J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
It's all indeed secondary to the lack of stealth and level of electronic outfit, which can be installed anywhere.
But, overall international arms market still considers two distinctive 4.5 gen "hard" features - reduced frontal rcs and better supersonic agility (supercruise, but not only) in wider range of altitudes.
Both noticeably affect BVR.
Jf-17 blk 3 is second most modern Chinese fighter(after j-15t), with one of the most fresh ew suits and pods.
So it's kinda reasonable, even if onboard power is weak.
None of the 4.5th gen aircraft can genuinely supercruise with a useful realistic payload, and a reduced frontal RCS is also achievable with new build 4.5th gen variants of legacy airframes (4.5th gen variants of Flanker, F-15, F-16 in the form of J-16, F-15EX, F-16V etc).
My view is that the whole definition of "4.5th generation" is that the airframes do not have to be anything more capable than a standard 4th generation aircraft in terms of shaping. The additional "0.5" should primarily be weighted for sensing, networking, mission computers, weapons that is the important determinants of an aircraft's "4.5th generation" status. In that regard, the likes of J-16, F-15EX etc are very much 4.5th generation no less than the likes of J-10C or the most recent Rafale variants or Block II/III Super Hornet.
Typhoon and Rafale do supercruise with relevant payloads(though only for typhoon it is meaningfully useful) and speed. More importantly, they and j-10 are very agile and have lots of excess thrust when supersonic, i.e. can perform BVR dance much better.
Typhoon can potentially even do the whole BVR remaining supersonic, though it needs some additional supersonic thrust to really work.
They and J-10B/C also specifically cover their engine fronts. This isn't stealth, but it does reduce detection range, increase efficiency of EW, and it's something you can't introduce later.
F-15, 16 and Flankers(even LOest of them) won't match in this regard. Even thoroughly LO-treated ones(which absolute major of them aren't).
From combat perspective, it absolutely makes sense. I just like distinguishing between 1970s and 1990... airframes.
I strongly disagree.
The most high yield determinants of aerial combat, where the bleeding edge additional few percentage points of capability are most important, lie in sensing, EW, networking, sensor fusion, and weapons (and signature reduction, if you're able to achieve sufficiently competitive VLO, but that's not achievable with 4th/4.5th gen airframes with a realistic loadout).
4.5th generation aircraft are primarily defined by advancements in the above domains --- if your kinematic performance is sufficiently competitive to a given level, further advancements do not provide significantly useful disproportionate gains in combat capability relative gains of sensing/EW/networking/sensor fusion/weapons.
A bit of extra thrust is nice, and a bit more LO for a 4th generation airframe is nice as well -- but in context with the disproportionate gains in capability of the aforementioned key domains, they are relatively marginal in adding to the heft of what differentiates 4.5th gen from 4th gen.
As much as I hate the "generation" system, the "4th" and "4.5th" gen system does make a form of sense -- which is that any 4th generation airframe with their given powerplant can be "4.5th" gen if a sufficiently in depth internal upgrade to sensing/EW/networking/sensor fusion/weapons can be achieved. Realistically, most 4th gen aircraft will not undergo such a major upgrade or MLU so they'll lie on the lower end of a "4.5th gen" architecture.
But for the likes of J-10C, F-15EX, Super Hornet B2/3, J-16 etc, those are much deeper advancements to their internal avionics architecture that the lie on the higher end of "4.5th gen".
Meanwhile one can argue that aircraft which are traditionally thought of as "4.5th gen" like Rafale and Typhoon actually have early variants that are so non-competitive and incapable in their avionics architecture that they don't really deserve to be called "4.5th gen" and should instead be perhaps just 4th gen instead, their marginal capabilities in kinematics and minor signature reduction be damned.
This argument works both ways - while dynamics are secondary to digital side, when electronics and weapons reach some sufficient threshold, it's dynamics that make the difference.
Fighter routinely launching at m=1.5, h=15 has significant range edge over one that can barely cross mach for it's second throw.
Effective range against same fighter, able to consistently maneuver in 1.2-1.5 range is also noticeably less, and that's before we consider positioning and initiative.
And that's the point - neither is worth developing another non-stealth plane, if you already have one. But if you have a later airframe - that's an advantage that counts.
Fighter routinely launching at m=1.5, h=15 has significant range edge over one that can barely cross mach for it's second throw.
Effective range against same fighter, able to consistently maneuver in 1.2-1.5 range is also noticeably less, and that's before we consider positioning and initiative.
And that's the point - neither is worth developing another non-stealth plane, if you already have one. But if you have a later airframe - that's an advantage that counts.
Last edited:
No the argument does not work both ways, because it is far more achievable to continuously iterate bleeding edge gains in electronics and weapons than to advance further bleeding edge gains in kinematics.
The "4.5th generation" aircraft like Rafale and Typhoon are excellent examples of this -- when they first emerged in the 2000s, their raw kinematic performance and airframes and powerplants remain largely unchanged between then and now (not including flight control software tuning -- which again is software).
However, virtually all of the gains in Rafale and Typhoon capability in this intervening 20 years has been their sensors, networking, EW and weapons.
For "4.5th generation" aircraft, the "0.5th gen" difference lies primarily weighted in advancements of sensors/networking/fusion/EW/weapons, and very little weighted in advancements of kinematic performance.
We don't disagree here; i said the same thing. It isn't of primary importance capability-wise. The difference is that you deny importance of airframe altogether. Which is assumption of primacy of uncontested superiority.
There's different base BVR agility point(i.e. mean combat speed), i.e. they're better capable of performing BVR maneuvers (WVR ironically less so, even if it was the original goal) and carrying oversized payloads from get go.
...because this is where gains and mean international level is at (and where eurocanards frankly fail from time to time).
But precisely because no one bothers(or can) improve proper 4 gen aircraft to the exact same airframe standard (it isn't possible with base airframes, and it isn't worth it to design another non-stealth MRF if you already have one) - there's a certain distinction between them.
Just as now there's a 3rd wave of similar aircraft, which are even more ahead of the 4th gen at their base (KF-21, TEDBF; one can even consider adding su-57 here).
There's a term + and ++, which is used to specifically upgrades of existing airframes.
Which is equally important - as it turned out over Ukraine(and before than over Serbia), 4th gen aircraft can't even touch 4++ ones.
I wish to bring to everyone's attention that PAF J-10s have better air to air kill ratio than F-22, F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter combined.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.