Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?
- Thread starter Superbug
- Start date
- Status
To put it simply, DA, its from Richard Fisher, writing in behalf of a certain neocon institute (Center of Strategic Studies), and the exact words allegedly used by the Pentagon is "weight" and "performance".
Of course, this is not to be taken seriously as it smells like threat hype, since I don't believe the J-10 fits neither.
well, it used <0.17%, whatever that means. Don't know enough about the system to comment further, but from some of the stuff I read online, it does seem like Chinese are quite happy about this system and seems likely to use it.
They can propose anything they want, until it gets on the ship, it's not there. Also, even if they get HF-3 and ESSM, they won't match the combined AAW/ASuW capability of 054A.
they redesigned the intake, they added LEX, reduced weight to the point that they could hold addtional 200 kg of fuel, I would call that more than a simple modification. Did you see that WS-13 would be undergoing duration testing already? And this is just early 2007. I wasn't expecting this to happen for another year and half. Chinese Mil Industry get things developed pretty fast these days. Remember, you don't know how long they've been working on this twin engined J-10.
Once, they get 4-6 054As commissioned, I really don't think they will loose any prized assets against ROCN. Maybe a couple of Ludas and Jiangweis, but nothing more than that.
Response time - I know the response time of FM-90N is 6.5 s. can't comment on HH-16 or HH-9.
As for spotting trucks, I don't think it's as hard as you are making it out to be. Modern SAR have 1mx1m resolution. Not sure what JH-7A radar is at, but it apparently can spot bridges on yellow river from 380 km out.
looks like a mixup, I thought you were talking about adding IR to ballistic missile, when you were talking about ASAT.
You explained that, but I also explained that they can hit them with enough accuracy, that combined with number + payload will take target out of commission for a while
It's a general practice of China to downgrade the stuff they export following the Soviet practice and sell "monkey versions".
It means as in weight...
J-10 wt.= ~9730kg
Gripen wt.= ~6620kg
Rafale wt.= ~9060kg
Typhoon wt.= ~11000kg
...So J-10 is a middle weight ECD. Flight performance is typical for its canard-delta design. Take a look...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10#Estimated_specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS-39_Gripen#Specifications_.28JAS_39_Gripen.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Specifications_.28Typhoon.29
...All within reasonable limits typical of the 1970's-1980's derived Canard Delta platform allowing of course for type specific parameters.
Now, take a look at the J-10s weapons, sensors, avionics, ENGINE, reliability and ECM. It is no where near the capabilities of the European jets. All would have considerable advantages and the Typhoon specifically would probably fly rings around it but the Typhoon is more of a medium weight air to air optimized fighter. Mr. Fisher was in no way talking about operational capabilities which is what matters in the context of these discussions.
If you compare the J-10 to say a Su-30. The J-10 would do far worse. I'm not sure anybody is seriously debating this point so I'll hold off on a further analysis. As remarkable as the J-10 is in terms of the indigenous Chinese military aviation industry. Compared next its contemporaries its a bit mediocre. The J-10's real world competitor is the IDF with the two types having similar performance and limitations that have both host nations relying on external support and foreign fighters.
DA
goldenpanda
New Member
Going by the wiki numbers, the thrust to empty_weight+2000kg ratio are as follows:
WET / DRY
Grippen 0.92 / 0.63
J10 1.10 / 0.76
Rafael 1.36 / 0.90
Typhoon 1.38 / 0.92
If you consider Grippen an "european jet" your statement is not accurate. Yes J10 will need the second engine to exceed the Typhoon and Dassault in performance. Since J10 is quite a large aircraft the second engine should make sense.
In terms of integrated performance you made a very sweeping statement. I doubt you could back up any of it.
"1970's-1980's derived". Yeah and F22 is 1980's derived too. Considering Rafael and Typhoon are barely becoming operational, we are looking at the PEAK of European fighter technology here.
I should point out also the J10 is using an older generation 8:1 weight to thrust engine. The Rafael and Typhoons are using 10:1 engines. So I wouldn't blame the middling performance on the aircraft design itself. It looks like a large airframe with plenty room for growth. The lift to drag is also superior to any USA airframe.
Last edited:
We generally don't advocate for the usage of Wikipedia as a source on this forum for obvious reasons.
Especially when it comes to Chinese military news, wikipedia cannot be trusted. In this case, the weight 9730 kg for J-10 is not correct.
And it would be useful if you can provide some evidence on why J-10 would do far worse than su-30.
goldenpanda
New Member
If you spent fewer words on meaningless put downs you might have better analysis.
You deftly avoid discussing Taiwan's F16's. The F16 using an 8:1 engine has a thrust to weight+2k of 1.03/0.63, barely better than Grippen. That J10 has far better lift to drag should be a no brainer, even to you.
So what, I do. It's a very useful tool and we use it operationally to great effect. If you aren't using it then you are missing out. The weights are simply references which is why I said within reason. It doesn't matter if a J-10 or Rafale wiki weight are off +/- 2%. Who gives a care. The point is that J-10 and ECD are similar in weight so lets not quibble over irrelevant minutia. In fact, most internet data/tech specs are just rough estimates with no context. Do you really believe a J-10 or F-16 does M2.0 operationally configured? Get over it. Bottom line is the J-10 is no ECD outside of physical appearance and roughly comparable weight. I dare you to prove otherwise.
With regard to the Su-30. To sum it up, its bigger. Its got superior sensors, weapons, engines and fuel to maintain an energy advantage over longer ranges. AT BEST, a J-10 might be roughly comparable to an F-16 blk 20/25 or IDF.
DA
No I didn't. If you go back and read my post you will see that. Look, I'm not here to argue. I'm here to tell you what conditions on the battlefield are or would be like based on the data. If you don't like reading the truth then thats on you. If you want to believe the PRC is some emerging superpower suddenly able to challenge anybody militarily then you are more than welcome to your faith.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I was, and at the same time clearing up the difference between tactical ground targets and ASATs.
If that is your position, then I can certainly agree with it, as this is what I have been saying all along. Volley fire, warhead type and target type determine succes.
The Soviet Union and Russia has the luxury that their monkey systems can meet the entry level of capability required on the export markets. There is a difference between domestic and export versions only if you can actually produce something better for domestic use.
An example could be Sweden who export the best artillery they can produce, and also try to pitch not only the current version, but future developments on the Gripen, as they would simply not be able to sell anything if they downgraded it. What they export or propose for export is actually better than what they field domestically. Another example is the US who export the best versions of the Super Hornet, and use it themselves. But they also have the much more significant F-22A in inventory, which is an unlikely candidate for export in the near future.
Between these two extremes you have a variety of nations.
Here is a hypothetical. If China was to submit a proposal for the Indian competition for 126 fighter, what would a downgraded Chinese platform look like and how would it compare to the competition - Gripen C/D, Super Hornet, late block F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, MiG-35, etc.
Would a monkey system be competitive or would China have to submit the best it has?
Schumacher
New Member
Just checking, would your knowledge of battlefield conditions be based on data from Wikipedia as well ?
IMHO they will get proposed upgrades eventually... Your assessment that Hq-16/YJ-83 is superior to ESSM/HF-3 is based on what grounds?
I'm aware of modifications JF-17 received... Compared to designing completely new two engine fighter this was simple task. I will stay skeptic for the time being...
Only couple of Ludas and Jingweis? I bet that ROC would be happy if PLAN would be so confident...
It really isn't so hard to spot few hidden trucks, I mean with all those RECCE assets NATO had in Kosovo (UAVs, AWACSs, recce Tornados, E-8 etc.) it still wasn't able to destroy Serbian military assets (in fact Serb military at Kosovo was mostly intact)... And all that with 78-days of NATO complete air superiority.
So forgive me if I'm not to convinced that PRC can destroy ROC defenses in the matter of days...
Last edited:
The bombing of Kosovo was as goofy a way to run a bombing campaign as anyone could imagine. Each target bombed had to first be approved by all 19 participatory states in the allied coalition. For historical context imagine every Vietnam bombing target needing to be approved by 19 separate LBJs. Thats a hell of a way to run an air war.
: It got even worse after we bombed the Chinese Embassy and mistakenly bombed a civilian convoy killing 50 refugees. Add to that, as if you need to, the first part of the campaign saw a very conservative deployment of air power. There was only one US carrier involved as well, if I remember right it was the USS Roosevelt.
Be that as it may there was never any belief the Serbs would be defeated by flying air planes over them. The idea was to gradually increase pressure on them to get them to pull out. Don't forget their was a NATO land army waiting to go in should they have had to. All in all it was no way to prosecute an air war, tho NATO air craft flew anywheres they wanted to with very few losses.
But even the limited success of NATO should not give the Chinese to much confidence. They aren't as good as NATO, would be facing an enemy qualitatively as good as they are, and there would be the danger of Yank involvement for them to have to plan for. Really, is that Island worth it? Also there aer very few beaches worth using for invasion and the fire from shore defenses would be terrible, all pre-targeted btw. Without complete air superiority I just dont see how they could succeed.
On the other hand they wouldn't be constrained by our ridiculous insistence on fighting a humane war. I suspect the Chinese would terrorize the civilian population of Taiwan by bombing, or shooting rockets, at the cities. If only for the advantage of tying up roads and transportation with refugees. They wouldn't have the luxury of "taking months to increase pressure". They would need a quick decisive victory and while there would be a Political/Economic price to pay for piling up civilian bodies it would be nothing compared to the loss of face they would get from failure.
In their eyes anyways.
It most definitely is not. It would behoove you to take the sarcasm out of your post. Not longer than 30 minutes ago, I attended a block of instruction(death by power point really), where data from Wiki was used as part of the presentation. Some of the information there is remarkable in its detail. Even where its not precise, a lot of times its good enough for putting things into context. OSINT is a huge resource when conducting IPB and the internet makes that data so much more readily available. Rather than reply with a sarcastic one liner. You would be much better off to ask for a clarification or explanation which I would be happy to provide to the best of my ability.
DA
goldenpanda
New Member
admin: text deleted
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but the J-10 is not comparable to the ECDs in weight. There is no reason for it. What is the basis? The weight is some internet speculation by some posters that is trying to make the J-10 look more like the Typhoon rather than the Lavi. The quoted weight of 9750kg for the J-10 empty is downright suspicous because that is the original Typhoon prototype weight. No plane of different designs can have exact weights and the sheer possibilty of coincidence is astronomic.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter.htm
The Lavi is only 7000kg, and the engine weight of the J-10 is only 200kg higher than that of the Lavi. Compare this to another project from the same factory that produces the J-10, the FC-1 weighs under 6400kg, but is only a slighly more than a meter shorter, and its engine is lighter by only 500kg over the J-10's.
The ECD manages terrific weight savings for their size. It is not their length that counts, these planes are short, But they have an incredible wing span and wing area, that means a lot of long wing spars, and their fuselages are much stouter because they have to hold at least two engines plus their associative equipment, that alone would put them at least 500kg and more over the J-10's single engine configuration. The latest info leak refuses to give a strict number on the J-10's empty weight but it said this "7XXX" which can be expressed as kilograms.
Sorry but the Su-30MKK does not appear to have superior sensors over the J-10. Maybe the MKI does, but not the MKK. The MKK still uses a rather antiquated radar design (twist cassegrain) hopped with modern electronics. While it has terrific signal gain, it does not appear to use monopulse for angular resolution but conical scan, which also makes that somewhat vulnerable to ECM. A twist cassegrain lacks the flexbility of field of view of a modern slotted planar array, which also does a much better job of reducing sidelobes.
You also failed to consider by aerodynamics, that deltas tend to have better high speed (high subsonic to supersonic) maneuverability than a sweep wing like the Su-30 due to the lower wave drag and the more acute sweep of the front wing. Although the Su-30 maybe better than in slow speed maneuvers, what's the point if it cannot catch up? Canards combined with instability will give the J-10 better instantaneous turn rates. This is due to the fact that canards pull the nose up, rather than elevators pushing the tail down to push the nose up. That gives greater pitch authority. Unlike elevators, canards contribute lift during a turn, while elevators exert negative lift. That's why delta-canards have low wing loading because its wing plus canards, while a conventional plane is measured only via wing. A leak mentions 31 degrees per second for the J-10, which puts it right there with the Gripen and the Rafale. That for me is a believable figure.
You cannot deny the advantages of a layout that is already physically there. Are you trying to tell me the laws of aerodynamics choose to work differently according to nation?
And you also have no idea how maneuverable the F-16 Block 20 happens to be. This is a bonafide F-16 Block 15 OCW airframe with avionics better than the original Block 50. In fact, the Block 52/52plus were updated with avionics that first appeared in the Block 20/MLU including colored CRTs, AIFF (aka bird slicers). The Block 20 is also capable of using AMRAAM and the Harpoon (not many F-16s can use the Harpoon). The block 20 is based F-16A airframe is considered by many to be much more agile than the F-16C airframe which added a ton of weight. If an F-16 wants to dish it out against an Su-30 mano o mano in WVR, let it be first and foremost, a Block 20.
For that matter, you don't seem to have idea that the IDF is also an incredible turn fighter. According to the ROCAF, this thing can turn inside an F-5E, which in turn can turn inside a MiG-21. Any Su-30 will have fits fighting an IDF.
The irony of your statements, is that you're comparing the J-10 with both aircraft that has an empty weight of just over 7000kg in one, and only under 6500kg on the other.
Last edited:
goldenpanda
New Member
Very helpful structural analysis crobato. I had also considered the YF-17's weight as a baseline. the J10 remains a significantly bigger airframe. With the bigger engine, not only do we have the engine weight itself, but we have bigger airframe to mount the engine, larger fuel tanks, and higher stress on the airframe. All this adds to weight. The canards also appear quite large, which might require beefier hydrolics than the ECD's.
My feeling is 8500kg would make it an extremely well designed and competitive aircraft. The 9700 ball park figure is seen in several places on the internet, without a competing view given. So it's about all we have to go on.
My feeling is 8500kg would make it an extremely well designed and competitive aircraft. The 9700 ball park figure is seen in several places on the internet, without a competing view given. So it's about all we have to go on.
The ECDs among themselves are not the same too. Gripen and Rafale uses a close coupled canard configuration. With the canards closer to the center of the aircraft, it means the canards have to be bigger to exert the same authority as they have less arm-lever movement. Thus the canard mechanisms have to be as big as the J-10's. Only the Typhoon has the canards on the nose, which gives it more lever movement in relation to the center of the plane, at the expense of competiting with avionics for the space on the radome. However, it means the canards can be smaller, and the actuators smaller as well.
The length of the J-10 actually moves the canards further forward than the Lavi, which adds to the arm-lever movement that contributes to a greater pitch authority. (Note for conventional aircraft, its the reverse, you're trying to put the elevators further backward from the center of the plane).
My estimate of the J-10 is actually somewhere between 7500 and 8000kg. And no I don't think the plane has 4500kg of fuel. That's too much for its size. I reckon its about 3500kg. There is another estimate in the web that suggests it can be as low as only 2900kg (the F-16 has 3300kg). Regardless, the constant appearance of external fuel tanks suggests that the fuel capacity still requires external augmentation. I also think the J-10 airframe life is also similar to the lighter F-16A, around 6000 flight hours, compared to the heavier F-16C, which is around 8000 flight hours. Given that the PLAAF apppears to have a flight quota of 200 flight hours per year per plane, that is more than enough over 20 years or so.
The length of the J-10 actually moves the canards further forward than the Lavi, which adds to the arm-lever movement that contributes to a greater pitch authority. (Note for conventional aircraft, its the reverse, you're trying to put the elevators further backward from the center of the plane).
My estimate of the J-10 is actually somewhere between 7500 and 8000kg. And no I don't think the plane has 4500kg of fuel. That's too much for its size. I reckon its about 3500kg. There is another estimate in the web that suggests it can be as low as only 2900kg (the F-16 has 3300kg). Regardless, the constant appearance of external fuel tanks suggests that the fuel capacity still requires external augmentation. I also think the J-10 airframe life is also similar to the lighter F-16A, around 6000 flight hours, compared to the heavier F-16C, which is around 8000 flight hours. Given that the PLAAF apppears to have a flight quota of 200 flight hours per year per plane, that is more than enough over 20 years or so.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
How many ground troops needed?
Here's a question I don't recall anyone asking yet in this thread. How many grounds troops, and of what types, would the PRC need to land in Taiwan in order to take control of Taiwan?
Per Wiki (yes, I know not to take the source completely seriously)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
Taiwan has 290,000 active forces, with a total of Active, Reserve & Paramilitary just under 2 million. Me being me, I feel more comfortable with assuming that Taiwan has effective active and reserve components of only about 600,000.
With an assumption that Taiwan would have approx. 600,000 opposing troops, would a PRC force of 1.8 mil be sufficient? (standard 3:1 attacker:defender ratio) I'm inclined to think the PRC might need a greater ratio advantage, due to difficulties an attacking force has moving in urban areas. I would also think that the PRC force would also need to maintain a similar ratio (3:1 or greater) in terms of armour, artillery support, etc.
Would others agree with this assessment, or have more specific thoughts/ideas?
-Cheers
Here's a question I don't recall anyone asking yet in this thread. How many grounds troops, and of what types, would the PRC need to land in Taiwan in order to take control of Taiwan?
Per Wiki (yes, I know not to take the source completely seriously)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
Taiwan has 290,000 active forces, with a total of Active, Reserve & Paramilitary just under 2 million. Me being me, I feel more comfortable with assuming that Taiwan has effective active and reserve components of only about 600,000.
With an assumption that Taiwan would have approx. 600,000 opposing troops, would a PRC force of 1.8 mil be sufficient? (standard 3:1 attacker:defender ratio) I'm inclined to think the PRC might need a greater ratio advantage, due to difficulties an attacking force has moving in urban areas. I would also think that the PRC force would also need to maintain a similar ratio (3:1 or greater) in terms of armour, artillery support, etc.
Would others agree with this assessment, or have more specific thoughts/ideas?
-Cheers
Your assessment is very good and doctrinally correct. I'd put the real number at closer to 5:1 for the PRC to have a real chance at subduing the Island due to the unique geographical challenges and to account for attrition if the US/Allies get involved. Even then the logistical situation is daunting. The strait would literally be the lifeline of the PRC and if it was cut for any sustained period the invasion force would be torn apart. The quantity and types of materials necessary to sustain a 2 to 3 million man force would require sea transportation which requires sea control. Something the PRC cannot realistically do yet. A division in combat requires an enormous amount of support and its highly unlikely that China could support a force that size off of the mainland. This puts a serious limit on how many troops they could actually support during a massive attack. This means they would have to do it in phases and that seriously limits the number of men actually available. For example, a person running a store has 3 employees. The store runs 24/7. You would not have all 3 employees working simultaneously. You would have to do it in shifts.
DA
- Status