Buzz and then suddenly the plane throttles back to 20 knots above stall speed, and then redirect itself to land at airbase.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
I think he was referring to the recent engagement, in which case, based on the distances involved I would think the answer would simply be no.
I don't consider that website to be reliable; and I suspect they're just repeating rumours that we've heard.
Actual confirmation would be from Paris Air Show officials or PLA/PRC directly.
If he was talking about the recent engagement, that would be even more difficult to answer considering we don't have any fully definitive answers as to just what sort of ranges each aircraft unit was at at different stages of their engagement.
As it turned out few days ago, at least EW may have to go down in priority list, and there's at least a slight question on elaborate sensors (what good is this comprehensive set of everything, if straightforward set of larger radar, bigger stick and datalink reigns superior?)
Otherwise, assuming that fighter is up to a world standard in sensors, networking and weapons(i.e. it can fight and not get slaughtered in the first place), that starts becoming decisive is performance. Because contested air combat is positional, position is won, all else equal, by a side with better energy retention.
I don't frame it as "credibility".
I frame it as distinguishing between different bases.
I.e. 4++ and 4.5 mean more or less the same in terms of electronics, and are to be considered equal. And individual platform merits are generally more important (which is why j-16>j-10 regardless of this distinction, for modern China; it's simply more useful).
But, in specific circumstances where signature and supersonic performance matter(contested/congested environments above all), I'd prefer keeping track of platform age(and original purpose).
Last edited:
I see nothing in the last few days which makes EW lower in the priority list -- that said, the various aspects I described (sensing/networking/EW/weapons) are not ranked in any order of importance.
I disagree -- what then matters is the side with superior performance in sensing/networking/EW/weapons. Bleeding edge capabilities in those domains will be the ones that will offer decisive advantages than bleeding edge kinematics.
The whole reason why J-10C is considered 4.5th generation (and why J-10A is 4th generation) is primarily because of their advances in sensing/EW/networking/weapons -- similarly, the whole reason why J-16 is considered 4.5th gen (and why J-11B/BS, Su-30MKK/MK2 is 4th generation) is primarily because of their advances in sensing/EW/networking/weapons.
If you are unwilling to accept that J-16 is a credible/fully fledged 4.5th generation fighter that is equal in status to J-10C, then I don't really have anything else to say
We saw fighter R shot down by fighter J in a loopsided fight.
Fighter R famously carried integral EW system, that alone costs more than entire fighter J. Said system took more internal weight and space than either fighter's radar, and ensures that fighter A is more expensive than an F-35.
And this is not the only such case in modern fighter industry (admittedly not in China)- SEAD-level EW from utilitarian tool turned into accessory.
Achieving bleeding edge over the world standard is not something you'd really do for your rank and file non-stealth aircraft. Just achieving competitive standard is enough, then money are better spent elsewhere.
On the aircraft, where bleeding edge does serve purpose, PLAAF is desperately pushing for more performance, despite very clear delays with WS-15 and WS-19.
I don't think you're reading what I write. You're talking about final level, I am talking base.
If you consider Arabic number more prestigious than two mathematical operators - I am fine with that...
Last edited:
Seems real
