Chengdu J-10 "Vigorous Dragon" fighter

siegecrossbow said:
Indeed it is. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia sent fighter aircraft (F-16C/D and F-15SA, respectively) to the Indus Shield Exercise.

Pakistan Air Force has stated that AVIC didn't place limitations on the J-10CP with regards on which exercise it could join, so there is a very real chance of it joining the Anatolian Eagle and other exercises.

PS attaching a clearer photo that Deino has graciously tagged me with.
View attachment 710042
Click to expand...
The deal with the AE Exercise is that it is a NATO-hosted exercise. Airforces like RAF and non-NATO US allies regularly participate in it. If it was the J-7s or any other non important Chinese built aircraft it wouldn't be a such a big deal but having an advanced frontline aircraft in it such as the J-10C(E) is kind of a big deal.

Edit: J-11s also paid a visit in 2011 but back then the US didn't allow Turkish F-16s to exercise with them. I guess things might have changed then, huh?

exercise-anatolian-eagle-2010-plaaf-j-11-fighters-and-v0-syv2wfg1694b1.png
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow said:
Indeed it is. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia sent fighter aircraft (F-16C/D and F-15SA, respectively) to the Indus Shield Exercise.

Pakistan Air Force has stated that AVIC didn't place limitations on the J-10CP with regards on which exercise it could join, so there is a very real chance of it joining the Anatolian Eagle and other exercises.

PS attaching a clearer photo that Deino has graciously tagged me with.
View attachment 710042
Click to expand...
Someone I know was speaking to one of the Devs at Deka and they mentioned pure domestic aircraft were off limits but export aircraft were ok including potentially the J-10CE. along with your comment I was thinking. How different is the J-10CE from the C? I believe the data link is different. Are the radar and rwr the same?
 
snne said:
The deal with the AE Exercise is that it is a NATO-hosted exercise. Airforces like RAF and non-NATO US allies regularly participate in it. If it was the J-7s or any other non important Chinese built aircraft it wouldn't be a such a big deal but having an advanced frontline aircraft in it such as the J-10C(E) is kind of a big deal.

Edit: J-11s also paid a visit in 2011 but back then the US didn't allow Turkish F-16s to exercise with them. I guess things might have changed then, huh?

View attachment 710047
Click to expand...
The J-11 were PLAAF assets but J-10CP is PAF asset. PAF has used JF-17 in numerous exercises featuring American planes. They never had any restrictions to start with.

F-2 said:
Someone I know was speaking to one of the Devs at Deka and they mentioned pure domestic aircraft were off limits but export aircraft were ok including potentially the J-10CE. along with your comment I was thinking. How different is the J-10CE from the C? I believe the data link is different. Are the radar and rwr the same?
Click to expand...
Don’t know about radar and rwr. China has upgraded the radar for J-16 and J-20 at least twice since induction so it is not unreasonable to believe that J-10CP doesn’t use the latest version of radar.
 
aonestudio said:

J-10C’s Alleged 9:0 Victory Against Typhoon Jets Raises Questions: Examining Factors in Recent Middle East Exercise

It is said that during a recent exercise, the J-10CE achieved a remarkable 9:0 record, "shutting out" Qatar Air Force's "Eurofighter Typhoon" fighter jets. While this result is yet to be officially confirmed, Pakistani military enthusiasts have widely circulated the news. If true, it would be a...
www.china-arms.com www.china-arms.com
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg6TcmtBNLs
Click to expand...
Why do reports like these always pop up after any exercise where East vs West aircarft are involved and its almost always in favour of the Eastern aircraft...
 
I'm really not sure about some of the assumptions being made in that article

Qatar’s “Typhoon” received new aircraft in 2022, equipped with the “Captor-E” active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, but it is from the earliest MK 0 batch, with certain functional deficiencies. The UK and Germany’s “Typhoon” started upgrading to the MK 2 batch of “Captor-E” radar from this year, suggesting that Qatar’s radar upgrade may take some time.
...
From publicly available information, the Pakistani J-10CE is equipped with an AESA radar and PL-15E medium-range missiles, providing some advantages against AIM-120 series missiles. However, the Typhoon’s Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile is also formidable, with a range exceeding 140 kilometers and a two-way data link ensuring secondary attack capability. If Qatari pilots faced disadvantages in medium-range air combat, it might be due to the less mature “Captor-E” radar.
Click to expand...

AMSAR/CAESAR/Captor-E/ECRS Mk 0 has been in development since 1993 and flying since 2007, and uses much of the Captor back-end. To suggest that Captor-E/ECRS Mk 0 is less mature than the J-10C's radar is somewhat questionable. Plus apparently the J-10C gets points for being AESA, but the Captor-E doesn't? How does that work?

Beyond that, ECRS Mk 0 and ECRS Mk 2 are in many ways different radars, with ECRS Mk 2 being a step-change in capability over existing designs. Effectively it's arguing the Qatari Typhoons have a weaker radar than the J-10C because there's a next generation radar coming. Mk 2 is better than Mk 0 does not mean Mk 0 is weaker than the J-10C radar. That's a complete failure in logic, never mind a false comparison.

Regarding drag reduction and lift, one of the J-10’s disadvantages ... The J-10C is a single-engine design, and while the WS-10B engine provides substantial thrust, it falls short by over 4 tons compared to the twin-engine Typhoon.

Thanks to its aerodynamic layout, the J-10 achieved an impressive angle of attack, reaching up to 27.6 degrees during test flights, with a normal capability of 26 degrees, compared to the Typhoon’s 24 degrees. This means that, being canard-configured fighters, the J-10, under equivalent altitude and wind conditions, can generate stronger coupled lift.
Click to expand...

Lift is also a function of wing area, and there's rather a marked difference in wing area, J-10C 37m2, Typhoon 50m2.

Pro-rata:
J-10C: sin 26 x 37 = 16.22,
Typhoon: sin 24 x 50 = 20.33

So who's generating the greater lift again?

Drag is also a function of wing area (amongst other things). At peak AoA Typhoon is probably getting about 25% extra drag from exposed wing area, but has 35% extra thrust to counter that with (2x 60KN vs 89KN).

Really not convinced some of these supposed J-10C advantages have been thought through.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Why do reports like these always pop up after any exercise where East vs West aircarft are involved and its almost always in favour of the Eastern aircraft...
Click to expand...

DWG said:
I'm really not sure about some of the assumptions being made in that article



AMSAR/CAESAR/Captor-E/ECRS Mk 0 has been in development since 1993 and flying since 2007, and uses much of the Captor back-end. To suggest that Captor-E/ECRS Mk 0 is less mature than the J-10C's radar is somewhat questionable. Plus apparently the J-10C gets points for being AESA, but the Captor-E doesn't? How does that work?

Beyond that, ECRS Mk 0 and ECRS Mk 2 are in many ways different radars, with ECRS Mk 2 being a step-change in capability over existing designs. Effectively it's arguing the Qatari Typhoons have a weaker radar than the J-10C because there's a next generation radar coming. Mk 2 is better than Mk 0 does not mean Mk 0 is weaker than the J-10C radar. That's a complete failure in logic, never mind a false comparison.



Lift is also a function of wing area, and there's rather a marked difference in wing area, J-10C 37m2, Typhoon 50m2.

Pro-rata:
J-10C: sin 26 x 37 = 16.22,
Typhoon: sin 24 x 50 = 20.33

So who's generating the greater lift again?

Drag is also a function of wing area (amongst other things). At peak AoA Typhoon is probably getting about 25% extra drag from exposed wing area, but has 35% extra thrust to counter that with (2x 60KN vs 89KN).

Really not convinced some of these supposed J-10C advantages have been thought through.
Click to expand...
When this exercise happened a fairly credible insider with a good record for accuracy on the PDF site claimed it was 4 out of 6 in favor of the J-10C. An excellent but much more modest result, I thought this pointed to the J-10 radar being superior to the export MK.0 radar and the CE having possibly better ECM. Then it became 9-0 and I don’t think results like that exist in the real world unless one side is handicapped for whatever reason.

I also feel the J-10’s interceptor DNA makes it a real threat to the Typhoon in BVR but the Typhoon’s thrust advantage would be too much WVR besides the first pass. As I gather the F-16 is a handful for the J-10 WVR and the Eurofighter is pretty similar in how it fights.
 
F-2 said:
I also feel the J-10’s interceptor DNA makes it a real threat to the Typhoon in BVR but the Typhoon’s thrust advantage would be too much WVR besides the first pass.
Click to expand...
Whereas the article argues that the Typhoon is weaker than the J-10C because Typhoon was built as an interceptor....

Typhoon was designed to win the WVR fight by 1) winning the BVR fight, 2) avoiding the merge using supersonic agility and re-engaging at BVR, and 3) to still win the WVR fight using agility and sustained turn capability if it did merge.
 
DWG said:
Whereas the article argues that the Typhoon is weaker than the J-10C because Typhoon was built as an interceptor....

Typhoon was designed to win the WVR fight by 1) winning the BVR fight, 2) avoiding the merge using supersonic agility and re-engaging at BVR, and 3) to still win the WVR fight using agility and sustained turn capability if it did merge.
Click to expand...

The article is utter rubbish, there's no need to critique something that is somehow even worse than National Interest or Eurasian Times tier.

We don't even know what the outcome of those exercises were, let alone what the parameters were, so it's just people writing clickbait on the basis of nothing. Actively avoiding acknowledgement of these kind of articles should be advisable imo.
 
Blitzo said:
The article is utter rubbish, there's no need to critique something that is somehow even worse than National Interest or Eurasian Times tier.
Click to expand...

Not everyone reading it has the background to tell. A little constructive demolition helps people view it in the right context.
 
According to the sum of the factors, the Typhoon surpasses the J-10 in aerial combat by 32%
If the J-10 has a controlled nozzle of +/-15 degrees, then the Typhoon is better by 7%
 

Attachments

  • 01.JPG
    01.JPG
    314.2 KB · Views: 114
F-2 said:
When this exercise happened a fairly credible insider with a good record for accuracy on the PDF site claimed it was 4 out of 6 in favor of the J-10C. An excellent but much more modest result, I thought this pointed to the J-10 radar being superior to the export MK.0 radar and the CE having possibly better ECM. Then it became 9-0 and I don’t think results like that exist in the real world unless one side is handicapped for whatever reason.

I also feel the J-10’s interceptor DNA makes it a real threat to the Typhoon in BVR but the Typhoon’s thrust advantage would be too much WVR besides the first pass. As I gather the F-16 is a handful for the J-10 WVR and the Eurofighter is pretty similar in how it fights.
Click to expand...
These exercises rarely exploit the aircraft fully so the comparisons are never fair - at least to those who want everything to be a competition.

Reminds me Exercise Tapioca in 2002 where USAF F-15E's exercised with SAAF Cheetah C's in South Africa. The claim often is that the scores are equal. What actually happened was the USAF misunderstood from the briefing that they could infact "shoot" before the Eagle and Cheetah merged thus heavily skewing the results in the Cheetah's favour as the USAF did not use their radar and AMRAAMs. Once that was cleared up after the first day the scores went as expected... So the claim was that the two were matched but in fact the USAF fought with one hand tied.

Still, the exercise proved valuable. The USAF learned smaller airforces with on paper inferior equipment could still bite, and the SAAF got to compare tactics and gained dissimilar combat experience against a NATO counterpart.

No doubt this Typhoon vs J-10 exercise was not about who was best, but a rare oppertunity to compare tactics and share wisdom between airforces.
 
You are not wrong about the missing tail art snne. I wonder how long it will take the PAF to apply tail art to the J-10s?
 
FighterJock said:
You are not wrong about the missing tail art snne. I wonder how long it will take the PAF to apply tail art to the J-10s?
Click to expand...
Even their F-7PGs have super sick tail arts, it is truly criminal to keep their most potent aircraft without one.

135591315_3542753689165233_8633860449260978149_n.jpg


74354465_2494945123946100_4032744918215557120_n.jpg
 
Some close up of j10 1001, f2 want me to post them here （surprise I forgot to post the intake ）
 

Attachments

  • 4EF005E5-62CD-46E7-8DB3-F20F6A1106B3.jpeg
    4EF005E5-62CD-46E7-8DB3-F20F6A1106B3.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 47
  • D9E57BA6-D4CB-4CD8-B648-2BC35956592A.jpeg
    D9E57BA6-D4CB-4CD8-B648-2BC35956592A.jpeg
    2 MB · Views: 45
  • 18B9AAC8-4E71-4FA4-AE63-DBE9F3D0D209.jpeg
    18B9AAC8-4E71-4FA4-AE63-DBE9F3D0D209.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 44
  • AAFAAC4D-7673-48A1-9150-73A9283CCAED.jpeg
    AAFAAC4D-7673-48A1-9150-73A9283CCAED.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 41
  • 68F9CA5E-A5EA-4626-B991-8C0DCC8E22A9.jpeg
    68F9CA5E-A5EA-4626-B991-8C0DCC8E22A9.jpeg
    2.2 MB · Views: 41
  • 93D06E96-B07A-47E1-8ED8-B6BA7B688514.jpeg
    93D06E96-B07A-47E1-8ED8-B6BA7B688514.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 41
  • 9517A375-5846-49CD-92E9-56419B3935D4.jpeg
    9517A375-5846-49CD-92E9-56419B3935D4.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 43
I have heard pilots say it flies similar to the flanker and is equal to it as far as flight characteristics go which is pretty awesome if true. I know that the sensors do not receive the same power as a two engine fighter but in spite of this I have heard they are still pretty powerful. I noticed too with pictures of j-10 and f-16 that the j-10 has a substantially larger radome. This might not mean too much but it indicates to me that it could carry a larger array with more transmit and receive modules which is pretty important.

With full fuel load, drop tanks and six air to air missiles as a weapons loadout wonder what its range is. I know the brochure says the combat radius is 1200km which I assume is with drop tanks as the picture below the stats show it with three drop tanks.

I think if China would do deals similar to Russia where fighters can be bartered with materials made by the recipient nation they could get more nations to buy it. Also it could be wise to use good old mig diplomacy and sell these fighters at a small loss. If both these tactics were used I think these fighters could bite a large piece of the market off from former SU weapons users.Though I will say if this started happening our leadership would probably expand CAATSA to Chinese made weapon aystems which would be a major issue.

Been reading up on it recently after seeing the awesome pictures one of the members posted a little while back. The more I read and hear about it the more underrated I think it is. It is quite a capable fighter. Also, its looks have grown on me. Still love the A model with the original air intake tho.

Edit: added a thought.
 
Last edited:
TMA1 said:
I have heard pilots say it flies similar to the flanker and is equal to it as far as flight characteristics go which is pretty awesome if true. I know that the sensors do not receive the same power as a two engine fighter but in spite of this I have heard they are still pretty powerful. I noticed too with pictures of j-10 and f-16 that the j-10 has a substantially larger radome. This might not mean too much but it indicates to me that it could carry a larger array with more transmit and receive modules which is pretty important.

With full fuel load, drop tanks and six air to air missiles as a weapons loadout wonder what its range is. I know the brochure says the combat radius is 1200km which I assume is with drop tanks as the picture below the stats show it with three drop tanks.

I think if China would do deals similar to Russia where fighters can be bartered with materials made by the recipient nation they could get more nations to buy it. Also it could be wise to use good old mig diplomacy and sell these fighters at a small loss. If both these tactics were used I think these fighters could bite a large piece of the market off from former SU weapons users.Though I will say if this started happening our leadership would probably expand CAATSA to Chinese made weapon aystems which would be a major issue.

Been reading up on it recently after seeing the awesome pictures one of the members posted a little while back. The more I read and hear about it the more underrated I think it is. It is quite a capable fighter. Also, its looks have grown on me. Still love the A model with the original air intake tho.

Edit: added a thought.
Click to expand...
Q: How does the Su-27 compare to the J-10?

Zhang: The Su-27 is a very good aircraft. It has many safety restrictions, and the aircraft's follow-up and response characteristics are perfectly integrated with the aircraft. However, its concept and ideas still have many traces of second-generation aircraft, so some characteristics are not satisfactory, especially the aircraft's controllability is still different from that of the J-10. When flying the J-10, if you ignore the aircraft for a short period of time, the aircraft will still fly in its original state, and the computer on the aircraft will automatically correct the external interference, but the Su-27 cannot do this. So I still like to fly the J-10, which fully meets the design performance requirements. But the Su-27's flying quality in terms of low-speed performance is slightly better than that of the J-10.

A. The J-10 has better control performance than the Su-27. If you leave the aircraft alone for a short period of time, the aircraft's computer will automatically correct for external interference, but the Su-27 cannot do this.

The MiG-29 has short legs and is a light aircraft, so this combination is a combination of light and heavy. Our country's Su-27 series is heavier than the J-10 series, and its "legs" are longer. The weapons mounted on the two aircraft are similar. However, in terms of air combat or air-to-air combat, the J-10 is still relatively superior to the original Su-27. This is related to the relatively advanced radar system of the J-10, the original mounted weapon system, and the aircraft's control performance. In the long run, we will still have to match them together
Click to expand...
As I understand it

Subsonic: slight Su-27 advantage
Transonic: J-10 advantage
Supersonic: possible Su-27 advantage
Instantaneous turn rate: J-10 advantage (supposedly 31 degrees vs 28 degrees at sea level).
AoA: Su-27 advantage in absolute high alpha, J-10 advantage in control ability
Sustained turn rate: unknown
Thrust to weight: Su-27 advantage
Situational awareness: J-10 advantage
Radar: J-10 advantage (unless J-11B or up)
Top speed: J-10A and Su-27 equal, J-10B/C disadvantage
Acceleration: J-10 advantage (most of the envelope)
Weapons: mostly J-10 advantage
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6310.jpeg
    IMG_6310.jpeg
    619.9 KB · Views: 28

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom