J-10 of PLA

[Cailet]

I think F22 excels J-10 in every aspects, because F22 has been in services while J-10 hasn't been produced largely.

And of course it's designed for a different role and has hugely more money and expertise behind it.

Tell us something new someday.

The J-10 is a strikefighter, more like the Typhoon than the Raptor. And if the PLA generals think otherwise then they're foolin themselfves only.

 

[rjmaz1]

And of course it's designed for a different role and has hugely more money and expertise behind it.

Tell us something new someday.

The J-10 is a strikefighter, more like the Typhoon than the Raptor. And if the PLA generals think otherwise then they're foolin themselfves only.

So are you trying to say that because the F-22 has hugely more money and expertise behind it, that it should not be compared to other aircraft in the same role?

They didn't try and rename the F-22 to F/A-22 for nothing!!

The F-22 is a better strike fighter too

 

[LancerMc]

The F-22 was renamed F/A-22 for that short period of time for political reasons. The USAF brass felt if they added the identification part of an attacker it would show the F-22 was a great ground attack platform as well. This was an effort to gain more funds to produce more F-22's then the 180 that have been budgeted by Congress.

When the newest USAF Chief of Staff came in, he felt there was no need for political designation and changed it back to the F-22.

 

[Cailet]

So are you trying to say that because the F-22 has hugely more money and expertise behind it, that it should not be compared to other aircraft in the same role?

They didn't try and rename the F-22 to F/A-22 for nothing!!

The F-22 is a better strike fighter too

I'm saying that it is not designed for the same role. Yes it CAN use some ground-attack munitions but IIRC it's very restricted in what it can use without compromising it's most vaunted asset.

It's like trying to compare the Spitfire and the IL-2. Yes the Spit could be (and was on occasion) used as a ground attack aircraft but it was far better as a fighter while the IL-2 could carry a far better warload for ground-attack. (the comparison isn;t exact I know but it was the first that sprang to mind).

 

[rjmaz1]

I'm saying that it is not designed for the same role. Yes it CAN use some ground-attack munitions but IIRC it's very restricted in what it can use without compromising it's most vaunted asset.

It's like trying to compare the Spitfire and the IL-2. Yes the Spit could be (and was on occasion) used as a ground attack aircraft but it was far better as a fighter while the IL-2 could carry a far better warload for ground-attack. (the comparison isn;t exact I know but it was the first that sprang to mind).

The F-22 can attack every type of ground target that the J-10 can.

So its not like comparing to a Spirfire and IL-2 at all. The F-22 when carrying SDB can hit just as many targets than a J-10, if not more.

 

[crobato]

And of course it's designed for a different role and has hugely more money and expertise behind it.

Tell us something new someday.

The J-10 is a strikefighter, more like the Typhoon than the Raptor. And if the PLA generals think otherwise then they're foolin themselfves only.

This is another common myth. By the real evidence there is very little to indicate the J-10 was meant as a strike fighter. The PLAAF already has the JH-7A, and the J-11 carries more hard points. If you want more fast low level penetrators that are cheap, the old J-8IIs can be modded for this.

The first indication is that the plane got certified with no PGM support at all. The armament is quite basic. Mainly AA, with PL-8, PL-11 SARH missile and PL-12 ARH missile. The bomb armament consists of iron bombs and rockets, which is mandatory with any PLAAF fighter. The picture of J-10 02 serial with weapons on the ground show this.

The second is where the planes are deployed. Other than the 13th Trials Regiment of the FTTC, the first deployment was the 44th Divsiion, of whose regiments are using J-7s. Looking at further deployments, the regiment being converted to J-10 in the 3rd Division, probably the 7th or 8th, are also J-7 based. The 2nd Division regiment, possibly the 5th, in Guilin being converted to J-10 also is another J-7 regiment. And the 3rd Regiment of the 1st Division being converted to J-10 is also another J-7 regiment. It should be noted that the J-10s in the 3rd and 1st Division appear to have "0" in the second digits, marking them as as the lead regiment and putting them ahead of the Su-30s and J-11s in both respective divisions.

You are converting groups that fly a point defense light fighter, not any of the abundant Q-5 regiments like the 18th or the 28th Division. If you see the JH-7A conversions, they follow the Q-5s closely, as both PLAAF JH-7A regiment conversions are in divisions with Q-5s.

The third are the nature of exercises. Although the PLA does not describe fighters in their news briefings, they do often mention the military region and the division that exercises are involved in, and with that, you can tie the planes together. Although there are few bombing exercises, those that the 44th participated in are that of aerial superiority, vs. J-11s, Su-30s, or intercepting JH-7As. The last report puts the 44th playing Aggressor squad against the J-11s of the 19th Division.

Lastly, for standoff strike missions, the PLAAF appears to prefer two seaters. With the notable exception of the Q-5, Su-30s and JH-7s are two seaters. One has to do with handling the increased workload, but there is also a possibility that the second officer acting as the weapons officer is also a political officer intended to keep the pilot "honest". If you want to see a PLAAF strike fighter other than the JH-7A, wait for the J-11B indigenous version to have a two seater.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Cailet]

I stand corrected then.

Thankyou.

 

[wp2000]

I think F22 excels J-10 in every aspects, because F22 has been in services while J-10 hasn't been produced largely.

What? Does that mean China's J7 excels F22 in every aspects as well?
Actually, China has more J10s than US's F22s.

 

[baldo]

Only those who's head full of blood but little brain think j-10 could be comparable or even supreme than f22.

j-10,though has a shape like f-16,i would prefer call her "powerful/bigger mirage 2000" or "reduced/smaller ef 2000". from her air intake and her verttail,we can see chinese effort on supersonic ability/intercept ability.
why?
if you know her brothersroject j-9 and project j13,you would realize this "tradition" in plaaf.
In the 1980s when j-10 project was started, hundreds of tu-22m(or what likes) appear from north were the nightmare of chinese gernarals.and in 1990s or later,american's cruise-missiles from east will be another possible headache.
PLA need something to deal this fact(and f-16/mirage2000/f15 beside is problem too).
yes,they buyed su-27 and then assemble now produce them,a good fighter!but "walk with two legs",a lesson learning from what happened in 1970s and 1989 told that anothing only reply on other country may be a trouble or even disaster. they need something all in their hands,and now it comes.
so,i think j-10 first a intercept,then a fighter for sweep,cap,recon.the last is a bomber or attacker.

In my most optimism point,j-10 maybe comparable or slightly supereme than f-16c/d with aim120 c-series and mirage2000-5 above with mica,but only in a2a style.
surely supereme than mirage2000 all early types and f-16 early types and su-27/f15 with old avionics/armament

And what about f-2/lca. Mmmm, f-2 a multirole-fighter,but maybe more like a simple attacker.
and Lca,first it should compare with jf-17,and then why we talk about a plane only in prototype and maybe still in prototype until 2010?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted