It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:25 AM
I assume this is what you were refering to Waynos?

Originally posted by waynos
I can answer this point, The FBW systems tested from 1972 were very rudimentary by todays standards, naturally enough, as that represents the beginning of the technology. Its not merely the existence of FBW thats the question, but also the complexity of the system required and the state of computer technology which is crucial to making the unstable layout workable.

You may be aware that the FBW system of the Typhoon (as an example, I don't want to keep typing out all the names!) makes hundreds of adjustments per second due to its instability, this was completely beyond the computing power of '70's technology when the FBW sytems of the day were concerned with controlling conventional fighters and allowing them to be made lighter and more efficient than they would be with mechanical powered controls. The realisation that such a control system, given suitable computer capacity, could be used to make otherwise uncontrollable shapes safe to fly came much later.

I had a much more lengthy response, but unfortunately in my zeal to respond, I managed to delete it.

My argument is this:

The F-117 nighthawk was given the green light for production in 1978 - the same year as the Hornet made it's first flight attempt. The F-117 is as unstable an airframe as there is, from my understanding. The F-117 it's self uses a highly advanced digital fly-by-wire system.

This date (1978) corresponds with the "freeze" that you mention was put on the Hornet in 76-77. Coincidence? I don't know, but I find it highly suspicious.

If the Nighthawk had a FBW system that could get it to fly in 1978, it is reasonable (in my opinion at least) to assume that one could have existed at the same time to make a delta/canard supersonic fighter fly.

So it comes down to this, for me. Either:

A) FBW systems were not available in 1977 that could handle such unstable designs, but a year later they were developed.

B) FBW systems that could handle very unstable airframes were developed in the 3 years beween the green light for production of the F-117 (in 1978) and it's first flight in 1981.

C) FBW systems existed in 1978 that could make the 'wobblin goblin' fly, but not a delta/canard.

D) FBW systems existed that could handle a subsonic aircraft, but not a supersonic one.

E) FBW systems existed that could handle the forward canard/delta design, but the design was not prefferable.

I don't think that 'A' is a realistic situation, because if the were that close the freez probably would have been extended for the benefits of a delta/canard (especially considering the Navy fued with the USAF - my how they would have liked to upstage their nemisis in aviation funding).

'B' is not reasonable to me either, because a green-light for production would not be viable if the system that got it in the air was not a known quantity.

'C' is a bit more plausable to me, but I still doubt it. The F-117, from everything I have heard and read, is VERY unstable - even today.

'D' seems to be the most plausable of the reasons that would support your argument. I could imagine that being a real problem, especially with a new system such as digital FBW. However, I still think that if this was a problem, they would have "made it work" as I said before. You don't get that close to a potential great advantage in manueverability unless...

'E' was true, the design was achievable, but was not deemed to be needed.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by American Mad Man]

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:49 AM

I had a much more lengthy response, but unfortunately in my zeal to respond, I managed to delete it

Don't I know that feeling! Or, even worse, you type something quite lengthy and when you try to post it you get the 'page cannot be found' screen and you've lost the lot.

Still, back to the subject,

You give an excellent response with the F-117, this is real food for thought and your dates are all spot on too. I think there could be some correlation between the fact that the F-117 is subsonic, as you covered in your post, but also maybe coupled with the fact that it is only required to fly from point A to point B, drop bombs and go home. This would be of no use to the F-18 and is a quite different requirement from a mach 2 agile fighter which must fling itself all over the place and stay in full control and be completely recoverable to level flight at any point.

After all it seems a natural progression to me that FBW controls are firstly developed to fly a conventional design safely, then as the technology matures you can make an unstable design safe to fly and the final stage would be to take advantage of that instability by instilling super-manouverability. This would not be a process that could be rushed through in a few months but would take years of development. As it did.

I agree with you that the dates are very close but to my mind this reinforces my opinion rather than countering it.

Like I said before, the increase in computer capacity and processor speeds and thus capabilities of FBW systems was a steady stream of progress throughout the '70's and 80's.

It occurs to me therefore that if they could simply 'make it work' as you say, would they not have taken the trouble to make the F-117 agile (if not a canard) in order to enhance its survivability? After all it is well known that it is its stealthy profile that provides its defence but if it is seen it is very vulnerable. To me this is a telling point about the state of the art of FBW controls in the 1977-81 timeframe. That further progress was made in terms of the controllability of agile unstable shapes by the middle of the '80's is perfectly natural and the fact that America had no plans to introduce a new fighter in this timeframe is the main reason there is no such design from the USA.

Many ATF, and other, proposals by US companies made use of the canard layout and US defence companies were completely intending to make use of it but the advent of TVC engine control and the increasing importance of low observables made it unnecessary, which I covered earlier.

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:02 AM
Just a quick extra, here's page which gives the SAAB point of view why it rejected an F-16 like layout for the Gripen in favour of a canard configuration, I just found this.

for instance, in all our debating THIS never even occurred to me;

Saab decided that a canard layout would entail a lower technical risk as the canard can be weathercocked turning the aircraft into a slightly stable one. This cannot be done with an unstable aft tail configuration.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by waynos]

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:52 PM
Even though the F - 15 had an impeccible kill record during Desert Storm. The same cannot be said about the F - 14 though. This aircraft suffered heavy on the Iranian side of the Iran Iraq War during the 1980s. By the way, wasn't Scot Spicher flying an F/A - 18 Hornet when he was shot down in Iraq?

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:40 PM
Thought that I'd add my two cents here. I think the J-10 is a very solid aircraft - but the fact that it's being compared to a 30+ yrs old aircraft should probably tell us a little about how advanced it really is - i.e. nowhere near other newly-developed/produced airframes such as the JSF. On the other hand, I think it also goes to show how quickly the Chinese are catching up to the rest of the world, if not the US at the moment. At this very moment there are rumours of a JSF-type airframe being developed (of course, how close it actually is is debatable) in China, and so I'd say that in a few decades, if the Americans slack off, that we'd see China evolving into a very real military threat (not that they are weak right now, by any means)...

And to side-step a little right now: Chinawhite, copying doesn't always mean 'word-for-word, line-by-line' duplication - taking an existing idea, modifying it slightly, and then producing it under a different name also constitutes copying - whole or part-wise. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with copying technologies when the ones you do have are simply inferior and you must play catchup in a short amount of time. Look at the Japanese, for example, they copied everything! Yet they made them better and superior!

Oh, and I'd argue that if the Americans hadn't passed the lend-lease act, then the Chinese would've gotten their behinds kicked all the way to heaven and back even harder. Hundreds upon hundreds of American pilots lost their lives flying supplies over the Hump, and not to forget, the Burma and Ledo roads, so I'd becareful when making the statement that all they did was fly some cars over a hill...

posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:44 PM

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 06:12 AM

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:04 PM

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by American Mad Man

The canard conviguration is unstable and require fly by wire using computers, something that the US is not able to accomplish in the 60s

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:02 AM
First off, the F-16 is old. Secondly, the J10 is a ripoff of the F-16, possibly by way of the Israeli Lavi fighter. The east, especially Russia, are notorious copycats. The big difference is the canards instead of aft stabilators. As far as the tailplane producing downforce, so do wings and canards for that matter. This is shown in the Newtonian model of lift, action/reaction or deflection of air. If there was any great advantage to canards, we'd probably see them introduced into the F-22/F-35. It's not as if these are anything new the U.S. hasn't already tried out on a F-15 testbed.
But, if aerodynamics were to be considered equal, then avionics would play a big role. Western avionics and radar has been far superior to Russian radar, the Russians being where the Chinese are learning a lot of this technology (look at the J-11). BVR isn't dead, it's just that the technology in the 60's wasn't up to date. Even though F-16s are an old platform, they were designed to be constantly upgraded with avionics/software updates.
Next is a maintenance standpoint. Jets don't fly if they're broken. From personal experience, the F-16 is a pleasure to work on with fast turnaround times. I can't say for sure about the J10, but come on, I think we've all experienced Chinese made crap. I've worked at a sheetmetal shop that contracted parts out to the Chinese. The results were parts inferior to American made and most of the parts were scrap.
Also, the F-16 does have Fly-By-Wire, the first to do so. The overall design creates a center of lift forward the center of gravity, or negative stability. It was the first fighter to intentionally be designed this way as to make it readily agile. The plane won't fly by pilot alone; it require sophisticated somputers making hundreds of adjustments per second via fly by wire. If the aircraft was designed around this concept, then obviously we've had this technology in the 60's. LWF program commisioned in 1969.
The specs are comparable, and I would assume agility is too. Someone mentioned the historical superiority of the F-16. History teaches us that you can't discredit a proven design, so yes it is a factor. With over 70 AIR TO AIR victories to 0 losses, the F-16 has a proven reputation. The same can't be said for the J-10. As far as loses to ground attack, you could say that about any aircraft engaged in conflicts. Besides, were talking air-to-air, not air-to-ground. And no, American pilots didn't unload on a bunch of helpless or fleeing aircraft. It's against the LOAC (Laws of Armed Conflict) because you have to be engaged to return fire. Whoever said that is just plain stupid, sorry. You can't fire upon an enemy, realize you're outmatched, run away and not expect to be chased. The enemy MiGs shot down were engaging and brought down. A F-111 actually had the first kill!
Even if all these points so far are considered equal, pilot training is still a factor. Planes don't fly without pilots (except UAVs which still have ground operators.) American and NATO training has always been top notch. The MiGs didn't have their deserved kill ratios because USAF pilots were trained well even with planes that were outmatched in agility. By the way, the F-4 maintained a higher kill ratio. USAF pilots are constantly trained and the Air Force has more experience flying than the Chinese. USAF and NATO pilots are continuously trained in excercises such as RED Flag/Maple Flag. There were RED Flag exercises with F-16s trying to hunt F-22s. That's quite an opponent.
Although there's only one way to find out, I'd bank my money on the F-16. Besides, the Chinese have now what we've had for 30 years. And soon they'll again be outdone by the F-35, way to keep up (sarcasm). If the Chinese want respect in designing aircraft, develop your own designs; not reverse engineering. Last words: As far as Americans having a smug pride, there's a reason.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by willmetallica]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by Darkpr0

I've been to Maple Flag, a gathering a several nations to excersice at Cold Lake. I can't recall any Canadians beating up on Americans, sorry. Usually the other way around. Besides, with Canadians painting their planes stupid colors like tiger stripes, you can spot them a mile away.
The last part is just a joke, only the commanders have specially painted planes.

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:51 PM
The comparison F-16 Fighting Falcon vs Chengdu J-10

1) maximum speed

Chengdu J-10 2339 km/h
F-16C Fighting Falcon 2175 km/h

2) climb rate

F-16C Fighting Falcon 15250 m/min
Chengdu J-10 15000 m/min

3) ceiling

F-16C Fighting Falcon 18000 m
Chengdu J-10 18000 m

4) engine thrust

F-16E Fighting Falcon 144 kN
F-16I Fighting Falcon 129.6 kN
F-16C Fighting Falcon 127 kN
Chengdu J-10 122.6 kN

5) weapons payload

F-16C Fighting Falcon 7700 kg
Chengdu J-10 6000 kg

6) maximum range

F-16C Fighting Falcon 4220 km
Chengdu J-10 3200 km

7) thrust / weight ratio

F-16C Fighting Falcon 1.095
Chengdu J-10 0.98

8) wing loading

Chengdu J-10 335 kg/m^2
F-16C Fighting Falcon 431 kg/m^2

9) price

F-16I Fighting Falcon 70 mil USD
Chengdu J-10 27.84 mil USD
F-16E Fighting Falcon 26.9 mil USD
F-16C Fighting Falcon 18.8 mil USD

10) production

F-16 Fighting Falcon 4450
Chengdu J-10 80

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:11 AM

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

Not so! The F-15 (US and israeli) and F-16 (US and dutch) have defeated the MiG-29 in Serbia, Syria and Irak, with the overall score of:

F-15 vs MiG-29 13:0
F-16 vs MiG-29 2:0

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in