PDA

View Full Version : 'Eurofighter Or J-10 - You Decide'...



Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 11:57
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

kurt190
October 13th, 2008, 12:08
Ooh now thats a tough choice. Superb design by Europes best or Chinese knock off cobbled together from other nations cast off technology..........

kurt

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 12:28
Chinese knock off cobbled together from other nations cast off technology..........

kurt

Rumours have that "terrible" Israeli technology used in the J-10.....:cost1:

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 12:45
Eurofighter should definitely have the better avionics/EW suite...

J-10 supposedly has some heavy duty engines so I'm curious as to which has the better thrust-to-weight ratio...

kurt190
October 13th, 2008, 12:56
Israeli tech is generally rather good - worked with some of those guys and they are extremely competant. However lets be accurate - what is being talked about here is a reworked copy of the Lavi systems - these are now nearly thirty years old. I somehow think us poor Europeans might retain an edge here.
While the J-10 may be competant given Chinese experience and the depth of their knowledge it would be truly surprising if it compared to the aircraft that sit in the first rank of the western air arsenal.

kurt

kurt190
October 13th, 2008, 13:00
Eurofighter should definitely have the better avionics/EW suite...

J-10 supposedly has some heavy duty engines so I'm curious as to which has the better thrust-to-weight ratio...

Powerful but brutal........ Also built by the Chinese if I am not mistaken. Reliability will hopefully not be an issue for them - correct me if I am wrong but Russian engines are not designed to have the longevity that western engines have. Also maintenance can be rather intensive from what I have heard.

kurt

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 13:02
How are the Su-33 engines faring in longevity ?

kurt190
October 13th, 2008, 13:13
How are the Su-33 engines faring in longevity ?

Well I guess when they wear out they replace them! Historically it has been claimed that Russian engines have not been built to the same standards as western ones - tolerances not as good, power to weight not as good and overall efficiency not as good, longevity not as good. So what this means is that maintenance is higher and replacement more frequent. Under Soviet style planned economies probably not too much of an issue money wise but what it does mean is that more of your fleet spends more of the time on the ground.

kurt

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 13:24
If memory serves correct...MiG-25 had engine problems that were cured in the MiG-31....:kilroy:

kurt190
October 13th, 2008, 13:33
They are not engine problems per se. Its about designed life and MTBF. Russian (or formerly Soviet - I was around the aircraft industry back then) engines were not built to the same design criteria as western engines - engineering skills were not as good, materials and materials science were not as good, engineering equipment was not as good - what this meant was that they could not build to the same standards. Tolerances not as close. temperatures not as high etc etc. So to build an engine with comparable performance to western ones it had to be bigger/heavier or use more fuel and/or not last as long and/or require more maintenance.

kurt

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 13:37
Whoops, more of controversial post by me...:d

kurt190
October 13th, 2008, 13:44
You do it on purpose! :icon_lol: You know someone is going to rise to the bait.

Its like me setting up a post comparing an F-22 to one of those Iranian F-5 twin tail things....... well maybe not quite so ludicrous.

kurt

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 14:15
Noo...
I meant I deleted my last comment/post....:cost1:

jmig
October 13th, 2008, 14:33
What are potentially dangerous situations such as unintentional slops or skids.?

deathfromafar
October 13th, 2008, 14:36
How are the Su-33 engines faring in longevity ?

Russians claim 3500 hour TBO which would be on par with Western designs but good indications are that the Lyulka AL-31 life is less than half the average. They still give excellent performance and throttle response. These engines are far better than the Mig-29's Klimov RD-33 engines which have very low TBO hours/lifespan and reliability and also generate smoke as bad as older turbojet designs. The J-10 is a good design based on the IAI Lavi but nothing spectacular. Compared with the EF Typhoon hands down the Typhoon is superior in terms of thrust to weight ratio, twin engine safety and engine reliabiility. Electronic warfare, Radar, Fire Control/Weapons Integration, Self Protection systems the Typhoon stands out. If I was a DM faced with a choice of buying one of the two, clearly my choice would be easy.

Typhoon numbers:
Performance
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2 (2,120 km/h, 1,320 mph)
At sea level: Mach 1.2
Supercruise: clean Mach 1.5
Range: 1,390 km (864 mi)
Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
Service ceiling 19,812 m (65,000 ft)
Rate of climb: >315 m/s[130][131] (62,000 ft/min
Wing loading: 311 kg/m² (63.7 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.23

J-10 Numbers:
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude[6], Mach 1.2 at sea level
g-limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s², +290/-97 ft/s²
Combat radius: 1,800 km[24] (1,118 mi)
Service ceiling 20,000 m (65,600 ft
Wing loading: 335 kg/m² (64 lb/ft²)
Minimum thrust/weight: With afterburner: 0.98

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 14:39
There's a lot to be said for quantity over quality....

Just look at Russia and WW-II.....:cost1:

deathfromafar
October 13th, 2008, 15:30
I will take quality over quantity any day. Geez, Russia out produced everyone in planes and tanks but their loss rate was the worst in the history of warfare. There were over 35,000 IL-2's built and only a small number survived the war. Had the Germans supply and manufacturing been unaffected from allied bombing, they would have mopped the floor with the Soviets. They did horrific damaged to them even as they were being beaten down to nothing. In the Gulf in 91, Saddam had greater numbers of armor and ground forces and a sizable air force amd yet solid gear, tactics, strategy, and training went through them like a razor through warm butter. I'll stick with the Western gear and mindset forever!

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 15:38
Saddam had greater numbers of armor and ground forces and a sizable air force

Don't think he had the larger air force...And like you said, air power won it...:mixedsmi:

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 15:46
I'd also rate Russia, China, & WW-II Germany much more 'capable' than Iraq....

Also, basic war doctrine talks about engaging with overwhelming numbers...

deathfromafar
October 13th, 2008, 17:24
Don't think he had the larger air force...And like you said, air power won it.

I'd also rate Russia, China, & WW-II Germany much more 'capable' than Iraq....

Also, basic war doctrine talks about engaging with overwhelming numbersI never said he had a larger Air Force, I said he had a sizeable one.

Air Power alone isn't going to win a war rather it can certainly shape the outcome of it both strategically and tactically. I was over there in 91 in phase 2, center left flank of the ground war. There was a lot of capable armor and arty assets air strikes missed, not just a minor amount, a major amount. No Air Force can win a war by itself without having boots on the ground. They work hand in hand like they have since both became successfully integrated so many years ago.

At the time prior to the opening of hostilities in 91, Iraq had the 4 largest Military in the world and battle hardened from years of fighting against Iran and an obvious willingness to use chemical weapons and brutal force. Allied Air Forces were larger yes but as General Chuck Horner stated more than once, Iraq had a damn good Air Force with well trained Pilots some of whom he knew personally who had benefitted from Western training. The strategy was of course to blind and confuse and then surprise them by knocking them out on the ground before they could mount any significant response. Not to allow them to inflict any damage on us. As to Modern Russian and China cross compared to WW2 Germany and Iraq, that is not a valid and level assessment. WW2 Germany still hold records of success that no modern military have been able to mainly due to their level of training and experience as well as technology then which was spectacular, just not enough of it. Had there been enough ducks in a row for them, things MIGHT have turned out different(we will only be able to speculate on that). China has a huge military but as often seen, even in it's current downsizing and modernization their Air Force for example still maintains a very poor re-generation rate between sorties and their training is still admittedly underwhelming in standards. Looking at Russia, lots of indigenous media sources would have us believe they are back to where they were prior to 91. Nothing could be further from the truth. The recent Georgia conflict saw that they suffered significant loses against the Georgians in Armor, Aircraft and Ground Forces before Georgia depleted much of it's weapon resources holding back the rest to protect Tbilisi if need be. The Russians took what they did largely unopposed afterwards. Even then they managed to get more Mi-24's and even a TU-22M3 Backfire shot down. Was not such an impressive showing all in all even though they gained victory by default.

I would gladly take our lower numbers of Western gear, Training, and Thinking any day over the antithesis.

Panther_99FS
October 13th, 2008, 17:34
I'd rather take high numbers of high technology.

The number of F-22s that we originally asked for compared to what we're actually getting is about half...

We didn't get our original # request for C-17's either....


JSFs will probably be reduced from original request too...

deathfromafar
October 13th, 2008, 17:45
I'd rather take high numbers of high technology.

The number of F-22s that we originally asked for compared to what we're actually getting is about half...

We didn't get our original # request for C-17's either....


JSFs will probably be reduced from original request too...

I know and it's not going to get better but still, I will follow my original statement. The original F-22 order under the ATF program would have been 750. Then they dropped it to 442 in the 90's, by late 90's down to 332, then to 288 and are we now at 188? I lose track of that quickly. I already know the F-35 won't reach it's original target of 3000(LMAO). I knew that was BS the moment I read it in the mid 90's JSF plans. On the other hand, take a close look at the actual numbers we are facing out there. That is very telling. I still think it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. And to think if we were ever able to eleminate the "Pork Waste" in the FEDGOV we could have a Military twice as large and capable as we currently do. BTW Panther, I saw yesterday on SJAFB's Wings over Wayne(county) 2009 that they were bringing in a F-35 for static display. Take a look at their website:

http://www.wingsoverwayneairshow.com/attractions.html

Willy
October 13th, 2008, 19:08
Dunno.. That Chinese fighter did force down that Navy P-3 a few years ago.. :d

Yall can keep on about how poorly built the things are, but I can't help but think about how shoddy the A6M was supposed to be before Pearl Harbor. Personally, I'd plan for the worst case scenario and hope for the best one.

pfflyers
October 14th, 2008, 16:30
As long as aerial conflicts stay relatively limited, as they have since WW2, I suppose quality will be a decisive factor. I can't help but think that in a prolonged, all-out type of conflict attrition would inevitably start to play a role in who prevails. The last one with an air force no matter how crummy it is will be the winner.

Whenever the quality vs quantity argument comes up I can't help but think of the Sherman vs Tiger battles. If Patton hadn't had a 20+ to one numerical advantage nobody would probably remember his name..