Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fighter Faceoff: F-15X vs J-16 - which one is the better air superiority fighter

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • moon_light
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2012
    • 999

    Fighter Faceoff: F-15X vs J-16 - which one is the better air superiority fighter

    Let take a break from the current stealth development around the world, and revisit our legacy

    The F-15X configuration is impressive as it includes a flat-panel glass cockpit, JHMCS II helmet mounted display (HMD), revised internal wing structure, fly-by-wire controls, APG-82 AESA radar, activation of outer wing stations one and nine, advanced mission computer, low-profile heads-up display, updated radio and satellite communications, the highly advanced Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance suite, Legion Pod-mounted infrared search and track system (IRST) and the list goes on.

    With the help of the companys new AMBER missile carrying racks, the F-15X will be able to carry a whopping 22 air-to-air missiles during a single sortie. Alternatively, it could fly with eight air-to-air missiles and 28 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), or up to seven 2,000lb bombs and eight air-to-air missiles. We are talking crazy weapons hauling capabilities here. Keep in mind that the F-15C/D Eagle can carry eight air-to-air missiles currently, and the penultimate Eagle variant that is currently being built, the F-15SA, can carry a dozen
    Click image for larger version  Name:	https___api.thedrive.com_wp-content_uploads_2018_06_s1.jpg Views:	1 Size:	361.4 KB ID:	3862204
    Click image for larger version  Name:	https___s3.amazonaws.com_the-drive-staging_message-editor%2F1549308220078-114444.jpeg Views:	1 Size:	65.5 KB ID:	3862205

    Click image for larger version  Name:	https___s3.amazonaws.com_the-drive-staging_message-editor%2F1532535747732-jjajdja131.jpg Views:	1 Size:	304.0 KB ID:	3862206

    and

    The Shenyang J-16 is a multi-role highly maneuverable variant based on the J-11BS with longer range and upgraded avionics, a concept equivalent to Sukhoi Su-35. The J-16 has a slightly different vertical stabilizer compared to J-11 fighter or J-15 naval fighter. It is also equipped with missile pylons for Chinese PL-8 air-to-air missiles, another difference compared to earlier J-11 variants.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	J-11151617 PLAAF Air Force PAF C-802A Anti-ship Missile SD-10A BVRAAM PL-5E II WVRAAM  500 kg LS-6 Satellite Inertially Guided Bomb LT-3 LT-2LS-500J Laser  HAFER H-4PGM RAAD MAR-1 (2).jpg Views:	1 Size:	116.9 KB ID:	3862207

    Click image for larger version  Name:	article_5b718bc0585696_45986449.jpg Views:	1 Size:	51.9 KB ID:	3862208
    9
    F-15X
    44.44%
    4
    J-16
    55.56%
    5
    Last edited by moon_light; 14th May 2019, 04:17.
  • garryA
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2015
    • 1117

    #2
    J-16 can engage from 400 km, F-15X has no answer to that
    Furthermore, PL-XX has both AESA and IIR seeker,
    Click image for larger version

Name:	D1TFBaDWkAACwNN.jpg
Views:	457
Size:	89.6 KB
ID:	3862213
    Click image for larger version

Name:	J-16_PL-15.jpg
Views:	455
Size:	51.3 KB
ID:	3862214

    Comment

    • SpudmanWP
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2009
      • 5237

      #3
      So.. it's not an F-15X vs J-16 thread, but instead a J-16 + AWACS vs F-15X + tanker thread?

      Trying to frame the narrative much?

      Of course, you fail to justify why a tanker would be anywhere near an enemy AWACS.. that's why we have "tactics".
      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

      Comment

      • haavarla
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2008
        • 6631

        #4
        are those CGI of the J-16 and F-15..?
        And does the J-16 sport AESA?
        Thanks

        Comment

        • garryA
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2015
          • 1117

          #5
          Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
          So.. it's not an F-15X vs J-16 thread, but instead a J-16 + AWACS vs F-15X + tanker thread?

          Trying to frame the narrative much?

          Of course, you fail to justify why a tanker would be anywhere near an enemy AWACS.. that's why we have "tactics".
          I intent J-16 will use LRAAM against F-15 or enemy AWACS.
          My point: J-16 has very long stick to poke F-15 with

          Comment

          • SpudmanWP
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2009
            • 5237

            #6
            Why would a tanker get anywhere near an enemy AWACS?

            If there are known AWACS in the area then tankers would stay at least 400 miles away until the AWACS had been taken out. That 400 miles is well within the combat radius of US fighters.
            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

            Comment

            • garryA
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2015
              • 1117

              #7
              Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
              Why would a tanker get anywhere near an enemy AWACS?

              If there are known AWACS in the area then tankers would stay at least 400 miles away until the AWACS had been taken out. That 400 miles is well within the combat radius of US fighters.
              I don't think PL-XX is strictly against tankers, it can be lethal against Awacs, Support jamming asset and fighters as well

              Comment

              • SpudmanWP
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2009
                • 5237

                #8
                Again, why would a "support" asset get anywhere near an AWACS if they know that the PL-XX is a threat?

                Do you think a 5-meter missile is maneuverable against a fighter in the endgame?
                "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                Comment

                • garryA
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2015
                  • 1117

                  #9
                  Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
                  Again, why would a "support" asset get anywhere near an AWACS if they know that the PL-XX is a threat?
                  If you can push support assets such as E-3, EA-18G to stay back another 300-400 km by PL-XX, that count as a significant advantage

                  Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
                  Do you think a 5-meter missile is maneuverable against a fighter in the endgame?
                  Why wouldn't it?
                  9M317ME is 5.55 meters
                  SM-6 is 6.6 meters
                  48N6E2 is 7.7 meters
                  PAC-3 is 5.2 meters

                  Comment

                  • stealthflanker
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Sep 2015
                    • 990

                    #10
                    I would vote for the J-16's Mainly because it's more possible to acquire one for export than F-15's and yes the possible standoff anti AEW capability, this in my view something which Western offerings does not provide to say Indonesian Airforce, we seek Su-35 for very similar reason.

                    Aerodynamic performance would be largely similar. I would rate F-15 better in radar power aperture tho and the fact it's a confirmed AESA. I suspect the J-16 still use the type 1493 radar. Making it similar to the Japanese F-15J "Kai". Both may have treatment to reduce RCS but i would expect they will detect each other at pretty much same range.

                    Comment

                    • Ozair
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Oct 2015
                      • 793

                      #11
                      Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post
                      I would vote for the J-16's Mainly because it's more possible to acquire one for export than F-15's.
                      A strange statement to make given no Chinese Flanker has ever been exported but there are almost as many F-15s flying with export customers as there are F-15s in US service with another 36 for Qatar still to come...

                      Comment

                      • stealthflanker
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Sep 2015
                        • 990

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                        A strange statement to make given no Chinese Flanker has ever been exported but there are almost as many F-15s flying with export customers as there are F-15s in US service with another 36 for Qatar still to come...
                        Well had the F-15 being made available we would have acquired them. But looking at our state now, the Chinese flankers seems to be a distinct possibility.

                        Comment

                        • Levsha
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 2818

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                          A strange statement to make given no Chinese Flanker has ever been exported but there are almost as many F-15s flying with export customers as there are F-15s in US service with another 36 for Qatar still to come...
                          That's exactly what I was thinking. Do the Chinese even have the right/permission from the Russians to export for sale any type of Su-27 derivative. There would be many Intellectual Property issues we need to bear in mind?

                          Comment

                          • halloweene
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2012
                            • 4233

                            #14
                            Please define the mission scenario first. THEN people can talk.

                            Comment

                            • FBW
                              FBW
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 3260

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Levsha View Post

                              That's exactly what I was thinking. Do the Chinese even have the right/permission from the Russians to export for sale any type of Su-27 derivative. There would be many Intellectual Property issues we need to bear in mind?
                              Respecting IP is not a strong suit of the PRC. China has claimed that J-16 is a new aircraft that bears only superficial likeness (paraphrase) to flankers.

                              Comment

                              • QuantumFX
                                What?
                                • Dec 2008
                                • 1807

                                #16
                                Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                                are those CGI of the J-16 and F-15..?
                                And does the J-16 sport AESA?
                                J-16 are CGI

                                Comment

                                • Ozair
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Oct 2015
                                  • 793

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post

                                  Well had the F-15 being made available we would have acquired them. But looking at our state now, the Chinese flankers seems to be a distinct possibility.
                                  Again really not an accurate statement. I don't see a reason Indonesia couldn't have ordered F-15, apart from potentially not affording it. Indonesia paid for part of their flanker order with palm oil and couldn't afford weapons for a number of years, additionaly Boeing would not have accepted that as payment.

                                  Australia could also have put some political pressure on the US to not sell F-15s but realistically Indonesia is not and never has been a threat to them.

                                  Comment

                                  • mig-31bm
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2013
                                    • 2095

                                    #18
                                    I have mixed feeling about this: on one hand, J-16 has greater attack distance. On the other hand, F-15X carry enough missiles to shot down all missiles from J-16 and still got dozens left.

                                    Comment

                                    • SpudmanWP
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2009
                                      • 5237

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by garryA View Post
                                      If you can push support assets such as E-3, EA-18G to stay back another 300-400 km by PL-XX, that count as a significant advantage
                                      Pushing tankers & AWACS 400km back does not make them useless, especially tankers.

                                      Originally posted by garryA View Post
                                      Why wouldn't it?
                                      9M317ME is 5.55 meters
                                      SM-6 is 6.6 meters
                                      48N6E2 is 7.7 meters
                                      PAC-3 is 5.2 meters
                                      It's all about size & control surface ratios.

                                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                      Comment

                                      • garryA
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2015
                                        • 1117

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
                                        Pushing tankers & AWACS 400km back does not make them useless, especially tankers.
                                        tanker could still be useful depending on your fighters combat radius, but pushing E-3 or EA-18G further by 400 km will make them very close to useless


                                        Originally posted by SpudmanWP
                                        It's all about size & control surface ratios.
                                        except SM-6, all missile i refered to earlier, have small control surface ratio relative to their size. If you think about it, ASRAAM has small control surface ratio without TVC motor but it is not only maneuver enough to be used against fighters, but also a dangerous HOBS missile

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X