It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

J-10 vs F-16

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
What plane would you think would win and why also what do you think in performence between each plane?




posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
In modern air to air combat, you have to go with the records and stats a reality, go with the f-16 every time, the f-14, f-15, f-16, f-18 have never been taken out in air to air combat, hundreds of kills, to zero. Nobody can match that kind of success.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Wow, good one. I'll have to work on that.
I've read some interesting things about the J-10.

Just remember that it's the pilot and his tactics,
that makes a great plane great.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
In modern air to air combat, you have to go with the records and stats a reality, go with the f-16 every time, the f-14, f-15, f-16, f-18 have never been taken out in air to air combat, hundreds of kills, to zero. Nobody can match that kind of success.


Past history means nothing in this case - by extrapolation of this (the above) reckoning, the F-15 etc could stay around until the year 2942 and still be 'invincible' - bet the USAF would be pretty pissed off having paid out all that money for the F-22 development program when they didn't need it.


I don't know which would win as I don't know enough to say at this stage. But regardless of the aircraft, its the eejit holding the stick and their support (AWACs) whatever that would normally decide the fight - case in point, Korea, superior MiG-15 didn't get the kill ratios it should have.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I too don't know enough to call it, the F-16 is 31 years old but has been constantly developed and upgraded in that time.

One thing I wonder about with the J-10, assuming BVR hasn't worked and a dogfight ensues, is just how manouverable is it? Yes its an FBW delta canard, and therefore should be very manouverable, but its wing does seem incredibly small in relation to thje rest of it and I wonder how efficient it is at hauling the J-10 around in the sky. Rafale and Typhoon have wings that appear to be twice as big, relatively speaking, and we know how they can fling themselves around.

for example;




[edit on 12-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
In modern air to air combat, you have to go with the records and stats a reality, go with the f-16 every time, the f-14, f-15, f-16, f-18 have never been taken out in air to air combat, hundreds of kills, to zero. Nobody can match that kind of success.

Hmm,

Yeah, I see some overconfidence on your part Bigtrain, its best to remain objective, if possible.

Yes the American F- Series you mentioned all have a fine record, on the most part the F-15s combat record is due to the F-15s with the IAF, rather than the USAF. F-14s have also been shot down, Iranian F-14's, but none the less a F-14, also F-16s and F-18s have been brought down in Bosnia etc or for that matter over the gulf, due to triple A or SAMS. The ZERO claim you make is myth on the most part as in most USAF engagements over Iraq with the F-15, were made on fleeing aircraft.

Its the pilot and his or her training that makes the aircraft a capable weapon system, at present the USAF would have the edge in respects to a Chinese piloted J-10 or Eastern J-10 for that matter.

In respects to comparing the aircraft alone, I would put my bet on the J-10 being an early F-16a or C models, they would basically be on the same level in terms of technology or capabilities but again the pilot is the primary factor in my opinion.

- Phil



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I too don't know enough to call it, the F-16 is 31 years old but has been constantly developed and upgraded in that time.

One thing I wonder about with the J-10, assuming BVR hasn't worked and a dogfight ensues, is just how manouverable is it? Yes its an FBW delta canard, and therefore should be very manouverable, but its wing does seem incredibly small in relation to thje rest of it and I wonder how efficient it is at hauling the J-10 around in the sky. Rafale and Typhoon have wings that appear to be twice as big, relatively speaking, and we know how they can fling themselves around.


Don't forget the typhoon and rafale have to lug around 2 engines with them, adding to their weight. A more valid comparison would be with an F-16 wing, I don't think there is too much difference between them?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
The number of engines is not really the point. I am not talking in terms of a direct size comparison, but rather in relative terms.

The Typhoon is 4.5 ft longer than the J-10 but has a 7 ft longer wingspan. The Typhoons wing area is almost 540 sq ft compared to 356 sq ft on the J-10. So even if the Typhoon was scaled down to the same length as the J-10 and made single engined (a la BAE P 106) then the wing and leading edge and trailing edge control surfaces would still be bigger, and thus more effective.

With the F-16 the wing is more centrally placed on the fuselage so the moment arm is completely different from the J-10, this allows practical use of a smaller wing but there is an awful lot of J-10 ahead of that tiny wing, this does not suggest good agility without a TVC nozzle, which I don't know if the J-10 has. If it does then that blows my point out of the water but aerodynamically speaking, the J-10 does not appear to be designed for out and out agility.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I don't about the J-10 but china's got two men up in orbit right now..
great going guys..



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The number of engines is not really the point. I am not talking in terms of a direct size comparison, but rather in relative terms.

The Typhoon is 4.5 ft longer than the J-10 but has a 7 ft longer wingspan. The Typhoons wing area is almost 540 sq ft compared to 356 sq ft on the J-10. So even if the Typhoon was scaled down to the same length as the J-10 and made single engined (a la BAE P 106) then the wing and leading edge and trailing edge control surfaces would still be bigger, and thus more effective.

With the F-16 the wing is more centrally placed on the fuselage so the moment arm is completely different from the J-10, this allows practical use of a smaller wing but there is an awful lot of J-10 ahead of that tiny wing, this does not suggest good agility without a TVC nozzle, which I don't know if the J-10 has. If it does then that blows my point out of the water but aerodynamically speaking, the J-10 does not appear to be designed for out and out agility.


The wing area of a plane is only as big as it needs to be - it will come more from weight and maximum achievable lift coefficients (for set scenarios) than from comparison with other aircraft. The F-16 has a similar sized wing, but, has a conventional tailplane (and these usually are producing downforce, not lift - in controlling the plane) - therefore the wing of the F-16 will have to work harder to achieve the same overall aircraft CL of a canard configuration. Comparatively, the canards on the J-10 appear larger (proportionately) than those on the Eurofighter, so should provide decent moments for turning the a/c.

I reckon it would be spot on for manouvering, and be comparable to the F-16. Don't know what the T/W ratio is like so it could be underpowered?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
J10 verses F16?

First of all in what way, exactly, is the question.
Pure A2A or do we consider the significant if secondary A2G aspects that feature so large with each?

Does value for money enter the equation at any stage?

I - like just about everyone here - don't know but I suspect the latest western avionics, computer controls and software might well be the big difference in making conclusions about an absolute 'best' (at A2A anyway).
I suppose it is also worth bearing in mind and taking into account that not every F16 is to the latest standard and the J10 is brand new (and also fitted with some very up to date kit)?

The one thing I would ask that people consider is that 'we' in the 'west' have a long long history of self-assured and totally irrational smug arrogance when it comes to how much 'we' imagine 'our' kit as so superior to everyone else's - think WW2 and the zero for instance.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Next time You try to answer the question, try to do so without trying to make excuses for air combat victories. I stated that the plane was unbeaten in AIR 2 AIR combat, and I nowhere mentioned it was not shot down by SAMs. And your claim of MIGs only shot down because they were fleeing, jeeeez dude, seems you are a little clouded here or ignoring history on purpose to try to prove your point.

The question was j-10 vs f-16, I made my decision as easy and plainly understandable as I could. Based on the fact that the f-series has utterly dominated everything, missile, radar and tracking abilities are far beyond any other country. J-10 is a mediocore fighter from a militarily developing country. F-16 would run circles around it.

And PLEASE stop mentioning pilot training, we all know the US pilot training is beyond any body else.

This is not biased, its reality.

Train



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
And PLEASE stop mentioning pilot training, we all know the US pilot training is beyond any body else.

This is not biased, its reality.

Train


- I'd say this is nothing more than pure opinion (based on your own personal prejudices).

It's not "reality" at all.

There's many an RAF (or any one of a clutch of European, oh and mustn't forget the Canadians and Aussies!) airmen/squadron that would fiercly dispute this (and have the competitive exercise results to prove it).

Anyhoo, not trying to divert the thread but just wanted to point out that grossly sweeping statement was uncalled for and singularly wrong.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

And PLEASE stop mentioning pilot training, we all know the US pilot training is beyond any body else.

Train


Then how come our pilots in their crappy little CF-18's beat down you guys in your fancy little jets in Top Gun? For reference "our" refers to our Canadian pilots.

Canada Rules



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
The question was j-10 vs f-16, I made my decision as easy and plainly understandable as I could. Based on the fact that the f-series has utterly dominated everything, missile, radar and tracking abilities are far beyond any other country.

J-10 is a mediocore fighter from a militarily developing country. F-16 would run circles around it.

And PLEASE stop mentioning pilot training, we all know the US pilot training is beyond any body else. This is not biased, its reality.

Train


Historical success does not guarantee future success.

How do you know its is a 'mediocre' fighter? Have you sources and/or a basis for this judgement?

We don't all know that the US has the best pilot training. Seeing as the USAF freely admitted they need to modify their training in the light of the training exersizes with India, it obviously was not as good as it could be, meaning someone else could (note, that does not mean are/were) have been doing better. That is not bais either, it is cold hard fact.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Kilcoo, what you say makes a lot of sense and, while I agree completely with your last post, I still find myself unable to agree with your last reply to me.

And yet I am finding it difficult to put into words exactly why, it could be gut instinct, but as far as anyone else is concerned my gut instinct isn't worth a damn, obviously.

I happen to think that the J-10 is quite an impressive aeroplane, and I don't feel the need to qualify that with patronising 'considering who built it' remarks, I genuinely like it, but I also know that a long fuselage plus narrow wing layout is not a good combination for agility, examples here being the TSR 2, MiG 25, F104 (extreme!) etc. I also know that FBW controls and its (just as you say) relatively large canard controls make a world of difference and put the J-10 on a different planet from any of those aircraft I mentioned, but would that be enough against other modern agile fighters?

Actually I can see the J-10 perhaps giving the F-16 a run for its money in the turning stakes, I think I got myself too bogged down in the Typhoon comparison, which was not the question of course.

I noted your point about thrust/weight ratio and it seems that the J-10 engine is slightly less powerful than the engine of the F-16C, but there is no information on how the two engines compare for 'throttle slamming' ability, alas I didn't find any data on the weight of the J-10 so that is totally inconclusive.

Any more ideas?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I've no idea of the T/W ratio of either plane... but I'm now thinking along the lines of canards vs LERXs - I'd have to say I favour the canards as it will produce a stronger vortex than a LERX at the same aircraft AOA (due to the canards higher AOA - if it doesn't stall).

But I suppose it would come down to missile/aiming technology and I have no clue about the relative merits of either plane with respect to that. Or, if we assumed it was guns only, I reckon the J-10 (with equal pilots etc) would be fit for a F-16 (especially one weighed down by the Conformal fuel tanks)... but thats only my opinion based on a glance at the shape of the two aircraft - its pretty much (educated) guesswork.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by BigTrain

And PLEASE stop mentioning pilot training, we all know the US pilot training is beyond any body else.

Train


Then how come our pilots in their crappy little CF-18's beat down you guys in your fancy little jets in Top Gun? For reference "our" refers to our Canadian pilots.

Canada Rules


3x times over lol we have beat out usa pilots 3 times in the past 6 or 7 years during exersizes. lol we also do more trianing then the us could that be the issue? lol mind you we havent went up againest the 22 to yet which may make us break a sweat lol jks



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Actually it's widely believed an Iraqi Mig 25 took out an F-18 during the first Gulf War. So it's untrue that none of the modern F series have been lost in A2A combat. Secondly, the USAF hasn't taken on anything close to a competitive modern air force since Korea (Russian pilots in Mig-15s), so it's kind of hard to judge how US fighters would do against a real threat force.

As for the J-10 being a "mediocre" airframe, you are basing that on what data exactly? ...There being so little hard data about the J-10 out there. Or is it simply because it's made by China, a country you consider "inferior"?

The only honest answer to the question posed by this thread is "I don't know."
Until (God forbid) we get in a military conflict with China, we'll never know for sure.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
In modern air to air combat, you have to go with the records and stats a reality, go with the f-16 every time, the f-14, f-15, f-16, f-18 have never been taken out in air to air combat, hundreds of kills, to zero. Nobody can match that kind of success.


Suppose, But they haven't been in real combat yet... You can't compare the Iraqi air-force with the US supreme fleet... When they've fought they've had an advatage of maybe 20-1...

But to the actual question, I'd go for the J-3 in this case, Just because it's more modern. So is the F-16 model. But it's still originally from the 1970...
And the Chinese have propably made it from base lines from the Falcon... It depends a bit of the weaponry... Good question tough...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join