are always unknowns which makes any "results" next to useless anyhow).

That said, "brute forcing" and being "heavily oriented to the air superiority role" through mere kinematics isn't as important as having superior sensors, avionics, and networking these days.


I would say "electronic advancedness" is anything but "simple". If anything it is perhaps the most decisive domain of air combat that you want to maximize your advantages in compared to others.

It's...hard to win just through generation alone, unless it's crushing. And unless something is very much wrong with EF, it shouldn't be the case (Eurofighter representing a "whole" mix of state-of-the-art European 2000s solutions, and this specific one - with addition of key 2020 ones). It doesn't have to be worlds' best (though many subsystems were always promoted and expected to be exactly this way), it just has to work as expected of its generation.

It's especially against an opponent who has more "raws". Like, it's going to be simplistic, but:
(1)EF is twin engine a/c with significant power overmatch. It means probably times(!) more available power, power maneuver, cooling, etc for onboard electronics.
(2)then come the systems itself, which, for the lack of a better word, are richer BVR set for a typhoon, which is sorta normal for a higher-end aircraft. Much more "luxurious" EW installation (with the extension package available in low-drag configuration, and thus normal), dedicated BVR IRST, and things like that. EF2000 doesn't have obvious missed checkboxes in BVR a2a domain.
(3)it's indeed an intentional supercruiser, supercruiser in a full a2a configuration. I.e. normal combat speeds (and thus wastly higher initial energy state for both aircraft and its weapons) for Eurofighter in BVR is supposed to be there, where J-10 should be at best reach once per fight (first merge), and even that is under a question mark. Even its WVR missiles are BVR-relevant, through energy alone.
(4)electronic superiority is especially harder to show in peacetime mode. Some of it of course is achievable, but some key radar/ew capabilities are not. There is much to lose from emitting too much before the right time.

It's a different thing in a "true" air combat, where specific advantages of specific aircraft go down compared to the overall system efficiency of the whole air force. But in pristine and early 2v2/4v4 knightly jousts - this would mean that Eurofighter as a product is at this point next to a failure level bad.

 

[Blitzo]

It's...hard to win just through generation alone, unless it's crushing. And unless something is very much wrong with EF, it shouldn't be the case (Eurofighter representing a "whole" mix of state-of-the-art European 2000s solutions, and this specific one - with addition of key 2020 ones). It doesn't have to be worlds' best (though many subsystems were always promoted and expected to be exactly this way), it just has to work as expected of its generation.

It's especially against an opponent who has more "raws". Like, it's going to be simplistic, but:
(1)EF is twin engine a/c with significant power overmatch. It means probably times(!) more available power, power maneuver, cooling, etc for onboard electronics.
(2)then come the systems itself, which, for the lack of a better word, are richer BVR set for a typhoon, which is sorta normal for a higher-end aircraft. Much more "luxurious" EW installation (with the extension package available in low-drag configuration, and thus normal), dedicated BVR IRST, and things like that. EF2000 doesn't have obvious missed checkboxes in BVR a2a domain.
(3)it's indeed an intentional supercruiser, supercruiser in a full a2a configuration. I.e. normal combat speeds (and thus wastly higher initial energy state for both aircraft and its weapons) for Eurofighter in BVR is supposed to be there, where J-10 should be at best reach once per fight (first merge), and even that is under a question mark. Even its WVR missiles are BVR-relevant, through energy alone.
(4)electronic superiority is especially harder to show in peacetime mode. Some of it of course is achievable, but some key radar/ew capabilities are not. There is much to lose from emitting too much before the right time.

It's a different thing in a "true" air combat, where specific advantages of specific aircraft go down compared to the overall system efficiency of the whole air force. But in pristine and early 2v2/4v4 knightly jousts - this would mean that Eurofighter as a product is at this point next to a failure level bad.

I actually kind of disagree -- again, I don't put much stock into the original rumour, but one aircraft "winning 4 out of 6 BVR engagements" is not unbelievable considering we don't know any of the details of the exercise parameters, and when considering that even something like new tactics can drastically change win rates across different years/exercises (one only needs to look at rumours of PLA DACT exercises and golden helmet type things where different aircraft types are said to achieve good k/d rates one year, and then poorer the next year).

Even in terms of things like primary radar, ISRT, integrated EW, datalinking, I would consider J-10CP to be broadly in the same generation as something like a modern AESA equipped Typhoon (which the Qatari Typhoons are), and of a sufficiently similar weight class, performance class such that the avionics and networking differences would present the primary differences in innate aircraft capability, if we were to leave tactics aside.

Putting it another way -- again, I want to say I don't put particular stock into the "4 out of 6" rumour or any of the other rumours so far -- the idea of J-10CP winning 4 out of 6 BVR engagements against Qatari Typhoons is as believable to me as if you told me that Qatari Typhoons won 4 out of 6 BVR engagements against J-10CP.
Even if it were true, it just doesn't mean much anyhow.

 

[Biscuits]

The original Eurofighter avionics and radar are totally obsolete. They were obsolete when the fighter entered service. Let alone two decades later. The latest Tranche 4 systems are top notch, but there haven't been either many purchases or upgrades to them ordered.

That Qatar's Eurofighter aircraft still lose to the J-10CE despite having the Mk 0 radar is really pathetic. Considering it is more advanced than the aircraft in current use in Europe.

Pakistan's J-10CE is essentially a PLAAF J-10C with nerfed PL-15 though. It is more or less the best air combatant on paper in the region, besides Israel's F-35s. If anything it's slightly sobering that it was defeated 2 out of 6 times. Although not terrible.

It should be hoped that in real conditions, the J-10's data linking will let it have better than 2 to 3 ratio against regional imported 4.5gen. Otherwise, Pakistan may need to buy more of them to maintain regional air supremacy.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Eurofighter is a much heavier class aircraft, of the same age, and very strongly biased towards air superiority role.
If confirmed (I am not overly keen on forum rumors), it is absolutely shameful&worse to it.

They are both medium weight fighters. Considering the fact that J-10C has bested the J-16, a heavy weight 4.5 gen, on numerous occasions, it really isn’t that shameful if the Eurofighter were bested. Like @Blitzo said we don’t know about the parameters and restrictions of the exercise or comparative proficiency of either side’s pilots. When using appropriate strategies the J-16 could 2:0 against the J-20. Does that mean the J-16 is a better fighter aircraft and J-20 is worthless? No!

It does prove that Chinese fighter aircraft are not “junk” like the usual suspects claim and under the right conditions, can prove a challenge even for top tier Western platforms. I think USAF will be very interested in gleaming data from such exercises for their own analysis.

 

[Biscuits]

It does prove that Chinese fighter aircraft are not “junk” like the usual suspects claim

You'd need to be Saddam level delusional to think that platforms designed by people who have the largest economy in the world backing them, consistently competing top 1-2 in military aviation, that explicitly have better paper specs than most rivals, and are even close to the same version used by said country's own military, would be anything but top tier and an extreme challenge for anyone going up against them, let alone "junk" lol

Such extreme ignorance of battle conditions would lead to one sided slaughter if it ever came down to a clash.

 

[AndrewS]

We know that on paper specs at least, the J-10 comes ahead out of any light/medium 4.5gen, besides when J-10 does not equip the PL-15 and the other side equips Meteor.

What is surprising to me is that results are leaked this way, if they're truthful. Who talked and why?

It's in the interests of both Pakistan and China, for the J-10 to be perceived as a competent fighter jet.

 

[gelgoog]

The Eurofighter has two 90 kN engines i.e. 180 kN total. The J-10 has a single 144 kN engine.

The Eurofighter is heavier, has more engine power, should have a higher capability in terms of electrical generation to operate the avionics and radar. It has a pretty good airframe and engines for the era it came out. It is just the avionics and radar which are, well, shit.

I will just give you an example. The original avionics CPU was the Motorola 68020. This is a fighter which became operational in 2003 with a CPU from 1984. The Eurofighter started development in the 1980s, and it was supposed to enter service in the 1990s, but because of multiple delays it entered service in 2003. The avionics reflect this.

Remember the Eurofighter (2003) is a contemporary of the Super Hornet (2001). Which has much better avionics and radar. The Eurofighter originally came with a planar array radar, similar to the original Bars radar (not the later PESA variant), while the Super Hornet had an AESA radar. That is like two radar generations more advanced. The mission computers for the Super Hornet are also way more advanced. They use the Motorola PowerPC CPU instead of a Motorola 68020 CPU. The processor is basically a decade more recent.

There were multiple programs to upgrade the systems for the Eurofighter but their production was lackluster due to lack of funding. Qatar is supposed to be operating the Mk 0 AESA radar. This is basically better than any radar in service in Europe or anywhere else right now that is operating the Eurofighter. The fact that it still loses against the J-10CE is pretty damning really. While the improved Mk 2 AESA is supposed to enter service in Europe eventually there are still none in service.

 

[Maikeru]

The Eurofighter has two 90 kN engines i.e. 180 kN total. The J-10 has a single 144 kN engine.

The Eurofighter is heavier, has more engine power, should have a higher capability in terms of electrical generation to operate the avionics and radar. It has a pretty good airframe and engines for the era it came out. It is just the avionics and radar which are, well, shit.

I will just give you an example. The original avionics CPU was the Motorola 68020. This is a fighter which became operational in 2003 with a CPU from 1984. The Eurofighter started development in the 1980s, and it was supposed to enter service in the 1990s, but because of multiple delays it entered service in 2003. The avionics reflect this.

Remember the Eurofighter (2003) is a contemporary of the Super Hornet (2001). Which has much better avionics and radar. The Eurofighter originally came with a planar array radar, similar to the original Bars radar (not the later PESA variant), while the Super Hornet had an AESA radar. That is like two radar generations more advanced. The mission computers for the Super Hornet are also way more advanced. They use the Motorola PowerPC CPU instead of a Motorola 68020 CPU. The processor is basically a decade more recent.

There were multiple programs to upgrade the systems for the Eurofighter but their production was lackluster due to lack of funding. Qatar is supposed to be operating the Mk 0 AESA radar. This is basically better than any radar in service in Europe or anywhere else right now that is operating the Eurofighter. The fact that it still loses against the J-10CE is pretty damning really. While the improved Mk 2 AESA is supposed to enter service in Europe eventually there are still none in service.

This matches with a comment I read on Pprune (2nd hand) from someone who claimed to have flown both SuperBug and Typhoon. The latter is a very good airframe/engine combo, but was woefully behind in electronics.