Hi all, been reading up on loads of Chinese hardware improvements. Perhaps we can share some infor and views on these improvements/advancements. Got off an article from Alert5 (sori its in chinese):

(лªÍø±±¾©12ÔÂ
Öйú¼ß-10Õ½¶·»úÕýʽÁÐ×°ÎÒ¾üº½¿Õ±ø

29Èյ磨¼ÇÕßËïïÇ죩´Ó³¬µÍ¿Õ¾«È·¶ÔµØ¹¥»÷µ½ÍòÃ׸߿ճ¬ÊÓ¾à¿ÕÕ½£¬´Óµ¥»ú¡¢Ë«»úÕ½Êõµ½´ó»úȺ±à¶Ó³ö¶¯£¬Ò»³¡
ʵս±³¾°µÄ¶Ô¿¹ÔÚÀ¶ÌìÉÏÑÝ¡­¡­¾Ý¿Õ¾üij²¿Áìµ¼½éÉÜ£¬ÎÒ¹ú×ÔÐÐÑÐÖƵļߣ­10Õ½¶·»úÅúÁ¿×°±¸²¿¶ÓÒÔÀ´£¬ÕâÖ§²¿¶Ó
¹Ù±øÒÔ×÷սΪǣÒý£¬ºÝ×¥¾üÊÂѵÁ·£¬Í»³öÔÚ¸´ÔÓ×÷Õ½±³¾°ºÍµç´Å»·¾³ÏÂѵÁ·£¬²¿¶ÓÒÑÐγÉÕûÌå×÷Õ½ÄÜÁ¦¡£

×°±¸¼ß£­10ÕâÖ§²¿¶ÓµÄʵսÐÔѵÁ·£¬ÊÇ¿Õ¾ü¸÷²¿¶ÓÒÔ¡°È«Ô±¡¢È«×°¡¢Éîѵ¡¢¾«Ñµ¡±»î¶¯ÎªÖ÷Ïߣ¬²»¶ÏÉ¾üÊÂѵÁ·
µÄËõÓ°¡£¾Ý¿Õ¾üÓйز¿ÃŽéÉÜ£¬2006Ä꣬¿Õ¾ü×éÖ¯Á˶àÏîʵ±ø¿¼ºËµÈÖØ´óѵÁ·»î¶¯£¬²Î¼ÓÑÝÏ°ÑÝÁ·µÄ²¿¶ÓÔÚÌù½üʵ
Õ½µÄ»·¾³ÖпªÕ¹ÑµÁ·£¬ÊÊÓ¦¸´ÔÓÕ½³¡»·¾³ÄÜÁ¦¡¢Õ½ÊõËØÑøºÍ¶Ô¿¹Ë®Æ½¶¼ÓÐеÄÌá¸ß£¬¿Õ¾ü²¿¶Ó×÷Õ½ÄÜÁ¦»ñµÃÁËÕûÌå
ÌáÉý¡£¸÷¾üÇø¿Õ¾ü»¹½ô½ôΧÈƵ£¸ºµÄ×÷Õ½ÈÎÎñ£¬°ÑÀíÂÛѧϰÑо¿¡¢×°±¸¹¦ÄÜ¿ª·¢Ó¦Óá¢Ô¶³ÌÍøÉ϶Կ¹ºÍ¶à±øÖÖ¶à»ú
ÖÖʵ±øÑÝÏ°½áºÏÆðÀ´£¬»ý¼«Ì½Ë÷É¾üÊÂѵÁ·µÄÐÂ;¾¶¡£

ͨ¹ý²»Í¬²ã´Î¡¢²»Í¬¹æÄ£µÄʵսÐÔÑÝÏ°ÑÝÁ·»î¶¯£¬¿Õ¾ü¸÷²¿¶Ó¼¼Õ½ÊõˮƽµÃµ½ÁËʵÖÊÐÔÌá¸ß£¬½â¾öÁËһЩ¼¼ÊõºÍÕ½
ÊõÉϵÄÄѵ㣻ÎäÆ÷×°±¸È«¹¦ÄÜѵÁ·µÃµ½ÁËÉ£¬ÐÂ×°±¸µÄ¹¦Äܵõ½³ä·Ö¿ª·¢ºÍʹÓã¬ÔÚµç×Ó¶Ô¿¹ÁìÓòµÄѵÁ·ÓÖÓÐÐÂ
µÄ½øÕ¹¡£Í¨¹ý×é֯ʦÂÃÒÔÉϾüÕþÖ÷¹ÙÐÂ×°±¸¼¯Ñµ£¬ÒÔ¼°¸÷ÖÖÈ«Ô±ÐÔרҵ¼¼Êõ¿¼ºËºÍÁ·±ø±ÈÎ䣬¹ã´ó¹Ù±øµÄÀíÂÛ֪ʶ
ºÍ¼¼Õ½ÊõˮƽµÃµ½ÁËÈ«ÃæÌá¸ß£¬Ò»´óÅúÒµÎñ¹Ç¸ÉºÍ¼â×ÓÈ˲ÅÍÑÓ±¶ø³ö¡£) From the headlines and some infor and here there, its about the J10 being operational ready.

Hey sorry, when I clicked the button, the chinese characters turn into blips and blobs. I will try to find the article in English. Sorry guys.

U.S. Must Respond to Growing Chinese Naval Challenge
Defense News
Email this article
Print this article
by Richard Fisher, Jr.
Published on November 27th, 2006
ARTICLES


In March 1996, China could do almost nothing in response to the U.S. deployment of two aircraft carriers following its threatening exercises near Taiwan. But on Oct. 26, a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Type 039A Song-class conventional submarine was able to approach within about five miles of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier, undetected until it surfaced and was seen by a random aircraft on patrol.

In about a decade the PLAN has acquired about 25 Song, Kilo and Yuan conventional and two second-generation Type 093 Shang nuclear powered attack submarines, with more Yuans and 093s to come. This is but one element of China's effort to realize its ambition to develop world-class naval power.

Accumulating evidence, especially over the last two years, indicates the PLAN will develop aircraft carrier groups for missions near and far. But at the same time, China will also steadily develop and deploy novel asymmetric means to deny maritime regions of high concern to its adversaries.

News out of Russia in late October that China was close to an initial purchase of Sukhoi Su-33 carrier fighters follows mid-2005 Russian comments of initial Chinese interest in this fighter and other Russian carrier-related technologies.

The latest Pentagon report on the modernization of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) reverses its 2002 determination that China would not build carriers, with an acknowledgement that the ex-Russian carrier Varyag, now being refurbished in Dalian Harbor, will likely serve as a transitional ship for China to develop carrier aviation skills.

Russian reports indicate China is trying to copy the Su-33, perhaps based on its ambition to build an indigenized version of the Su-27/J-11 with Chinese-made engines and electronics. But if China opts for the more rapid solution, the purchase of Su-33s upgraded with future Russian active electronically scanned radar and 200- to 300-kilometer range Russian anti-air and anti-ship missiles, it would commence its carrier era with a fighter uncomfortably competitive with the F/A-18E/F.

While it is far from clear what missions will dictate the composition of its carrier groups, some conjecture is possible.

For decades, nationalist factions with the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party have desired the prestige and political power conveyed by a carrier Navy. Chinese commentators have long noted how their restricted geography in Asia clashes with their increasing reliance on sea lanes of communication for energy and commerce, and how the U.S. Navy can quickly dominate those same sea lanes.

A more immediate mission may be to protect an imminent movement of its expanded sea-based nuclear force to the southern tip of Hainan Island. What appears to be a new large naval base with an underground sub pen may be near completion.

Carriers and escorts may also be deployed to the same base to dominate, Soviet bastion-style, the deep water patrol areas for nuclear ballistic missile submarines south of this island. This augurs for a very sharp increase in Chinese sensitivity to U.S. naval units that routinely transit this region.

Another early mission for the Varyag may be to serve as a mobile target to develop the PLA's anti-carrier doctrine and operations. These capabilities are being developed first for potential use in operations against Taiwan, but could also be used to constrain U.S. naval access when sold to client regimes like Iran.

Here, China's generals seek to mass layers of asymmetrical threats to large U.S. Navy ships and to those of its allies.

First among these is China's apparent progress in fielding the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), which Asian sources say will first be based on the 2,500-kilometer range DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). With a possible warhead speed of 4-5 kilometers per second, this missile could severely challenge the defensive capabilities of the SM-3 interceptors now being deployed on U.S. Aegis destroyers.

In addition, China chose its recent Zhuhai Airshow (Oct. 31-Nov. 5) to unveil a concept supersonic, stealthy unmanned combat aerial vehicle called Dark Sword. No Chinese officials at the show would talk about it in depth, though its placard stressed its air-to-air mission.

It is difficult to gauge the extent of China's progress in this field; a video at the show indicated that a Predator-sized UAV concept seen at the 2004 show has reached prototype stage.

The success of China's ASBM and UAV programs will depend on its targeting and communication networks. At Zhuhai, the Chinese announced their commitment to a 30-plus satellite global navigation constellation called Compass.

Zhuhai also revealed that China may intend to fly its future Russian technology 1-meter resolution radar satellites in a twin formation, providing a 360-degree digital image of potential targets.

In addition, China showed an air-launched space launch vehicle (SLV) concept similar to the U.S. Orbital Pegasus. These could join other Chinese mobile and solid fuel MRBM and ICBM-based SLVs for lofting anti-satellite interceptors.

With U.S. satellite communication, navigation and imaging satellites even temporarily degraded, the PLA could open windows for its tactical air and naval forces to mass new long-range and supersonic missiles against U.S. naval forces seeking to aid Taiwan or Japan.

The PLAN's 12 Kilo 636 conventional submarines carry the unique Novator 3M-54E 220-kilometer-range anti-ship missile with a supersonic second stage. Next year, Novator plans to market an air-launched version compatible with China's Su-30MKK/ MKK2 fighter bombers.

This is not an encouraging picture for U.S. defense planners and a Congress looking for budget savings. The U.S. Navy will be challenged to maintain fleet size and to fund new advanced technologies. China's potential carrier fleet may serve to justify those of the U.S. Navy, and even a new heavy fifth- or sixth-generation air superiority aircraft to succeed the Super Hornet.

But China's growing asymmetric capabilities and submarine forces also may justify a redoubling of fleet anti-ballistic missile and anti-submarine efforts. These investments must be made lest China comes to believe it can prevent U.S. support for Taiwan or Japan, which would only hasten future conflicts.

Richard Fisher is a vice president with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, Alexandria, VA.


Related Links

Defense News


[B]This article clearly highlights the threat(s) or possible threat(s) that the PLAN can put on the table.

(Roger Cliff1
The RAND Corporation
Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
March 16, 2006
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on this important topic.
I should begin by pointing out that the findings I present today are based not just on my own work
but on the results of a collaborative effort between me and my RAND colleague Evan Medeiros.
Evan was the lead author of a recently published RAND study called A New Direction for China’s
Defense Industry to which I was the other major contributor. Evan could not be here today so my
testimony will draw on both my work and his, although he should not be held responsible for
anything I say as he has not had a chance to review it.
For the first two decades after the launch of China’s economic reform program in the late 1970s,
China’s defense industries were best and often described as moribund. With a few notable
exceptions such as ballistic and anti-ship cruise missiles, much of their output consisted of
systems based on Soviet technology and designs from the 1950s. Since the late 1990s,
however, China’s defense industries have begun turning out an increasing number of
recognizably modern weapon systems. Although the capabilities of these weapons fall short of
the most advanced systems now entering the U.S. inventory, they are comparable in capability to
the systems we fielded in the 1970s and 1980s that still make up the bulk of our forces. If the
United States is to keep its qualitative military advantage over China, therefore, we will need to
continue to develop and field systems that are significantly more advanced than the types
currently in our inventory and that China is now in the process of developing and fielding.
Background and Recent Changes in China’s Defense Industries
China’s defense industries were originally established with Soviet assistance during the 1950s
and organized according to the Soviet model as government ministries. This structure persisted
well into China’s economic reform era which began in the late-1970s, except for the 6th Machine
Building Industry which was converted into a state-owned company, the China State
Shipbuilding Corporation, in 1982. China’s other defense industries remained government
1 The opinions and conclusions expressed in this testimony are the author’s alone and should not be
interpreted as representing those of RAND or any of the sponsors of its research. This product is part of the
RAND Corporation testimony series. RAND testimonies record testimony presented by RAND associates to
federal, state, or local legislative committees; government-appointed commissions and panels; and private
review and oversight bodies. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing
objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors
around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and
sponsors.
2
ministries, in some cases combined together with purely civilian industries. In 1993, however,
most of the defense industries that remained under the control of government ministries were
also converted into three more state-owned corporations with sometimes somewhat misleading
names, especially in English: Aviation Industries of China; China Aerospace Corporation, which
developed and produced missiles and space systems; Northern Chinese Industries Corporation,
which developed and produced weapons for ground forces, and China National Nuclear
Corporation, which produced civilian and military nuclear power systems. The only defense
sectors that remained under direct government control were China’s nuclear weapons complex,
which remained under the control of the government’s Commission on Science, Technology, and
Industry for National Defense (COSTIND) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and China’s
defense electronics complex, which remained under the control of the Ministry of Electronics
Industry.
In 1999 Aviation Industries of China, China Aerospace Corporation, Northern Chinese Industries
Corporation, China National Nuclear Corporation, and China State Shipbuilding Corporation
were each divided into two nominally independent companies, and in 2002 China’s defense
electronics complex was converted into a state-owned corporation, the China Electronic
Technology Corporation. Thus, China’s defense industry now consists primarily of eleven stateowned
corporations, plus the nuclear weapons complex.2
In addition to bifurcating its state-owned defense companies, China made a number of other
changes in its defense industrial sector in the late 1990s. First, until 1998 COSTIND was a joint
military-civilian body responsible both for running China’s defense industries and for overseeing
the procurement of equipment by China’s military. In 1998, however, the old COSTIND was
abolished and replaced by a purely civilian body with the same name. The new COSTIND’s role
is to regulate China’s defense manufacturers and to facilitate coordination between them and
China’s military. COSTIND also oversees a number of defense-related universities and colleges
as well as the Southwest Institute of Engineering Physics, which develops nuclear weapons.
At the same time as COSTIND was abolished and recreated, a new general department of
China’s military was created, the General Armaments Department.3 The General Armaments
Department’s role is to oversee the acquisition and maintenance of the PLA’s weapon systems.
By removing the acquisition function from COSTIND and creating the General Armaments
Department, China has created within the PLA an advocate for the PLA’s interests in the
2 China’s military also employs communications and information processing equipment produced by firms
outside of the official defense industrial complex.
3 The other general departments are the General Staff Department, the General Political Department, and
the General Logistics Department.
3
development and procurement of weapon systems that is independent of the interests of China’s
defense industries. On paper at least, this is a very significant move as, by giving the military
control over which systems it acquires, it should force China’s defense industries to be much
more responsive to the needs of the Chinese military than they were in the past. In practice, of
course, both the General Armaments Department and COSTIND remain embedded in China’s
larger government bureaucracy and thus the General Armaments Department is not a truly
independent, autonomous actor. This weakens the incentives for China’s defense industries to
improve the quality and prices of their products.
China’s government has also taken steps over the past few years to rationalize and streamline
its defense companies. Significant numbers of workers have been laid off or reduced through
attrition, and some money-losing enterprises have been shut down. China’s eleven defense
companies are actually holding companies containing dozens of subordinate enterprises and
many of these enterprises are now responsible for their own finances.
China’s defense industries have also undoubtedly benefited from the rapidly increasing
technological capabilities in China’s broader economy and improved knowledge of China’s
scientists, engineers, and managers. China’s growing integration into the world economy has
resulted in an increasing number of enterprises in China, both foreign-invested and wholly
Chinese-owned, that possess state-of-the-art production equipment and know-how and employ
modern production management and quality control techniques. Although the technologies
these firms employ are not necessarily defense-related, they form part of the overall economic
environment in which China’s defense industries are embedded and represent a source of
technical know-how and management expertise that China’s defense industries can draw on.
Similarly, the improvement and growing exposure to Western teaching and scientific methods of
China’s universities and technical schools means that they are turning out increasingly welltrained
and independent-thinking scientists, engineers, and technicians. And as salaries and
working conditions in China’s defense industries improve, they are increasingly able to attract
high-quality university and technical school graduates as well as employees of high-tech civilian
enterprises and Chinese nationals who have been studying or working abroad.
Perhaps the most significant change in China’s defense industries in recent years, however, has
been a dramatic increase in the amount of resources flowing to them. As is well known, China’s
defense budgets have been increasing rapidly in the past decade, but within those budgets
spending on procurement has been increasing even more rapidly. Between 2000 and 2003, for
example, while the official Chinese defense budget increased at an average annual rate of over
16 percent, the amount the PLA spent on weapons procurement increased at an average annual
4
rate of over 18 percent. These increased financial flows enable defense enterprises to purchase
advanced production equipment and to attract highly capable employees from colleges, other
enterprises, or abroad.
Improvements in the Output of China’s Defense Industries
It is difficult to determine which of the changes described above has been the most crucial, but
their net effect has been a qualitative improvement in the output of China’s defense industries in
recent years. China’s defense companies are now producing systems that, while not cutting
edge, are comparable to those that dominate the inventories of the United States and other
advanced militaries. The Type 98 tank, for example, is assessed to be comparable in capability
to the main battle tanks of other Western countries, although so far it has been produced in small
numbers. Similarly, China has launched two classes of destroyers expected to have air defense
capabilities comparable to those of U.S. Aegis-class cruisers and destroyers. China is currently
producing two classes of modern diesel-electric submarines and is building a new class of
nuclear submarine expected to be comparable to the Los Angeles-class ships that comprise the
bulk of the U.S. attack submarine force. The C-802 anti-ship missile carried by China’s naval
combatants is comparable in capability to early versions of the Harpoon missile that still equips
U.S. naval combatants.
Since the 1990s the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation has been co-producing, with Russian
assistance, Su-27 air superiority fighters, which are roughly comparable to the U.S. F-15. More
recently, an indigenously built light fighter, the J-10, which is comparable in performance to an F-
16, has reached initial operational capability. China’s PL-9 infrared-homing air-to-air missile is
comparable in capability to the U.S. AIM-9M “Sidewinder,” which was in production until the end
of 2004, and China is developing an active radar guided missile, the PL-12, which is expected to
be comparable in capability to the U.S. AIM-120 “AMRAAM.” China is also believed to have
developed and be testing an airborne early warning and control aircraft comparable to the U.S.
AWACS.
Other systems under development in China include a surface-to-air missile system that is
expected to be comparable in capability to the Russian SA-10 system or early versions of the
U.S. Patriot, a cruise missile expected to be comparable to the U.S. Tomahawk system, and a
high-speed anti-radiation missile.
Perhaps China’s best-known weapon systems are its short-range conventionally-armed ballistic
missiles. These systems provide China with a unique capability possessed by virtually no other
5
country and one that is extremely difficult to counter. The missiles are solid fuel and carried on
road-mobile launchers, meaning that it is extremely difficult to locate and attack them before they
are launched, and the latest models are believed to have accuracies of less than 50 meters.
Although the output of China’s defense industries has advanced rapidly in recent years, it is not
clear how much of this is the result of significant technological innovation in China. All of the
classes of systems described above were first developed in other countries, in most cases
decades before China began producing them. China has also received considerable technical
assistance from Russia and Israel, and much of the equipment used to produce these weapons
is imported. Certain technologies may have been acquired through espionage. In the case of
China’s short-range ballistic missiles, although China has the most capable force of this type in
the world, this is not because other countries are incapable of fielding such systems. In
particular, the United States and Russia are prohibited under the terms of the 1987 Intermediate
Nuclear Forces Treaty from fielding land-based missiles with ranges between 500 km and 5,500
km and instead rely on aircraft or sea-launched cruise missiles to deliver conventional ordnance
over distances greater than 500 km.
The lack of weapons capabilities unique to China should not necessarily be viewed as evidence
of weakness on the part of China’s defense industries, however. In a situation in which
technologies and designs have already been developed elsewhere, it is generally much more
cost-efficient to acquire those technologies and designs from countries and companies that
already possess them than to reinvent them oneself. To the extent to which technical assistance
has been available from Russia, Israel, and other countries, it probably has not made sense for
China to attempt to develop completely new types of weapons.
Moreover, although China has yet to develop a type of weapon that was not first developed
elsewhere, clearly significant innovation is going on in China’s defense industries. Although
China has received significant technical assistance from Russia and Israel, much technological
progress has been the result of indigenous efforts. By all accounts, for example, China’s ballistic
missile programs have received little or no direct external assistance. China is also reported to
be attempting to develop a ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving ship at sea, an effort
which, if successful, would provide China with a unique and unprecedented military capability.
The real test of the innovative capacity of China’s defense industries will occur as China closes
the technological gap between itself and the most advanced militaries of the world. The closer
China approaches the world state-of-the-art, the less readily technology will be available to it
from abroad. Countries and companies that possess state of the art technology will be less
6
willing to share it with China due to concerns about giving away their military advantage, in the
case of countries, and concerns about giving away their competitive advantage, in the case of
companies.
Prospects for Future Advancements in China’s Defense Industries
Although the quality of the output of China’s defense industries has improved significantly in
recent years, a number of shortcomings remain. For example, China has yet to develop a
dedicated attack helicopter; its anti-submarine warfare technology is weak; it appears to be
nowhere close to fielding any kind of stealth aircraft; it does not have a super-agile IR-guided airto-
air missile like those produced by the United States, Russia, and Israel; and it has nothing like
the range of precision air-to-ground munitions employed by U.S. air forces. For China to be able
to challenge the United States for military dominance in East Asia it will need to solve these and
other shortcomings. Moreover, as implied above, although catching up to the state of the art
may require fewer resources than were originally required to advance the state of the art, as
China begins to approach the state of the art, further narrowing that gap will become increasingly
costly. And in another RAND study we estimated that, prior to 2025, China is unlikely to have
available to it defense resources comparable to those currently available to the United States.
In addition, China’s defense industries continue to suffer from a number of structural problems
that, if not resolved, will inhibit their efficiency and ability to innovate. Of these structural
problems I think two are particularly important. First, despite the subdivision of most of China’s
defense industrial corporations in 1999, there is still relatively little direct competition in China’s
defense sector. All twin-engine fighters are still produced by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.
All single-engine fighters are produced by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. Almost all air-toair
missiles are produced by the China Air-to-Air Missile Research Institute. All anti-ship cruise
missiles are produced by the Third Academy of the China Aerospace Science and Industry
Corporation. And so on. As we have discovered in a certain (non-defense) sectors in the United
States, without competitive pressures the pace of innovation is much slower than it is in a
situation in which there is intense competition.
The second ongoing structural problem in China’s defense industries is that they are stateowned.
As with a lack of competition, the lack of private owners demanding a return on their
capital investment significantly dampens pressures to innovate and improve efficiency. The
deleterious effects of being state-owned are probably particularly acute for China’s defense
companies due to their history of having been government bureaucracies in the past, which has
probably bequeathed on them an institutional ethos distinctly different from that of a dynamic
7
private sector firm that the ongoing lack of competition and their status as state-owned
corporations has likely done little to dispel. Many of China’s defense companies have
transferred portions of their holdings to joint-stock companies, but these invariably consist only of
enterprises that produce only of civilian goods. Up until now the Chinese government has been
unwilling to relinquish its direct control of the producers of actual weapon systems.
Unless China allows full, direct competition for weapons development and production contracts
and privatizes its defense companies, therefore, China may further close the technological gap
between itself and the advanced militaries of the world. As long as the products of U.S. defense
industry continue to advance, however, it seems unlikely that China’s defense industries will
acquire the capability to produce systems that directly challenge the technological dominance of
the U.S. defense industry.
Strategic Significance
The potential strategic significance of advances in the production capabilities of China’s defense
industries is huge. Although I just stated that as long as the products of U.S. defense industry
continue to advance, it is unlikely that China’s defense industries will acquire the capability to
produce systems that directly challenge the technological dominance of the U.S. defense
industry, if the U.S. military does not continue to upgrade its technological capabilities, it is
possible that by the end of next decade China will be able to field a military capable of
challenging the United States for military dominance in East Asia. As I said earlier, prior to 2025
China is unlikely to have available to it defense resources comparable to those currently available
to the United States. However, if China focuses on developing its capabilities for military
operations within East Asia, and avoids investing in expensive long-range power projection
assets such as aircraft carriers, heavy bombers, strategic transports, and amphibious assault
ships, then by 2020 China will be capable of fielding forces that, while not equal to those currently
fielded by the United States, will at least be in the same order of magnitude. (Assuming that on
average it is no more expensive to produce a weapon system in China than it is in the United
States, which would seem to be a defensible assumption.) And China will have the advantage
that its home territory is within the region, whereas East Asia is nearly halfway around the globe
from the United States. Whether or not we will still hold our current military advantage over
China, therefore, will depend on whether we have replaced our current generation of military
systems with a new generation that are as qualitatively superior to the modern systems that
China is now fielding as today’s systems are to the outdated systems that currently still make up
the bulk of China’s military. China’s defense industries are advancing increasingly rapidly, and
striving to close the technological gap with the United States.)

This write out clearly states again the possibility of China closing that gap between itself and not only the US but also other advance Western countries and Japan and South Korea. Its actually pretty scary to see the pace at which they are doing so.

These are the most significant statements.....

" ..............Perhaps the most significant change in China’s defense industries in recent years, however, has been a dramatic increase in the amount of resources flowing to them.
As is well known, China’s defense budgets have been increasing rapidly in the past decade, but within those budgets spending on procurement has been increasing even more rapidly. Between 2000 and 2003, for example, while the official Chinese defense budget increased at an average annual rate of over
16 percent, the amount the PLA spent on weapons procurement increased at an average annual 4 rate of over 18 percent.
These increased financial flows enable defense enterprises to purchase advanced production equipment and to attract highly capable employees from colleges, other enterprises, or broad.............." B)

To see the Chinese characters, select view>character encoding>more encoding>east asian>chinese simplified (gbk) (or any gb..., I think) for firefox. For IE, it's view>encoding>more>chinese simplified (gb...)

In today's papers there was an article on PLAAF's J-10 aircraft... its seems like the aircraft is really the best that China has produced till date.... perhaps anyone could comment on the J-10's performance vs the F16... That plane actually has US inputs in them, but the Isarelis sold the blueprints to the Chinese...

(The Chinese Army Grows Selectively Mighty
January 5, 2007: China cannot afford to modernize its entire army (fifty divisions and about twenty independent brigades). Indeed, most of these divisions are equipped with 1960s era gear, and depend on trucks, not armored vehicles, for transportation. What China is trying to do is equip about twenty percent of its divisions with more modern equipment (1980s and 90s class), along with more complete sets of gear. Emphasis is on equipping everyone with modern anti-aircraft weapons and communications equipment. In too many divisions, broken radios mean that many commanders are relying on messengers (on foot or in a vehicle) or telephone (landline, or cell phone if available).

The army is also trying to integrate air support in their training. This was not done much in the past, because of the expense of putting warplanes in the air. But combat pilots are being given more flight time these days, and now some of that is devoted to, not just bombing practice, but doing it in coordination with actual army units. This has proved scary, because the troops and pilots lacked much practical experience. But it also revealed that, with some practice, the airplanes and ground troops could work well together.


Practicing with armored vehicles is also expensive, because of the fuel cost, and the need for extra maintenance, and spare parts, for the vehicles. Again, inspired by the American experience, the Chinese are finding out that the units that can train a lot, become a lot more confident, and impressive when they are called out to perform in field exercises.


China is also trying to muster the money and equipment to equip each "Group Army" (roughly equivalent to a Western corps, a unit with two or three divisions and some support units) with an aviation regiment. This unit would have twenty or so helicopters, plus UAVs and a few fixed wing aircraft. For several decades, every American divisions has had an aviation brigade, and the success of this arrangement has not gone unnoticed. But because of the expense, and need to train so many additional pilots and ground crews, it will be another decade before every Group Army gets its aviation regiment.)

J10 a hot topic currently worldwide

How is it ompared to F16, no need go further, Lianhezaobao’s Beijing stationed reporter attended the J-10 news conference wrote a report, here’s the report:

http://www.zaobao.com/special/china/taiwan...iwan070106.html

The official Chinese manufacturer’s assessment of J-10 is that it can overwhelm Taiwan’s F16 A/B Mirage2000 and IDF, that echoes DoD’s own re-assessment of J-10 that it is more compatible to Euro Rafale & Typhoon rather than F-16 BLK30.

Some translations from Zaobao’s report regarding J-10:

Max speed: Mach 2.2
Combat ceiling: 18000 meters
Combat radius: 1100kms
Max range: 2500kms
Can be fuelled middle air


Video of J-10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhnZIx-hwc
http://www.youtube.com/v/u5CxCieYYaA

Did came across a forum on this topic......J10 compared with F16.

Some comments valid...also quite some flaming by forum members....

http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread176573/pg1


Pick up some points...

From one post :

--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.

===========================================================================

From another posts :

Aerodynamically speaking, J-10 is practically a generation ahead of the F-16. J-10 has a variable intake. J-10 has big canards. And I believe bigger wing area? J-10 will also be equipped with thrust vectored WS-10A engine which will have around 30000 pounds of thrust and 360 degree 3D thrust vectoring nozzle which is gonna put the maneuverability of the J-10 WAYYY over the F-16.
J-10 is only a springboard for China's own aviation industry, the experience gained from the J-10 is transfered to the J-XX program. China doesn't want too many J-10s, only around 300 because Su-30MKK3 can do the job just as well as J-10 generally speaking and even better in some aspects. China will be purchasing the J-XX like crazy when it enters service in around 2015.

F-16s will be become obsolete when JSF enters service and JSF is definitely superior to J-10/

………………. I would say the F-16 is the better aircraft (big surprise there, right?).

My reasons are not so much based on the airframe, but on the electronics and weapon systems. US aircraft provide much better situational awareness in it's aircraft, generally speaking, when compared to other aircraft. That, coupled with battle proven extremely accurate missles would give it the edge in my mind, pilot skill aside.

Of course, this isn't really a good comparison, as the F-16 is a 30 year old design and the J-10 is brand new. At the least, I think it really shows the quality and effort that go into building the USAFs aircraft that 30 years later, the F-16 is being compared to a brand new aircraft which was in fact derived from the Falcon in the first place!.................

See carefully, nobody claims J-10 overwhelms whole series F-16, the F16A/B is particularly an A2A platform, C/D more a multirole, I would say if you have more authorized sources like DoD and AVIC1 which manufactures J-10. taking their assessments 1st. they simply more knowledgeable and have better data to assess, and also, their official announcement usually is carefully worded.

I happened to watch PhoenixTV in Starhub cable channel, this TV station ran a exclusive interview with AVIC1 chief, who comments a lot on J-10, some summaries of the interview can be found here:

http://news.phoenixtv.com/mil/2/200701/0105_340_59453.shtml
http://news.phoenixtv.com/mil/2/200701/0105_340_59452.shtml

From my own memories of what the AVIC1 chief’s saying, I state below:

1. J-10 can overwhelm F16 A/B, Mirage 2000-5 and IDF
2. J-10 has a good chance to win over F-16 Blk30-50
3. However, the J-10 will have a hard run with latest F16( like Blk60), which equipped with AESA and AIM-120 C5 and above.
4. Also, J-10 is NOT compatible to F16 C/D in A2G missions.

From the words, my impression is J-10 is roughly the same level of F16 Blk50 in A2A.

As the significance of J-10’s induction, I would say as long as the F-16 is still in active service in east Asia in 20-30 years, it’s still remarkable. Comparing the level of China to that of US, the gap is minimum 20 years no doubt. However, I don’t agree the J-10 is representing China’s best level as well, if so, China would haven’t declassified it. Talking about J-XX, probably it will not enter service before 2020. the gap will be filled by J-10 or its improved versions in coming years. DoD reported J-10 will be eventually manufactured over 1200 units.

I think this news is relevant to the topic

China becomes world's 4th nation to develop advanced fighter planes

http://english.people.com.cn/200701/05/eng...105_338474.html

China has become the world's fourth country that is capable of developing on its own advanced fighter planes, engines and missiles, said Geng Ruguang, deputy general manager of the China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I).

China has successfully developed the new-generation fighter plane Jian-10, or Fighter-10, the Taihang turbofan engine and air-to-air missiles.

China's home-made new-generation fighter aircraft, the Jian-10 (Fighter-10), made its debut in Beijing on Friday.

A five-minute-long video film revealed how the fighter takes off, lands, fires missiles and flies in formation.

The Jian-10 and the Taihang turbofan engine, both with proprietary intellectual property rights (IPR), heralded the third generation of Chinese fighter aircraft and military aero-engines, said Geng.

He said the Chinese Air Force had been equipped with the country's newly-developed fourth-generation air-to-air missiles.

Source: Xinhua

Agreed with the statements; only comments is that Middle Kingdom is not doing it without the technology transfer resulting from the Lavi project.

Moreover, they will be a few decade back in aircraft development had they not get the support from Russia (on the jet engines on earlier aircraft many years ago).

A lot of hardwork and diligence put in to gain the technical know how the and experience.
= Yes, merit for Middle Kingdom.

In Procurement, the Middle Kingdom hardware will present the potential buyers as source for another alternative.

I don't think the DoD ever stated that the J-10 was comparable to the Eurofighter or the Rafale. That likely came from the AFA magazine, which isn't exactly official but the opinion of the author of the article.

BTW, I think China would at least be the 5th, not the 4th, to develop an advanced fighter. US, Russia, France, Sweden have all developed and produced advanced fighters. If we are talking the capability to develop advanced fighters, then China would be placed even further down the list.

A CCIP standard Blk 40/50 which would form the significant bulk of the F-16 fleet in the near future would have a very good chance of coming out victorious from any standoff with the J-10, considering that it has both better weapons (Aim-9X and AIM-120C7) and likely better sensors.

1.Probably the Chinese classifiction of the full circle of development of fighter jet should also include independently developed Turbofan engines, IMO, the most difficult part in all the A/C development, Sweden doesn’t have aviation engine industries for high T/W turbofan engine.

2.Everybody knows it’s overstatement of J-10 more compatible to Euro Rafale/Typhoon. But that DOD seems give J10 better scores than F16 BLK30 is more realistic.

3.The upgrading of old F16 with newer AAM takes years, the Chief of AVICI talking seems refer to the current config of F16 BLKs.

Perhaps, if engine development s included. But I don't think engine development is necessarily the hardest component of aircraft development. Sweden is an amazing example of technical excellence. A country of around 9 million is at its 9th indigeniously developed fighter with the Gripen, while China of 1 billion has finally developed its first capable fighter (which isn't fully indigenious) now.

By the time the J-10 comes out in numbers to rival the F-16, the F-16 model of significance would be the CCIP F-16s or Blk 40/50s.

What years? The C5 is the standard AMRAAM model, the C7 is already introduced. All it takes to upgrade the F-16 to use them is just a software upload. In fact, the Blk 40 F-16s are already under CCIP conversion, and they would be capable of using the late model AMRAAMs and the Aim-9X. They are also fitted with the JHMCS.

The deliveries of 3rd phase of CCIP equipped F16 will only be completed in 2010. Although J10 is declassified recently, it's already deployed in several PLAAF regiments since 2003 and with Helmet sighting from day 1.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/

Regarding the turbofan engine, depending on how you indigenize the engine,

If you import all the necessary components like blade, disk etc then assemble one,it may not be the hardest, but still tough enough, like Japan, their F100-IHI till now only can achieve roughly 50% self made components, the rest and critical parts still have to be imported from US.

However, if you can make the whole powerplant down to blade and disk, it’s really really hard. Just image the engine has to work under 1700k temperature for thousands hours, work at different altitudes in very short interval. Has to be light, compact yet reliable and durable. Even a powerhouse like US does not make the job 100% perfect, the initial flaw of F100 led F15 grounded for a considerable period to become hanger queen. Currently only 5 countries in the world can make such engine independently, they are P5 in UN.

Some parts of such engine has a surface fineness close to 1/1000th of a hair. Some alloy has to withstand 1900k temperature like the blades in F119 engine for life!

Which is merely 4 years away to full fielding of 650 CCIP F-16 models. Already CCIP units are growing in numbers, while the Blk 40s and 50s which form the bulk of the F-16s in active service are alrady more capable than the J-10 as they are.

edit: the ANG blk 52 fleet have just completed CCIP modernisation.

I guess the only way to know the capability of any combat aircraft (in this case the J10) is wait out till when there's a full scale conflict where the J10 fighters is put to a real test.

This way, its reliability, structural, avonics, etc etc plus the supporting technical & logistics structure are put to complete test ...only then can we conclude whether it's a capable fighter.

On the other hand, we read fm open sources about the capability of US fighters becos these fellas are combat proven; the manufacturer also will know what's the real limits of aircraft capability, reliability and durability.

The operators (air-forces) will also know the real operating cost, turnaround time per combat mission, mission flexibility and effectiveness.

- Comparing specs of aircraft do not really show the true capability of the aircraft.
- Even during peacetime, where air-forces pitch against each other, the true capability of the aircraft is not conclusive.......(they may have their reasons to do so; not to push to the limits...for security, for safety...etc..etc..)


p/s : the skill level of the pilot must considered as well.

Today’s warfare is system vs system, if no generation difference, the major outcome will be determined by one’s system vs another, and it’s also When, where, how related.

Here's how China indigeniously got their engine technology.

http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house/hr105851-html/ch10bod.html

Indeed, the outcome is likely to be judged mainly on the system as a whole. But any system is made up of its components, and ceterus paribus, assuming an air force which has its fighters made up of J-10s were substituted by F-16s... which would be more capable? The answer is clear.

No, YF, you mentioned Components got 2 attributes: Quality & quantity

If the quality edge is not significant, the Quantity will be in domination, no doubt the J10 if reach a manufacturing scale of F16, will be substantially cheaper.

If say a system contains CGI/AWACS, 1 SAM + 24 J10 vs a aggressive only 20 F16s + 2 AWACS?

Chinese Turbofan engine is RE of CFM56 core, it’s undeniable, but the rest metallic/Material technology and thermo technologies are indigenous are undeniable as well

US research show the quality attribute of a fighter will be decreased when the quantity of the participating fighters increasing, that’s why Yankees developed high-Low theory.

To fight with a giant like China, I don’t think small quantity will be involved.

Weren't we discussing the capabilities of the respective aircraft? I guess since you are now diverting the discussion scope towards the quantity as well as quality (capability) of the aircraft, you are acknowledging that the J-10 simply is a far cry from even the Blk 40/50 in capabilities, least of all the CCIP modded F-16s.

Ok, even if we take into account cost - look at the capabilities provided by the J-10 vs the F-16. The J-10 provides rudimentary A2G capabilities while the F-16 allows for the conduct of the full plethora of A2G missions. Deep strike with JASSM stand-off missiles, JSOWs, JDAMs, LGBs, SFW, with a far more capable pod in the Sniper XR. The HTS/STING pod is now available (dunno if it is exportable) which will allow cross cueing with the Sniper XR. JHMCS which has noth A2A and A2G modes etc. Simply speaking, the F-16 provides a far better package. Until we know of the J-10's cost, we won't know which will be more cost effective, but for all the F-16's capabilities compared to the J-10's, the J-10 better be cheap.

When did I say J-10 is far cry from F16? I said from the very beginning, every forumer’s own view takes no weigh if compared to DoD and AVIC1’s official judgment, Since there’re more authorized assessment there. So you should argue with DOD or AVIC1 before say it’s far cry, I respect your personal view and don’t argue is because I know such argument is pure speculation.

Do you have full J10 flight profile in different envelops? Do you have that of F16 BLk40/50 as well?

A missile factor alone then decides which one is far cry from which one just show how neglect the discussion will head on. Hey, A CCIP with high offbore AAM then, you not only win J10, but also Rafale, Typhoon, because AIM9X is currently the best WVR AAM, but why F15/F16 still lost to Typhoon/Rafale in variable occasions?

If missile factor is that determined, C130 with big radar nose and full of AAMs is the best fighter

If you have read my earlier post carefully, it would be pretty evident that when I said that the J-10 was a far cry from the F-16 in terms of capability, that was when taking A2G roles into account. And it is true - the J-10 is simply unable to hold a candle to the F-16 when you compare their capabilities holistically. Even when comparing their A2A capabilities, there is no evident edge the J-10 has over the F-16 except perhaps aerodynamically. In terms of A2A weapons, the F-16 has a clear advantage, while in terms of sensor fit, the F-16 again benefits from better western sensors. Even the aerodynamic edge the J-10 has will be eroded with the JHMCS. Of course, that only applies if both airplanes are of a similar standard of maneuverability, not when one has C-130 class maneuverability.

The Typhoon and Rafale happen to have good AAMs. Nobody claimed the Aim-9X is the best. Also, the F-15 happens to have won the major competitions against the Rafale and Typhoon. :lol:

J-10’s IR AAM PL-8 is based on Python-3 and with Helmet sighting, an extremely success missile with all-aspect attack capability. I think nobody denies J-10 got better instantaneous turning rate than all F16s, this valuable maneuverability could largely offset the gain by AIM-9X over PL-8’s higher offbore angle.

Talking about upgrading, the future J-10 will equipped with TVC 3D nozzle, it will much further enhance the J-10’s nose pointing ability and energy state. Your on-going improvement on higher offbore angle alone wouldn’t totally offset the combined effects of existing better maneuverability of J-10 and further maneuverability enhancement of J-10 over F-16 in future.

Helmet mounted sights reduce the advantages that maneuverability confers. TVC for the purpose of maneuverability is overrated - there is no serious plan to put in service thrust vectoring engines on any of the western planes with the sole exception of the F-22. And the F-22 did not have TVC because of a super-maneuverability requirement, but to maintain control authority at its very high perating altitudes of 60,000+ ft. The PL-8 features an IR seeker which is one generation behind the AIM-9X IIR seeker. The PL-8 also does not feature thrust vectoring.

Hi Say,

Replying to yr query of F16 vs J10.

Alot of info from posts of last few days...

Status : Both J10 & F16 will be subjected to continual upgrading and who knows...even further evolution....it will be relative with time.

So to be fair, the gauge (comparison) .....is based on the released specifications & mission flexibility & capability... and the baseline is this moment in time, seems that the F16 is more capable than the J10

Who knows what will become of the F16 or J10 next couple of months/years....Maybe a development mistake/shortcoming on the newer aircraft is discovered after a spate of air crashes ....and may even ground the whole lot!

Hi Callsign,

Yes it has been a busy weekend....all contributions are top-rate infor for me and I thank both YF and 38z for them. Have gained valuable tech infor and specs from their contributions.

I agree with u the its a continous battle for supremacy for both aircrafts...

Agree, any type of Helmet sighting reduces maneuverability even those with image assistance, by the way, the below image is the Chinese image helmet sight

http://i18.tinypic.com/2iik285.jpg

Towards twin engine powered fighter jet, indeed a 2D TVC nozzle is a bit unnecessary when u can always adjust the power in between the 2 powerplants to achieve the same effect, but F22 pilot also use Thrust vectoring to boost roll rate of F22 by 20-30 degrees/second in a post stall state, a still valuable assert in any possible dog fighting. Meanwhile, western major powers no longer produce any new model single engine powered fighter except F35, so we don’t see TVCs installed on those twin engine powered fighters. However, what we talking here are 2 single engine powered fighter where TVC is obviously a valuable assert when you don’t have 2 sources of thrust to play in between. F35 even doesn’t carry dog fighting AAM, of course TVC is a waste towards it. The TVC , installed in J10 currently producing at this point of time, is full aspect TVC nozzle not only with yew but also pitch. The Chinese made WS-10A “taihang” turbofan and Russian made AL31FN-M1 with 3D TVC nozzle are now all 13000kg thrust level engine, this means J-10 will have better T/W than structurally much reinforced F16 BLk40/50. Delta wing + Canard + Digital FBW + high T/W + TVC, what can we expect from the combo? A highly agile fighter with better performance in all supersonic/transonic/sub-sonic regions. Carefully coupled canard + delta wing can give J-10 high AOA, a 3D TVC just great for J10 to perform post stall maneuver and much better nose pointing ability.

To this point, now judge a high offbore attack ability more valuable or still the old hand—better nose pointing ability ?

Assuming the J-10 merges with F16 with AIM9X, both of them start maneuvering, however, better roll rate, instantaneous turn rate will see more agile fighter cut into the other’s circle. Or the fighter with TVC swiftly reverse the engine thrust to reduce its own speed then pitch the nose into a high AOA, post stall maneuver to achieve superior nose pointing position. in such state, TVC here will probably allow the pilot to point his plane nose towards opponent fighter not only in one dimension but also 2.

Previously, if your fighter being nose pointed by your enemy with all aspect AAM, while yourself is still pointing at your enemy’s 9 or 3 o’clock, you are dead already, however, with high offbore sihgt AAM, you still can manage a shot instead of dying without a struggle, That’s the value a high offbore angle AAM can bring for a less maneuvering fighter IMO .

Hard to believe Chinese don’t improve the seeker of original Python 3 over time, the export oriented PL-9C already features an all-aspects cryogenic liquid nitrogen gas-cooled seeker infrared-homing seeker head unit utilising proportional navigation guidance techniques.
TVC doesn’t add thrust or energy to an AAM but only die weight. However it’s a must for your AAM if you require it to perform high offbore sight duty. Here we go again. For example, if J10 1st points its nose towards F16 with nose point margin of 70 degree, then back to the F16, the J10 is 70 degree off its boresight. Both of them reach the position of launching IR AAM. But are they the same position?
IR AAM’s engage envelop is basically egg( ellipse)shaped with boresight as its long(Major) axis and off boresight as its short axis. Apparently, nose pointed fighter will have opponent fighter further inside its AAM’s envelop than its opponent do. The 1st nose pointed fighter can launch AAM in a near boresight angle thus reserves best energy which translated into speed and range. While the fighter launching high offbore sight AAM will see the launched AAM bleeding energy like hell in order to overcome high G turning on the expense of range and speed.

As said before, thrust vectoring was not incorporated to satisfy any maneuverability requirements. In fact, the vast majority of the maneuverability requirements of the Raptor could be achieved without the use of TVC, as I recall. As for post stall state in a dogfight... I'm not sure you can find a pilot who would say that getting the plane to go slow enough to enter into a post stall state is a good thing. :huh:

Do you have info that the J-10 is lighter than the F-16? I have not come across any reliable info on the J-10's weight. 13000kg = 28660lb of thrust. The F100-PW-229 is rated at 29000lb of thrust, while the standard Blk 52 weighs in at 18,238 pounds empty and 42,300 pounds maximum takeoff.

As i said before, maneuverability requirements were met without the need for TV engines. They did not have TVC because of that, not because they were twin engined.

Get the plane to go slow enough to enter a post stall? As I recall, speed is life. Having to maneuver into getting the nose onto the opponent takes time, whereas the JHMCS equipped F-16 already got the shot off because the Aim-9X has a high off-boresight capability which the PL-8 doesn't have. The difference here is that the F-16 would likely retain more speed, and has a higher chance of surviving the encounter.

So? The Aim-9X uses an IIR seeker, unlike all known chinese short range missiles which use IR seekers. You can believe anything you want, but if you insist that the PL-8 uses a more advanced seeker than is widely believed, please do furnish proof.

TVC was the reason why the Aim-9X had better kinematics than previous Sidewinders despite using the same motor - TVC allowed for smaller fins which extended the missile's range to near BVR ranges.

:huh: Huh? That's only true in rather specific cases.

So the missile with TVC bleeds energy like hell but the fighter with TVC... doesn't? Interesting. By the way, if the planes are already so close together that they are both turning and burning to orientate their noses towards each other, then the opposing jet is already well within the AIM-9X's range. Go take a look at the Aim-9X video on Raytheon's (I think) site.

I think what he meant was, that an Aim-9X or any other dogfight aam launched off boresight would have lesser energy to intercept targets further away.

Perhaps one way to put it would be that, fighter A launches a sidewinder X straight, charging down towards Fighter B. Fighter A is on fighter B's 9'o clock position. This missile was launched at the sidewinder's extreme MAX range. Fighter A then reverses direction to leave.

Fighter B may not be able to return fire with an off-boresight Sidewinder X as Fighter A' may be beyond an off-boresight Sidewinder's max range.

This is because, that at the same point of time, say 1-2 second after both sidewinders are in the air, Fighter A's sidewinder is at a higher energy state than Fighter B's, hence Fighter A's sidewinder has higher pK.

In this situation, fighter A's missile indeed has a higher probability of kill than the missile launched from fighter B, which in this case is an F-16 with JHMCS and the HOBS Aim-9X. Should fighter B be replaced by the J-10 however, then the J-10 would in this case have to expend energy pointing its nose towards the target, fire the missile, before proceeding to undertake evasive maneuvers. Compare this to the F-16 (as fighter B ) which does not have to point its nose at the target since it has both the JHMCS and a HOBs missile, so it can immediately fire the Aim-9X and take evasive measures without causing itself to lose energy reorientating its nose at figher A. So when you compare the Pk of the missile fired from A in these two instances, the Pk of the missile fired from A is lower against the F-16 than the J-10. Conversely, the sidewinder fired from fighter B (F-16) has the advantage of being released virtually instantaneously as opposed to J-10 as fighter B which would have to reorientate towards fighter A before firing, during which fighter A would have time to take evasive maneuvers against any attempt to fire back by fighter B. Notice that this is not a certainty - fighter B may be forced to evade and forego any chance at firing back at fighter A at all. In this case, the fighter without a HOBs missile with JHMCS (ie the J-10) would have set itself up for another shot from fighter A even if it evaded the first missile fired from it.

There was an article in the Straits Times today that China declared that it had the capability to develop an aircraft carrier.... Wow!!....yawn... can you detect the similarities between the Chinese and the Iranians? All those hot-air... obviously it was already known that they bought those carriers from Australia, India and Russia for that reason - to copy and learn how to build one (possibility of them actually using a Russian one as their own is more like it)... Copy cats they are and cheaters never prosper.... Sure like to see an Aircraft carrier in the PLAN...a true blue Chinese carrier...man, that would send many to buy subs,,,,

Yeap...Aircraft carrier ...hot topic in Mainland Chinese forums some mths ago..they even try to ask for suggestions on what name to be given to the first PLAN carrier. alamat !

I know wat name for their new carrier...if it comes true.... "Bu Xiu" (meaning not shy) cos' they copied it or worse still the just bought it off shelf and did some cosmetics and called it their own!!

Well, the funniest one I've heard yet has to be 'Varyagra'! lol