*New J-10 Thread*
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
I don't know how it will effect a design like J-10, which is built for incredible maneuverability. The F-15E had conformals and it did affect it's maneuverability to a certain degree, but it was mostly from the weight of the added fuel and tanks itself. That's the only example I know of. I have a feeling that J-10 will probably turn alot better than an F-15E if loaded with conformals. Hopefully someone else will answer your question about air flow.
I just find this news not so surprising. China wants better range for it's tactical fighters and conformal tanks are a good way to give J-10 greater 'legs'. I wonder if China will eventually keep two seperate batches of J-10's in service to fill various roles. One for strike, and one for dedicated air combat.
sort of, J-10B (or any future twin-seater) is looked at as the strike platform. I guess it would only have to move better than JH-7A to be the best ground striker in PLAAF, so adding some extra weight shouldn't be a big problem.
Each Airplane Strikes a Different Balance
It would be equally relevant to ask if the Typhoon was in the same class as the F-2, or vice-versa.
The F-2, Block 50+ F-16, and J-10 are all multirole fighters, with an emphasis on range and air-to-ground capabilities. The J-10 has the lowest wing loading of the three, which will grant it better instantaneous turn rate. In terms of payload and range requirements, however, the three fighters could be considered as close competitors.
The Typhoon, on the other hand, was developed with such a clear emphasis on the air-to-air role, that it has of necessity shortchanged its air-to-ground capabilities. This was why the Typhoon was thrown out of the running by Singapore at the very first down-select, while France's Rafale was not. The Europeans are adding air-to-ground capability to the Typhoon after the fact, but the airplane will still not have the same range and strike capability as a Block 50+ F-16.
It's really a matter of how you want to strike your balance.
It would be equally relevant to ask if the Typhoon was in the same class as the F-2, or vice-versa.
The F-2, Block 50+ F-16, and J-10 are all multirole fighters, with an emphasis on range and air-to-ground capabilities. The J-10 has the lowest wing loading of the three, which will grant it better instantaneous turn rate. In terms of payload and range requirements, however, the three fighters could be considered as close competitors.
The Typhoon, on the other hand, was developed with such a clear emphasis on the air-to-air role, that it has of necessity shortchanged its air-to-ground capabilities. This was why the Typhoon was thrown out of the running by Singapore at the very first down-select, while France's Rafale was not. The Europeans are adding air-to-ground capability to the Typhoon after the fact, but the airplane will still not have the same range and strike capability as a Block 50+ F-16.
It's really a matter of how you want to strike your balance.
The Chengdu J-10 and Mitsubishi F-2 belongs to the same generation (4 - 4.5) of aircraft, while the Eurofighter Typoon is more advanced (generation 5) with supercruise capability.
For comparison, the J-10 and F-2 are similiar in size, weight, and speed. The F-2 has a heavier weapons load capacity, and possibly longer combat radius than the J-10. The F-2 is also equipped with AESA radar, which is more advanced than J-10's JL-10A radar.
However, the Mitsubishi F-2 has a unit price of $108 million,. which is 3 times the cost of a Su-30MK, or 4 times the cost of a JAS-39. I don't have a reliable unit cost estimate on the J-10, but we can assume that it prolly cost 1/3 - 1/4th of what a F-2 costs.
Since the J-10's capability is comparable to early F-16's (F-16A MLU?), you could say that you get what you paid for.
The problem with S. Korea and Singapore's fighter competition was that both nations were looking for a strike aircraft. The F-15E was combat proven and ready to go, but the "omni role" capability of the Rafale was definately not ready. The air-to-ground sytems and software for the Eurofighter is currently under development by EADS and wont' be ready until 2007.
My personal experience in dealing with British and Singapore nationals at work (I work with multinational company) is that they're very strict on procedures. Everything has to be planned out, charted, and followed exactly -- if it ain't ready, it ain't ready. I'd speculate that when the Eurofighter was being submitted for Singapore's competition, they didn't try to cover up the fact that the air-to-ground capability wasn't ready, versus the French tried to cover it with fluff. One example is during Asian Aerospace 2000, the French paid Miss Singapore to sit in the cockpit of a Rafale, dressed in a tight-fitting gold chongsam with a slit right up her leg. Great sexy promotion, but doesn't cover up the aircraft's shortcomings.
If S. Korea and Singapore was looking to buy an air-superiority fighter, I think the Rafale and Typhoon (possibly JAS-39 too) would've prolly fared better. But since both countries were looking for a strike aircraft, the timing was just bad for the Europeans.
Last edited:
Typhoon is in it's league of it's own, I think F-2 might have a better radar (AESA) since the USAF supplied.But the F-2 is only limited to firing WVRAAM.... once Eurofighter gets the CAESAR it should be better... and J-10 is like what equal to F-16 B/C?
- Status