*New J-10 Thread*

[FreeAsia2000]

Thanks tphuang, my mistake... I have gotten generation standards from croatian military yourneal. In there recent article they reffered at Gripin as first 4th gen fighter in operational service. I guess they f.... up
What I was tryng to say is that j-10s curent version is in terms of aircraft technology and avionics more compareble to 4th gen fighters like F16C or M2000-5 rather then EF and Rafale and I think that PLAAF realisses that too... That`s why they are developing advanced version of it...
I think that next version of j-10 is redesigned in same way like the Hornet was from C/D to E/F and that advanced j-10 with lowerd RCS, WS-10ATVC, better sensors and countermeasures could close the gap with F-18E and approach the EF/Rafale capabilities...

I'm confused.

What exactly are you trying to say ?

The J-10 is now almost universally described as being at the least as 4.5 gen along with F/A-18E/F.

The SU-37 and Eurofighter are closer to 5th gen.

Of course we're still awaiting the Super-10...the world is going to be pretty
shocked.

 

[tphuang]

Great job there Tphuang

I would say it's the same plane that would be equal or approaching the Typhoon/Rafale capabilities. More like a platform for testing and ironing out the technologies that would eventually end up on J-XX.

But then wasn't there some news saying that J-10's next version will fly in 2006(5 years!!! )

there is a lot of confusion over this, but the main support for 5th generation fighter comes from the fact that the recent proposals for the 5th generation fighter has been decided (in this month in fact). People are saying that CAC won the bid (at least for the medium sized 5th generation fighter), that's why it's announcing the next generation fighter. It all depends on whether or not you are an optimist I guess. I personally don't think the modified J-10 will take 5 years to fly.

 

[Totoro]

Maglomanic,

I have not seen any data for j-10s radar, nor have i seen any data about frontal RCS of superbug, EF. Except the wild guesstimates, of course. What i have seen is the consensus that superbug would be detected (not locked on) by su27's radar at some 150 km.

I would venture out and say that EF carrying 4 aams has smaller RCS than superbug carrying four AAMs. F18e/f is far from a stealth airplane. 0.1 m2 frontal rcs is closer to being rcs of an amraam on a pylon alone, not counting the rest of the plane. That being said, EF is no stealth plane either and, when equipped for war, it too would be tracked before it gets in range to fire its amraams, just like superbug. And no, i will not prove you wrong just as much as you can't prove me wrong. Reason being tha RCS data is classified (with the exception of some older russian planes used for benchmarks) and numbers you and me and average joe schmoe out there see in magazines are guesstimates that may or may not be close to reality.


Migleader,

JHMS is not an example of US learning about new tech through practical usage of a new system. It was examening such tech back in the 80s, but concentrated on bvr engagements. Opposite of russians who trusted more in WVR engagements. When US finally decided to field the tech, working with israelis, the tech was already there and matured. I have no doubt in my mind JHMS is quite on par with other best HMS's out there today and superior to early russian HMS systems.

As far as tech characteristics of two missiles in question (is it your belief j10 will be carrying r73s rather than pl8 or its successors?) aim9x is far too new to know anything. specs on it that can be found online range greatly and from the size and weight of the missiles it's quite possible aim9x has the same range as r73 (40km also being quoted). Little bit better seeker for one, little bit better offbore capabiliy for other, this, that, we're talking about details. Both systems seem to be very lethal and differences seem to be negligable. It is my opinion that if it comes to a wvr fight, (unlike in bvr fight) missile specs wont be paramount. I wouldn't be surprised if mutual kills get somewhat common.

 

[isthvan]

I'm confused.

What exactly are you trying to say ?

The J-10 is now almost universally described as being at the least as 4.5 gen along with F/A-18E/F.

The SU-37 and Eurofighter are closer to 5th gen.

Of course we're still awaiting the Super-10...the world is going to be pretty
shocked.

I was trying to say that current version of J-10 avionics, radar and etc. are not up to par with Super Hornet… If J-10 wants to compete with new western fighters it must go true the some structural changes to reduce radar signature (modifying air intakes, reducing number of maintenance panels), must get better avionics especially better ECM system, HMS better then current Russian and etc… It must go trough the same redesign Hornet went trough to become Super Hornet…
I believe that new version of which Yang Wei talked about has gone true that changes and that this version will be far better plane then Super Hornet and approach the EF/Rafale capabilities...
As for development plan of next gen j-10 and j-xx don’t forget that F/A-18e/f development lasted 8 years and that F-22 development lasted 20 years and F-22 still needed 14 years to reach operational status after it was declared winner in ATF program…
As for PAK –FA do not forget that Russia already develop 5th generation fighter prototype (MiG 1-42) but could not afford to produce it so they have allot of experience and that’s way they are convinced that they can finish development of PAK-FA to the end of decade…
Again I am not trying to bash j-10, I really think that it is great fighter but I am convinced that it is currently more comparable to F-16 block 40 then to the latest gen. western fighters… I am not thinking about future versions of j-10 but only stating current situation…

 

[maglomanic]

Maglomanic,

I have not seen any data for j-10s radar, nor have i seen any data about frontal RCS of superbug, EF. Except the wild guesstimates, of course. What i have seen is the consensus that superbug would be detected (not locked on) by su27's radar at some 150 km.

I would venture out and say that EF carrying 4 aams has smaller RCS than superbug carrying four AAMs. F18e/f is far from a stealth airplane. 0.1 m2 frontal rcs is closer to being rcs of an amraam on a pylon alone, not counting the rest of the plane. That being said, EF is no stealth plane either and, when equipped for war, it too would be tracked before it gets in range to fire its amraams, just like superbug. And no, i will not prove you wrong just as much as you can't prove me wrong. Reason being tha RCS data is classified (with the exception of some older russian planes used for benchmarks) and numbers you and me and average joe schmoe out there see in magazines are guesstimates that may or may not be close to reality.


.

I'll have to concur with you on that.Lets wait and see.

Regarding the point being raised by isthvan i think what he is saying holds some water. J-10 certainly has the potential to become equal and probably surpass Typhoon/Rafale/Super bug but it will need more work to achieve that. Next few years will be certainly in that direction (i.e trying to attain such capabilities). I think there are two paths available to J-10. Amore radical one something like JSF kind of more emphasis on stealth or incremental improvements in stleathiness like Rafale/Typhoon/Bug.

 

[MIGleader]

I still think PLAAF pilots, who have been using their HMS since 1992, will have a great WVR combat advantage over an f/a-18E, whos pilots just got their cueing sites.

i dont believe the PLAAF will continue using the r-73 in front line units after pl-8s successors are introduced. Perhaps only in the su-27s and su-30s.The sucessors could be a variety of SRAAMS, hopefully with performance similar to that of the python 4. If the russians offer sonething good enough, maybe the PLAAF will pick it. But most likely not.

 

[isthvan]

I still think PLAAF pilots, who have been using their HMS since 1992, will have a great WVR combat advantage over an f/a-18E, whos pilots just got their cueing sites.

Sorry but I must to disagree… PLAAF have been using HMS since 1992 but you must agree that only a limited number of pilots have 14 years of experience with HMS if we look at how limited number of su-27 and j-11 fighters in 90is was …
Also with level of training and combat experience that USN pilots have you must agree that they would know how to use their cueing sites? HMS is made to make pilots life easier and well trained pilot can quickly adopt and use it to great extent…
Experience that PLAAF pilots have in using HMS could give them some advantage but not in that level you are talking about…

 

[umairdt]

But did'nt the Luftwaffe after getting the Mig-29s and associated armament, and testing it came to the conclusion that the R-73's seeker was only marginally better than that of the AIM-9L and was susceptible to IR counter measures.
That would make the AIM-9X with it's 128x128 resolution imaging infrared seeker the superior weapon speciffically coupled with it's purported greater than 60 degree off bore capability.

 

[tphuang]

But did'nt the Luftwaffe after getting the Mig-29s and associated armament, and testing it came to the conclusion that the R-73's seeker was only marginally better than that of the AIM-9L and was susceptible to IR counter measures.
That would make the AIM-9X with it's 128x128 resolution imaging infrared seeker the superior weapon speciffically coupled with it's purported greater than 60 degree off bore capability.

yes, R-73 was susceptible to IR counter measures, because it didn't go digital until recently. It's main advantage was the 60 degree OBV and the integration with HMS. AIM-9X is definitely a far superior missile with the image infrared seeker. Although from pla's own experiment, it determined that pl-8 actually shows better performance than AIM-9L. The idea is that PL-8B/PL-9C is also better than AIM-9M, I guess we will see.

 

[MIGleader]

But did'nt the Luftwaffe after getting the Mig-29s and associated armament, and testing it came to the conclusion that the R-73's seeker was only marginally better than that of the AIM-9L and was susceptible to IR counter measures.
That would make the AIM-9X with it's 128x128 resolution imaging infrared seeker the superior weapon speciffically coupled with it's purported greater than 60 degree off bore capability.

Luftwaffe mig-29s have 80's r-73s, new vairents have already been introduced. In itself, the r-73 is not a superior missle to the aim-9x, but when combined with a more manuverable aircraft, its advantage of high-angle attack is doubled.

can anyone give me the range of the pl-8b and the pl-9c? I seem to find too many varying stats.