Should China get su-35bm

MigLeader, where do you get off telling a mod how to do his job. Tphuang took up the fight, if he bans it reflects badly. This has been an interesting and heated argument, so what's your problem?

for the reccord, only me, sumdud, webmaster and ofcourse dongfeng can ban members.

As to the topic of RCS, Migleader stated

the j-10s rcs is unknown to us currently

Click to expand...

, which is about as accurate a statement as can be made on the topic, everything else is conjecture--but hey, that is fun. As tphuang pointed out though, the design is based on Lavi so RCS cannot be that high, I'd say max 5, probably around 3. It is also true the gold film on the F-16 reduces a lot of the total frontal radar reflection from the F-16, so a similar measure could easily be added to the J-10 for improvements (If it does not already have some non gold coating). The EF is said to have a frontal RCS of 1 m^2. Being similar in design, but probably not as refined, I would say the J-10 has the potential to get to 1.5-2 m^2. Let's not forget, canards do not help the frontal RCS od any plane, which is one reason the F-16's frontal RCS still sets a benchmark for similar sized, yet more modern designs.

Alright lets all cool down a bit. Longaxe, your brahsing and minimazing of chinese aviation industry is quite lame. Yeas there have been lots of proplems and wrong decisions, but your posting shows that you apparently don't know nothing about them. So if you want to stick in your obinion, then at least bother to find out few facts that you can support it. Anyway i can advise you that it isen't very vise to brash china and chinese military goods in chinese defence forum (as it isen't vise to brash eg. swedish stuff in swedish military forum and ect.) That kind of mentality will only flame pointless offtopic bullshit and i don't like it. If i see you posting your "obinions" once more in the manner like in this thread (just to flame up the rest of the forum), I'm gonna whipe the forums floor on your ass...got it?

And to the rest of you, back in business and ignore all this....

walter said:

MigLeader, where do you get off telling a mod how to do his job. Tphuang took up the fight, if he bans it reflects badly. This has been an interesting and heated argument, so what's your problem?

As to the topic of RCS, Migleader stated , which is about as accurate a statement as can be made on the topic, everything else is conjecture--but hey, that is fun. As tphuang pointed out though, the design is based on Lavi so RCS cannot be that high, I'd say max 5, probably around 3. It is also true the gold film on the F-16 reduces a lot of the total frontal radar reflection from the F-16, so a similar measure could easily be added to the J-10 for improvements (If it does not already have some non gold coating). The EF is said to have a frontal RCS of 1 m^2. Being similar in design, but probably not as refined, I would say the J-10 has the potential to get to 1.5-2 m^2. Let's not forget, canards do not help the frontal RCS od any plane, which is one reason the F-16's frontal RCS still sets a benchmark for similar sized, yet more modern designs.

Click to expand...

i asked typhuang to ban him. what more do you want? heated arguements are not what the forum needs, but calm debate

you say the euro fighter has a 1m^2 rcs, but it has canards too. so j-10 still has much potential to reduce rcs, especially if dsi intakes are fitted.

MIGleader said:

i asked typhuang to ban him. what more do you want? heated arguements are not what the forum needs, but calm debate

you say the euro fighter has a 1m^2 rcs, but it has canards too. so j-10 still has much potential to reduce rcs, especially if dsi intakes are fitted.

Click to expand...

yes, the EF, one of the most modern fighter desgins today, has canards and that very low frontal RCS. However, while i believe the J-10 is a very good machine and has great upgrade potential, i do not believe the design is as refined as the EF. I admit this is biased, but Europe is still considered to be a bit ahead of the curve compared to China in fighter design. For example, just conjecture here, the EF could have been designed and produced with finer tolerances (less protruberant edges to reflect radar), a more mature and refined overall airframe when it comes to minimizing RCS, and perhaps more advanced RAM. As I already said, this is just conjecture and I do believe the European defense base and industry base at the time it designed (80's) and produced (today) the EF was/is more capable than the Chinese. As we all know, this will not be the case much longer, but none the less. So take it for what it is worth, just my opinion.

walter said:

yes, the EF, one of the most modern fighter desgins today, has canards and that very low frontal RCS. However, while i believe the J-10 is a very good machine and has great upgrade potential, i do not believe the design is as refined as the EF. I admit this is biased, but Europe is still considered to be a bit ahead of the curve compared to China in fighter design. For example, just conjecture here, the EF could have been designed and produced with finer tolerances (less protruberant edges to reflect radar), a more mature and refined overall airframe when it comes to minimizing RCS, and perhaps more advanced RAM. As I already said, this is just conjecture and I do believe the European defense base and industry base at the time it designed (80's) and produced (today) the EF was/is more capable than the Chinese. As we all know, this will not be the case much longer, but none the less. So take it for what it is worth, just my opinion.

Click to expand...

People put it this way, think of the MiG-29 for a moment, from SMT to OVT upgrades, non TVC to TVC, the Russians pulled it off, the Jian-10 is a lightweight fighter and can have itz wings reinforced for extra payload weight or add extra HPs if you wanna redesign the frame, the Jian-10 is a small plane, so working with RCS is easier compared to planes like the Su-27/30, the plane is lightweighted, so you can get engines with a T/W of 10+ like the EF to get it to supercruise and enhance the frame for better flexibility. There is no point of adding TVC since it adds takeoff weight, so you might as well do engines with a higher T/W.

All I am saying is that the j-10 is a young airframe, does it have upgrade potential sure it does. However not much real data exist on the aircraft, and I don’t think that statements made about its powers should be taken as fact. The j-10 is really a light fighter, and it should not be betters then a su-27 derivative with equally advanced avionics and radar. After all an f16 should not do that great against an f15 with similar upgrades, even considering the difference in RCA. It is not fair to compare a su-27 sk with a j-10, it is like comparing a f15A and a f16 Block 52. As for the people saying that opinions should not be considered, don’t think that you can have a discussion on a plane like the j-10 without opinions. At least not till more data on its flight envelope/stats exist, and I don’t mean talking about the opinions of “expertsâ€. Discussing the opinions of “experts†is rather boring.

Longaxe said:

All I am saying is that the j-10 is a young airframe, does it have upgrade potential sure it does. However not much real data exist on the aircraft, and I don’t think that statements made about its powers should be taken as fact. The j-10 is really a light fighter, and it should not be betters then a su-27 derivative with equally advanced avionics and radar. After all an f16 should not do that great against an f15 with similar upgrades, even considering the difference in RCA. It is not fair to compare a su-27 sk with a j-10, it is like comparing a f15A and a f16 Block 52. As for the people saying that opinions should not be considered, don’t think that you can have a discussion on a plane like the j-10 without opinions. At least not till more data on its flight envelope/stats exist, and I don’t mean talking about the opinions of “expertsâ€. Discussing the opinions of “experts†is rather boring.

Click to expand...

i beg to differ. comparing a j-10 to an su-27 would be more like comparing a f-16 to an f-15. they were designed for different roles, and therefor cannot be compared as they were the same. the j-10 is a lightwieght multirole aircraft, the su-27 is a heavy, twin engine frontline fighter. upgrades to both have changed some roles, but not the basics. lets not forget the j-10 was originally designed as a fighter to counter the su-27 and mig-29, but the later peace between china and russia led to a change of requirements. i would agree never to listen to observer claims, especially if they are chengdu. they would claim the j-10 superirio just as sukhoi officials would claim the su-27 superior.

I don't really mind debating with him as long as he stays away from profanities. I'd appreciate it if he provides some evidences to back up his claims instead of just using the idea "that China developed it, so it can't be any good".

Anyhow, take a look at this diagram:

This is the size of the Chinese planes:
Check out the classes:
2 large engine - J-11 (huge) RCS 10 m^2 +
2 medium engine - j-8 (slightly large) RCS 5 m^2+ (based on Mig-29's numbers)
1 medium engine - FC-1 (small) RCS
1 large engine - J-10 (kind of small) - It probably is similar in size to Mig-21s. Mig-21 came along in an era without any regard for stealth and it still had a RCS of 3 m^2. J-10 uses a lot of composite material. It's been mentionned as much as 35 to 40%. It also uses radar absorption material, so I would definitely think it's lower than that. As for comparing it to EF, EF is definitely a larger plane than J-10. So, are the later models of F-16. Not much larger, but still larger. Neither of those models were designed with Stealth in mind, so I don't think you can just say that they definitely have lower RCS, because Europe and USA has gold coating and better absorption material. You can easily put the same material on J-10.

I would really love to hear from some stealth expert on how much the gold coating, composite materials and RAM paint reduces RCS. Until then, I stand by my assumption that J-10 has similar RCS to F-16.

As for J-10 vs J-11, I think it boils down to this:
1. they are produced by different companies in China
2. the relationship between SAC (J-11) and pla is better than that of CAC (J-10) with pla. SAC is considered to be the bigger brother.
3. The results from the air combat dealt a huge blow to SAC, because pla is not ordering as many J-11s and redefined J-11 to become a multiroled plane. It essentially kicked SAC off its position as China's main fighter producer. None of the SAC supporters have questioned the results. The best explanation SAC supporters can give is that J-11B now uses the same electronics and weapons as 10.
4. Don't think SAC is without influences in pla, otherwise there would be no way that it can get pretty much all of the early productions of WS-10A, even though it's in the best interest of China to put that engine on J-10.
5. It was reported in multiple Chinese military magazines that J-10 show much better manuverability in those dogfights than J-11.

I mean you can interpret these things all you want. I think the greatest proof to me is when SAC had the most to loose from these results, but couldn't dispute them.



On Lavi,

"The powerplant intake was a plain chin type scoop, similar to that of the F-16, which was known to be satisfactory at high alpha and sideslip angles. The landing gear was lightweight, the nose wheel was located aft of the intake and retracting rearwards, and the main gear was fuselage mounted, giving a rather narrow track. The sharply swept vertical tail, effective at high alpha due to interaction with the vortices shed by the canards, was mounted on a spine on top of the rear fuselage, and supplemented by the two steeply canted ventral srakes, mounted on the ends of the wing root fillets. Extensive use of composites allowed aerolastic tailoring to the wings, so that the often conflicting demands of shape and rigidity could be resolved to minimise drag in all flight regimes. Composites were also used in the vertical tail, canards, and various doors and panels. A total of twenty-two per cent of the structural weight compromise composite materials. IAI claimed a significant reduction in radar cross section (RCS)."

It is unfounded to assume China cannot match (indeed supersede) the manufacturing tolerances of Europe simply based on past record. China today has made major advancements in manufacturing technology. Chinese electronics is on par with anything the Europeans have. Chinese supercomputers are superior to anything the Europeans can come up with. Microchip manufacturing is the forefront of nanotechnology in the world today. Of course china can manufacture machine parts within high tolerances.

It seems people are judging the extant of China's technical abilities on images of a handful of prototypes. They are in for a rude surprise when China finally commits to a primary indigenous fighter program.

For the record, I would recommend China buy more Sukhois from Russia. The PLAF has still not committed to procuring any indigenous fighter in any significant numbers. Meanwhile, China is still phasing out hundreds of older, obsolete fighters that need immediate replacement. More Sukhois are needed to fill the gap.

Fairthought said:

It is unfounded to assume China cannot match (indeed supersede) the manufacturing tolerances of Europe simply based on past record. China today has made major advancements in manufacturing technology. Chinese electronics is on par with anything the Europeans have. Chinese supercomputers are superior to anything the Europeans can come up with. Microchip manufacturing is the forefront of nanotechnology in the world today. Of course china can manufacture machine parts within high tolerances.

It seems people are judging the extant of China's technical abilities on images of a handful of prototypes. They are in for a rude surprise when China finally commits to a primary indigenous fighter program.

For the record, I would recommend China buy more Sukhois from Russia. The PLAF has still not committed to procuring any indigenous fighter in any significant numbers. Meanwhile, China is still phasing out hundreds of older, obsolete fighters that need immediate replacement. More Sukhois are needed to fill the gap.

Click to expand...

of course. but europe seems to have a much more experienced and stable military base than china, which is how they can produce superior weapons. a stable base and experirnce is something china cannot get from a rapid growth, and may be a drawback. but chinas geting there,

sukhois? lay off em. they only serve some many roles, and dont have the same potential as chinese indegeodus designs. they also never really meet expectations. im personally getting sick of them.

chinas order for 100 al-31s signals as start in mass production of j-10. they also shall be building 100 or so "chinese" j-11s. i personally feel china has much more potential and can gain more experiencei f they start building their own planes rather than buy russian. the su-27 seiries are going to be fairly mediocre in future warefare, regarless of what upgrades are installed.

immediate replacement? chinas in no hurry. j-xx is comming, so sukois will be soon regulated to a second line role. i really believe th plaaf and chinese aircraft industry has finnaly reached the level where they can gegin procurring their own missles, radars, and planes. the plaaf shall no longer be a russian af, but chinese!:china: