The J-10 had those features... the f-16 does not.

The J-10 does not have super cruise and RAM, not sure about vector thrust. And the J-10 can only go to about 60.000FT. Please give some source that the J-10 has RAM super cruise or vector thrust.

Guns are last resort. BVR missiles go first if you can detect enemy fighter. If you run out of BVR or if you detect enemy fighter too late and they're too close, you use dogfight missiles. If you run out of dogfight missiles and your enemy spoofed them, you have to use guns. If you try to run they shoot missile at you and you die unless you spoof the missile which is not easy with most modern missiles.

Eve herd of a wingman? Your not going to send one F-15 to intercept 10 or more enemy fighters. The F-15 carries a lot of missiles and it can even be outnumbers by a ration of 1:4 and it wont run out of missiles.
The F-15 can carry 4 - AIM-9L/M Sidewinder on the under wing stations and 4 - AIM-7F/M Sparrow missiles along with up to eight AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. 16 missiles per F-15, so say you have 4 F-15 that's 64 missiles or 64 jets they can take down. I'm not saying that every missile will be used or that every missile will hit its target but even if 50 missiles out of 64 are successful that is a lot of jets.

3rd world countries with messed up radars might need to use canons not the USAF, there hasn't even been any real dogfights for over 15 years. And there are missile countermeasures or EMC a jet has just incase he needs to dodge a missile.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok name me on time since the 80’s where a U.S. jet has resorted to using it cannon against an enemy? Do I hear 0. Also that is why planes fly in squadrons so there are numbers. If you run out of missiles head back for more you don't keep going to try to take the other guy out with a cannon, that is stupid try hitting a jet going mach 2 with cannon, don't get jet washed!

Name me one time since Vietnam where the USAF has encountered and adversary ofany significance. In a large scale conflice chance encounters occur frequently. Your pilots re-learned the value of the gun and ACM against the NVAF. How soon we forget...!

Before the Korean war it was widely believed that air to air combat with guns would be impossible due to the speed of the aircraft.

Wrong

During the Vietnam war the F-4 Phantom was assumed to be able to protect itself with missiles and speed alone.

Wrong (Colonel Tomb anyone?)

Later variants of the F-4 were refitted with cannon. I assume McDonnel Douglas didn't put them in to blow a few tax dollars.

Another perfect example of the necessity for guns would be in the case of unarmed PR Spitfires which were supposed to be able to fly higher than any of their Luftwaffe counterparts. This was fine until the advent of the ME-262 which promptly started blowing them out of the sky.

The lesson you have had the opportunity to learn time and time again is that if comparable fighter aircraft meet the one with the gun has A BETTER CHANCE of survival than the one without.

Oh maybe I should explain that loadout chart it might be misleading. Each vertical column corresponds to a specific loadout configuration. To find total number of missiles, you add up the numbers of the vertical column. For example, for the 3rd loadout config, you get 2 AIM-7, 2AIM-9, and 4AIM-120, for a total of 8.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

The J-10 had those features... the f-16 does not.

The J-10 does not have super cruise and RAM, not sure about vector thrust. And the J-10 can only go to about 60.000FT. Please give some source that the J-10 has RAM super cruise or vector thrust.

J-10 has all of the features mentioned



The J-10's capabilities far surpass the SU-27 and is at the same level as the latest F-15, Jas-39, Mirage 2000, and Mig-29.

Cockpit include 3 large MFDs designed in a westernized style.

The plane's max lift off weight is 18 tons, can carry 7 tons of weapons which include the latest Chinese made short and mid range SAMS as well as the Russian made R-73, and R-27. The J-10 can also carry the YJ Series (C-801/802/803) anti-ship cruise missiles.

J-10's radar can track 24 targets at a time and engage 4 of them. It has an 140 KM range forward, and 65 KM rear detection range.

Combat radius 1100KM. Max speed Mach 2.0

J-10 is capable of supercruise
The plane also has stealth features.

Vectored thrust and supercruise however are not availible until the new ws-10a engine is fitted

Originally posted by Lucretius
The plane's max lift off weight is 18 tons, can carry 7 tons of weapons which include the latest Chinese made short and mid range SAMS as well as the Russian made R-73, and R-27. The J-10 can also carry the YJ Series (C-801/802/803) anti-ship cruise missiles.

Um... SAMs? Or do you mean AAMs? The J-10 can also carry the R-77 which outranges the US AIM-120 carried on almost every modern US fighter. The R-77's performance is roughly similar to the AIM-120 in other aspects such as G, speed, etc.

J-10's radar can track 24 targets at a time and engage 4 of them. It has an 140 KM range forward, and 65 KM rear detection range.

Which radar are they using? The one they're using right now has shorter range and can only engage 2 targets. They're considering using the Zhuk-10PD or EL/M-2035 but I don't think they've started equipping them yet.

J-10 is capable of supercruise

What's the maximum supercruise speed? Mach 1.0000001 does not count!

The plane also has stealth features.

Structurally it does not appear to have any sealth features. Weapons are also carried externally which raises radar signature significantly. Radar absorbing paint will not help too much, it will only lower the signature very slightly. True stealth requires stealthy airframe to begin with.

I just copied and pasted the quoted text BTW... those are not my words

... I believe you are right when they say "supercruise"

It's probably only at altitude, though we have no way of knowing considering the ws-10a produces a lot of thrust and really it's much down to airframe design as to how effeciant the plane really is.

I doubt it's "true" supercruise as in the F/A-22

EDIT: I have poked around a bit and found that apparently the engine intakes and the surrouding airframe have been built with stealth in mind. Apparently a lot was invested though I have very little details as to how succesfull they were.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Lucretius]

Yeah I've heard of that one too, the intake thing. I don't think it's going to be much help though. External payload easily gives your plane away. The rest of the plane is not stealthy either. It may reduce radar signature from long distances say 100km or something but practically it's not going to make much of a difference.

The J-10 does not have true stealth like the F-22. If it did, it would've been a 5th-gen fighter, but no, it's a 4th gen fighter. Even the Su-47 is considered a 4.5 gen fighter.

Can someone please post a link or any type of document which backs up their argument for the J-10 having all of these features? I’m not saying it doesn't have some of them but I’m skeptical.

And in Vietnam missiles were in its infancy they had just been invented they were not reliable and the tech was trash and there were few of tem on jets also guns were cheaper. They had to use guns because the jets we were shooting down were still slower and they were still dog fighting. In 91 the USAF shoot down all of Saddam’s jets without one round of cannon being fired. Your comparing 1968-1970 with 2005, hello there is something wrong with this comparison, ill say there is 35 years in between!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Can someone please post a link or any type of document which backs up their argument for the J-10 having all of these features? I’m not saying it doesn't have some of them but I’m skeptical.

Which one are you looking for? If it's about the supercruise and stealth, it's probably false or greatly exaggerated. That photo there is apparently from a 1:10 scale model so I wouldn't find that to be an overly reliable source.

And in Vietnam missiles were in its infancy they had just been invented they were not reliable and the tech was trash and there were few of tem on jets also guns were cheaper. They had to use guns because the jets we were shooting down were still slower and they were still dog fighting. In 91 the USAF shoot down all of Saddam’s jets without one round of cannon being fired. Your comparing 1968-1970 with 2005, hello there is something wrong with this comparison, ill say there is 35 years in between!

Saddam doesn't have an air force that can fight. In a confrontation between the USAF and a REAL air force, guns may be needed JUST IN CASE. It's not impossible find yourself in a missileless situation and still be engaged with hostile aircraft. This situation is definitely rare nowdays, but it can still happen. Having a gun on your plane is not that much of a pain either. It's pretty light and small compared to the plane and well designed guns do not cause any significant drag. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Taishyou]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Can someone please post a link or any type of document which backs up their argument for the J-10 having all of these features? I’m not saying it doesn't have some of them but I’m skeptical.

Given the track record of US security I'm not surprised that the abilities of ur super planes have leaked. Arrogance and bragging will only serve ur 'enemies

And in Vietnam missiles were in its infancy they had just been invented they were not reliable and the tech was trash and there were few of tem on jets also guns were cheaper. They had to use guns because the jets we were shooting down were still slower and they were still dog fighting. In 91 the USAF shoot down all of Saddam’s jets without one round of cannon being fired. Your comparing 1968-1970 with 2005, hello there is something wrong with this comparison, ill say there is 35 years in between!

Yeah but SKILLED pilots were still able to use them to great effect weren't they??!!?) Oh but Vietnam was just a scruffy struggle wasnt it? Not a real war...

[edit on 31/3/2005 by JamesBlonde]

Yeah but SKILLED pilots were still able to use them to great effect weren't they??!!?)

Nope they had limited success but nothing like today.

Given the track record of US security I'm not surprised that the abilities of ur super planes have leaked. Arrogance and bragging will only serve ur 'enemies

First of all you are taking someone's word of mouth on this post as actual fact, just because it’s what you want to hear.
Abilities? Everyone knows their abilities but they still can produce a fighter to compete with them, and if your saying the J-10 is a match for our latest jets then you of you rocker.

The U.S. developed the stealth tech back in the 80’s the Raptor was even developed in the 80’s and yet 25 years later its still ahead of anything out there. Now just imagine the fighters were developing now, as long as those secrets don't leak then were ok.

I would say the J-10 is a match for all American jet fighters short of the F-22 and maybe F-35, the stealth equipped ones. Those two are true 5th generation fighters and they will pretty much dominate any 4th generation fighter out there. The J-10 is considered a 4th generation fighter itself and it can compete with all other 4th generation fighters.

I just don't see the J-10 shooting down an F-15 or F-14. I think any one US 4th generation fighters besides the Tomcat and Eagle are fair game but the F-15 and F-14 have superb radars and missiles.

The F-14 definitely has an edge over most 4th gen fighters because of its superior radar and missile, but the F-15 is just a normal fighter. It has a powerful radar, yes, but it's not going to be much help if you can detect an enemy fighter but your missiles are out of range. The J-10's R-77 missiles outrange the F-15's AIM-120 missiles, so it gets to have the first shot. The R-77 is quite similar to the AIM-120 (they called it the "AMRAAMski") except it has longer range. Of course, BVR is not all about missile range, but having a missile with a longer reach is definitly a huge advantage in BVR. That's why the F-14 was so successful at it.

In the end though, a fight between jets in same (or very nearly same) generation all comes down to the pilot. The PLAAF pilots do not get as good training as USAF pilots because the army gets more attention. Also, the PLAAF command structure still follows the old Soviet doctrine. The planes are there mostly just to defend cities from air raids. Those are the major drawbacks of the PLAAF. Equipment wise, the J-10 is a match for most US 4th gen fighters.

Edit: actually no, I don't know how good the training is for the PLAAF now. I know it's relatively poor a few years back but not sure how much it has improved now. I don't think the PLAAF command structure changed any though, but I could be wrong about that too.

[edit on 1-4-2005 by Taishyou]

Yeah but what's the range of the J-10's radar, if it only detects the F-15 when both Fighters missiles are in rage of each other, then I have to give the edge to the F-15.

P.S. the new AIM120C7 will have a range of about 90-100nm.

I hear that the F-15 has a perfect kill:loss ratio..
The only supposed downing of a F-16 is rumored to be friendly fire..
I'd like to know the kill:loss ratio of the F-14, with all its topve the line BVR gear..

Those kills are mostly from unskilled pilots flying obsolete aircraft. The F-15 has never confronted good jets with good pilots in real combat.

Actually the F-15 have downed quire a few MIG-29's in the 91 Gulf War. I think that qualifies as real combat, don't you? Plus I have to regard that ramjet missile thing as a rumor and not fact.