• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

'Eurofighter Or J-10 - You Decide'...

Ooh now thats a tough choice. Superb design by Europes best or Chinese knock off cobbled together from other nations cast off technology..........

kurt
 
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...
 
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
 
Panther_99FS said:
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...
Click to expand...

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 said:
How are the Su-33 engines faring in longevity ?
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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 said:
How are the Su-33 engines faring in longevity ?
Click to expand...

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

Also, basic war doctrine talks about engaging with overwhelming numbers...
 
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 numbers
Click to expand...
I 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top