Airshow China 2008
-
http://mil.huanqiu.com/Focus_photo/2008-10/259859.html
J-10s arrived! -
to me the j-10s actually seem a little on the long side as in nose to tail.. looks somewhat unwieldy (perhaps a mig on steriods?)
but nice to see em around anws.
-
I don't really think much of the J-10... and I really can't see what the buzz is about.
Looks wise, it aint as sexy as the Rafale or Typhoon.
Sure as hell doesn't match up to them in terms of avionics, radar and weapons suite.
Performance wise, no one knows unless somebody "accidentally" releases the charts on its turn-rate performances at various altitude n airspeed.
Blue Sky Pod / Filat vs SniperXR, Lockheed Martin's pod wins hands down. J-10 looks like an equivalent of a Block 40 CCIP F-16. Comparing it to a CCIP f-16 is already being generous in my opinion.
-
I read a report that they out performed their J-11s in one of their exercise. So its not that pathetic after all. I wouldn't be too quick to put it down.
-
cool.
can share the report ? on what criteria or conditions did they out perform their J-11s ?
the J-11s using russian or chinese made engines ? i hear some of the kit assembled ones are using chinese designed and made engines instead of russian engines. the ws-10a or something like that.
-
Well, I’m not sure you can understand Chinese or not, here’s one such report in Chinese:
http://news.163.com/07/0104/11/3406IMBG00011232_2.html
Chinese started importing Su27 as early as 1992. PLA directly imported 78 Su27sks from Russia, then in 1998, Shenyang aircraft company( SAC) started to assemble the Su27 kits supplied from Russia, the local assembled Su27 is called J11, after that, SAC gradually increased the Chinese made components in local assembled J11, the J-11 with Chinese radar, avionics is called J11A. Till 2007, Chinese has successfully developed its own turbofan engine for military fighter jets, the J-11 with almost 100% Chinese made components including Radar, Avionics, weapon, and powerplant( which is WS-10A “tiahang” turbofan engine you mentioned) is called J-11B, the J-11B’s appearance makes Russians much uneasy that not longer ago, some Russian media accused Chinese pirated their beloved Flanker, until the Sukhoi itself came out and clarified that it has sold Chinese the Flanker airframe design long ago.
The J-10 vs Su27 exercise is an interesting one. The outcome directly leaded to PLA’s decision to haul all Su27 kits import from Russia. Initially, China signed contract with Suhkoi to import up to 200 Su27 kits, but after the J-10 ‘s landside victory over Su27, the PLA stopped all su27 kits import, so SAC only locally assembled 95 kits from Russia instead of 200. Now, SAC is manufacturing J11B which is believed not included in the initial 200 kits quota,
-
The J-10 has its design partially copied from the F-16 right? The air intake seems to be copied from them, except the typical Chinese copycats must mod it abit so they make it rectangular.
-
i read the article from the international air review volumn 22.
A very long article, but to cut it short, the central gov decided to stop ordering su-30 kits from russia and work on the J-10.
And the article suggested that the plane was developed from a previous prototype called the J-9 which carries a canard delta configuration. The timeline between the develpement of the lavi and the j-10 doesn't match, so the isreali connection was ruled out.
What is known, is that the WS-10 engine, has a closer resemblence to the PW-f100 than the Al-31 engines, which indicates reverse engineering from a cfn-56 engine of which the pw-f100 is derived from.
Thrust output of the ws-10A is said to be almost the same if not higer than the AL-31. But the response rate is too slow. So at this point of time, it is not fitted to the j-10 yet.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I don't really think much of the J-10... and I really can't see what the buzz is about.
Looks wise, it aint as sexy as the Rafale or Typhoon.
Sure as hell doesn't match up to them in terms of avionics, radar and weapons suite.
Performance wise, no one knows unless somebody "accidentally" releases the charts on its turn-rate performances at various altitude n airspeed.
Blue Sky Pod / Filat vs SniperXR, Lockheed Martin's pod wins hands down. J-10 looks like an equivalent of a Block 40 CCIP F-16. Comparing it to a CCIP f-16 is already being generous in my opinion.
Avionics,radar unknown but from the phsyical look. J-10 is sure to be design start as a high agile and great manoeuvre fighter plane. In facr in terms of aerodynamic,more superior than F-16.The delta-wing, a triangular wing platform, offers two important aerodynamic qualities to a combat aircraft. First, the swept leading edge of a delta-wing stays ahead of the shock wave generated by the nose of the aircraft during supersonic flight, making delta-wing a very efficient aerodynamic wing shape for supersonic flight. And secondly, the leading edge of delta-wing also generates a massive vortex that attaches itself to the upper surface of the wing during high angle-of-attack (AOA) maneuvers resulting in very high stall points. Additionaly, the delta-wing offers increased survivability by having increased structural and airflow stability.
Canard also allow the aircraft pitches up, instead of forcing the tail down decreasing overall lift, the canard lifts the nose, increasing the overall lift. Because the canard is picking up the fresh air stream instead of the wake behind the main wing, the aircraft can achieve better control authority with a smaller-size control surface, thus resulting in less drag and less weight. This also result in shorter take off distance and fast climbing capabilities which makes J-10 exceed F-16 in most performance.
If in a dogfight situation, J-10 will have the advantage over F-16.
U can check out Dassault and BAE over the claim advantage of canard fighter.
-
Training counts at least half in any mission.
-
Originally posted by bloodsucker:
The J-10 has its design partially copied from the F-16 right? The air intake seems to be copied from them, except the typical Chinese copycats must mod it abit so they make it rectangular.
I’m not sure how you get this weird impression even though the 2 air intakes are different in at 1st glance.F-16 features a fixed geometry pitot tube for air intake, the benefit of pitot tube is its light weight, satisfactory performance in transonic and subsonic region where most dog fights occur.
J-10 adopts an adjustable, binary air intake, the upper portion of the air intake is incorporated with an intake ramp designed to generate a rearward leaning oblique shock wave to aid the inlet compression process, which is valuable when the fighter jets need perform in not only subsonic but also supersonic region. The only short comings of this binary, shock wave air intake are its complexity and adding more die weight. However, air fight starts from BVR, and where speed is life. If you want sth matching up the heavy fighters like Su27 or F-15 which can easily accelerate to over M2, you need your fighter to have features that work fine in that area. J-10 by initial design, clearly set mind on performance vs heavy fighters on most flight envelops.
-
Originally posted by zenden9:
Avionics,radar unknown but from the phsyical look. J-10 is sure to be design start as a high agile and great manoeuvre fighter plane. In facr in terms of aerodynamic,more superior than F-16.The delta-wing, a triangular wing platform, offers two important aerodynamic qualities to a combat aircraft. First, the swept leading edge of a delta-wing stays ahead of the shock wave generated by the nose of the aircraft during supersonic flight, making delta-wing a very efficient aerodynamic wing shape for supersonic flight. And secondly, the leading edge of delta-wing also generates a massive vortex that attaches itself to the upper surface of the wing during high angle-of-attack (AOA) maneuvers resulting in very high stall points. Additionaly, the delta-wing offers increased survivability by having increased structural and airflow stability.
Canard also allow the aircraft pitches up, instead of forcing the tail down decreasing overall lift, the canard lifts the nose, increasing the overall lift. Because the canard is picking up the fresh air stream instead of the wake behind the main wing, the aircraft can achieve better control authority with a smaller-size control surface, thus resulting in less drag and less weight. This also result in shorter take off distance and fast climbing capabilities which makes J-10 exceed F-16 in most performance.
If in a dogfight situation, J-10 will have the advantage over F-16.
U can check out Dassault and BAE over the claim advantage of canard fighter.
Well, a lot of these claims from Dassault and BAE are probably true. In a sustained turning fight, the from what i hear, theTyphoon has a higher turn rate and tighter turn radius than an F-16, handles well at low-airspeeds, and is capable of out-accelerating.
However, the J-10 has yet to be pit against the F-16 (which is so far the benchmark... heh) and there aren't any charts available as well, mapping the turn rate and radius with various altitude and airspeeds... so its hard to say anything.
And to be fair to the good ol' workhorse, WVR is no longer the "in" thing these days. Its more of mid-air BVR jousting. In this arena (without considering 2-way datalinks), what is crucial is acceleration, radar, and jammers.
WVR will be avoided as much as possible as the probability of kill on both sides would be quite high. Unless, oneside has significantly more fighters to throw... Which is essentially the case when I consider a US vs China over the Formosa kinda scenario.
-
well, if the j-10 managed to hit/surpass the su-27 benchmark. I dun see why it shouldn't surpass the f-16. the only weakness of this thing is that it doesn't have a very good air to ground strike package.
-
Well, I don't see how they surpass the Su-27 benchmark unless the Su-27 was using some cheap knockoff Chinese engine.
The Su-27 exceeds the 1:1 t/w ratio with reheat easily in an air to air combat load. The J-10's single AL-31F doesn't push its overweight body past 1:1 at all even w/ reheat. With that kinda t/w ratio, flying at high angles of attack is just gonna get it really slow, really quick. Canard or no canard, it generally shouldn't surpass the Su-27 at all considering it doesnt have TVC. I don't see how much more manueverable the J-10 can be against a Su-27...
With all this in consideration, I'm really gonna take their "hit the benchmark" with a pinch of salt. Did it surpass the real deal Su-27 benchmark or their knockoff J-11?
In a BVR fight, the aircraft with better acceleration has a range advantage (f-pole). Being able to break mach 1. for the missile allows its missile to hit further. Hence, in theory, the Su-27 with a higher than 1:1 thrust / weight ratio should be able to out shoot the J-10. Unless someone claims that the J-10's design is so drag efficient that it out accelerates the Su-27 with a lower t/w ratio... but from the Looks of it, it doesnt seem so. Otherwise, the Chengdu would be claiming that the J-10s can supercruise... and I'll be falling off my chair.
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
I’m not sure how you get this weird impression even though the 2 air intakes are different in at 1st glance.F-16 features a fixed geometry pitot tube for air intake, the benefit of pitot tube is its light weight, satisfactory performance in transonic and subsonic region where most dog fights occur.
J-10 adopts an adjustable, binary air intake, the upper portion of the air intake is incorporated with an intake ramp designed to generate a rearward leaning oblique shock wave to aid the inlet compression process, which is valuable when the fighter jets need perform in not only subsonic but also supersonic region. The only short comings of this binary, shock wave air intake are its complexity and adding more die weight. However, air fight starts from BVR, and where speed is life. If you want sth matching up the heavy fighters like Su27 or F-15 which can easily accelerate to over M2, you need your fighter to have features that work fine in that area. J-10 by initial design, clearly set mind on performance vs heavy fighters on most flight envelops.
I see I see.The importance of air-intakes are such that by removing the variable ramps in the air-intake in the SU-24, from having a M2+ top-speed, it was reduced to a transonic top-speed.
But then because this does not affect low-level flight, which the Fencer specialises at, it's ok. In fact it saves complexity and weight.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Well, I don't see how they surpass the Su-27 benchmark unless the Su-27 was using some cheap knockoff Chinese engine.
The Su-27 exceeds the 1:1 t/w ratio with reheat easily in an air to air combat load. The J-10's single AL-31F doesn't push its overweight body past 1:1 at all even w/ reheat. With that kinda t/w ratio, flying at high angles of attack is just gonna get it really slow, really quick. Canard or no canard, it generally shouldn't surpass the Su-27 at all considering it doesnt have TVC. I don't see how much more manueverable the J-10 can be against a Su-27...
With all this in consideration, I'm really gonna take their "hit the benchmark" with a pinch of salt. Did it surpass the real deal Su-27 benchmark or their knockoff J-11?
In a BVR fight, the aircraft with better acceleration has a range advantage (f-pole). Being able to break mach 1. for the missile allows its missile to hit further. Hence, in theory, the Su-27 with a higher than 1:1 thrust / weight ratio should be able to out shoot the J-10. Unless someone claims that the J-10's design is so drag efficient that it out accelerates the Su-27 with a lower t/w ratio... but from the Looks of it, it doesnt seem so. Otherwise, the Chengdu would be claiming that the J-10s can supercruise... and I'll be falling off my chair.
Lol. Seems a lot of homework before becoming a China military expert.
First of all, tell us which Su27 carries TVC?
2ndly, one reference I would recommend is Jane’s report on J11B, which is the mentioned “Su27 using cheap knockoff Chinese engine”
Details emerge of China’s J-11B heavy fighter
Details have emerged of China’snext-generation
J-11B heavy air superiority fighter aircraft:
a further development of Sukhoi’s Su-27SK (Chinese
designation J-11) that ended production in 2004 ahead of its
planned run.Shenyang Aviation Corporation assembled 95 J-11 fighters from
imported Russian components, although the original project had
called for 200 aircraft, and it is likely production was stopped in
anticipation of the improved J-11B.Although based on the Su-27SK, the latest incarnation has
substantial improvements including a reduced radar cross-section
(RCS), a strengthened airframe and an improved fire-control radar, as
well as a new flight-control system, glass cockpit and engine.The improvements are planned to take the aircraft to a fourth generation
platform. It is known that theYanliang FlightTest Center
currently has three J-11B aircraft under testing.The most significant change for the aircraft is the reduced RCS;
sources claim that this brings the RCS from the 15 m2 of the Su-27 to
less than 5 m2 and possibly as low as 3 m2, but it is unlikely that the
minimal changes proposed could achieve this.The change is not to the shape of the aircraft but involves modification
of the air-intake lip with a radar wave shield and installation
of radar-absorbing materials on the intake interior. The RCS will be
reduced with Chinese-made signature-reduction paint.The strengthening of the airframe – a key aspect since the life
expectancy of the aircraft has been criticised by the People’s Liberation
Army Air Force – has been achieved through wind-tunnel tests
of the weapons carriage.Additionally, the empty weight of the aircraft has been reduced by
about 700 kg through the use of composite materials. It is believed
a further 10,000 hours have been added to the life of the aircraft compared
with the Su-27SK.The radar installed on the J-11B is believed to be more powerful
than the Type 1473 installed on the J-10; it is estimated to be able to
track 20 targets and simultaneously lock onto six.I would also recommend this article on J11B from Aviationweek, another reputed American magazine:
Chinese J-11B Presages Quiet Military Revolution
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw110606p2.xml
IMO, if J10 had been fighting with the J11B with improved slot array radar and FBW, it would have found a much hard time.
Talking about overweighed J10, the UK’s Airforce monthly reports J10’s empty weight of 8500kg, which represents my own estimation, so, by simply putting of you “overweigh”, what do you think the weight is? On the contrary, Su27 can’t carry drop tank, which means it need carry much more amount of internal fuel for 2 engines.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Well, I don't see how they surpass the Su-27 benchmark unless the Su-27 was using some cheap knockoff Chinese engine.
The Su-27 exceeds the 1:1 t/w ratio with reheat easily in an air to air combat load. The J-10's single AL-31F doesn't push its overweight body past 1:1 at all even w/ reheat. With that kinda t/w ratio, flying at high angles of attack is just gonna get it really slow, really quick. Canard or no canard, it generally shouldn't surpass the Su-27 at all considering it doesnt have TVC. I don't see how much more manueverable the J-10 can be against a Su-27...
With all this in consideration, I'm really gonna take their "hit the benchmark" with a pinch of salt. Did it surpass the real deal Su-27 benchmark or their knockoff J-11?
In a BVR fight, the aircraft with better acceleration has a range advantage (f-pole). Being able to break mach 1. for the missile allows its missile to hit further. Hence, in theory, the Su-27 with a higher than 1:1 thrust / weight ratio should be able to out shoot the J-10. Unless someone claims that the J-10's design is so drag efficient that it out accelerates the Su-27 with a lower t/w ratio... but from the Looks of it, it doesnt seem so. Otherwise, the Chengdu would be claiming that the J-10s can supercruise... and I'll be falling off my chair.
Ok, a little backgroud for ya...
Well, as of now, the china su-27s are using the AL-31. The WS-10 have not been approved for usage yet. So they are about the same standards as the orignal su-27.
Large percentage of the J-11's airframe has been replaced with composites. So supposedly, it has a better T/w ratio compared to the original su-27.
It seem to be using a phase array radar.
And despite all that, recent exercises indicates that the J-10 outperformed the J-11.
I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it, but i woun't be quick to praise it over the moon too.
It could be possible that china wants to focus more effort on an indegineous aircraft, and it could be possible that the j-10 is doing very well. Or it could be both. But whatever the reasons, they have halted the purchase of su-30s and focused on the J-10 instead.
Within the PLAAf there lies 2 schools of thoughts. The pro J-10 and the pro J-11. however recently even the pro J-11 people have been keeping pretty silent after the recent exercises.
Anyway, the way things are going, there will be a hell lot of third world nations with a relatively advance fighter jet poping up all around the world soon. When that time comes, you will know the capability of the j-10.
-
Funny, I thought I posted a reply on the t/w numbers on the J10 and Su-27.... maybe I didn click submit or smth.
The J-10 according to January's edition of aviation week had a combat loading of 40,000lb yet with the Al-31 engines, it can only muster up 27,000lb of thrust in afterburners.
The J-11 on the other hand has combat loading of somewhere in the 50,000lb, but the combined thrust of 2 AL-31Fs gives it about 54,000lb.
What I mean is, if the t/w ratio doesn't work in the J-10's favor in terms of manueverability, something else must. And to match the Su-27's manueverability is no small feat too.
What I am even hesitant about to compare is radar performance and avionics. I'd like to give more credit to the J-10 in this but this is really something we won't know even well after a shooting confrontation against a J-10 takes place. None of us knew that the MiG-23's radar couldn't differentiate sea clutter until a pair of Tomcats splashed them by flying low. And somebody figured that out only much later if i recall correctly
If there is anything a spanking new J-10 ought to, and I emphasize Ought, is to surpass in terms of man-machine interface. I've seen the J-10 cockpits from various photos and I feel that it indeed has improved in that aspect. Between a J-10 pit and an Su-27 pit, I'd take the J-10 pit any day. Rewire the Su-27 with a glass cockpit, and I'd gladly switch over. =D
I am pretty sure this is an attempt to emphasize on an indigenous design, as well as reduce dependency of Russian technology. Despite Sukhoi confirming that they indeed sold them the Su-27 design, I think there's still a fair amount of foul taste over the allegations of "fighter-piracy." If they can't export the Sukhoi design, they'll export the J-10. And as usual, if they export more, they reduce the cost per frame as well as keeping the lines open longer.
-
Bro ,according to the international airpoer review, 40000lb is its max take off weight. So, not very fair to compare T/w of max takeoff weight of J-10 and to combat weight of J-11.
should compare the max T/o weight of the J-11 which is 73000lb.
Unfortunately nobody knows the combat load of the J-10. So i guess this will suffice. But of course even then, the T/W of the J-11 is still higer than the J-10 at max weight. So a point to you.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Funny, I thought I posted a reply on the t/w numbers on the J10 and Su-27.... maybe I didn click submit or smth.
What I am even hesitant about to compare is radar performance and avionics. I'd like to give more credit to the J-10 in this but this is really something we won't know even well after a shooting confrontation against a J-10 takes place. None of us knew that the MiG-23's radar couldn't differentiate sea clutter until a pair of Tomcats splashed them by flying low. And somebody figured that out only much later if i recall correctly
If there is anything a spanking new J-10 ought to, and I emphasize Ought, is to surpass in terms of man-machine interface. I've seen the J-10 cockpits from various photos and I feel that it indeed has improved in that aspect. Between a J-10 pit and an Su-27 pit, I'd take the J-10 pit any day. Rewire the Su-27 with a glass cockpit, and I'd gladly switch over. =D
I am pretty sure this is an attempt to emphasize on an indigenous design, as well as reduce dependency of Russian technology. Despite Sukhoi confirming that they indeed sold them the Su-27 design, I think there's still a fair amount of foul taste over the allegations of "fighter-piracy." If they can't export the Sukhoi design, they'll export the J-10. And as usual, if they export more, they reduce the cost per frame as well as keeping the lines open longer.
you arent the only one. i always have problems posting here. sometimes after i spend 45mins mulling and typing a long response. i hit the send key and it isnt posted. !!!
can share more about where u found the cockpit pictures ? very curious about it.
-
typing long reply? use a word processor to save you some grief...
-
Originally posted by CenturionMBT:
Bro ,according to the international airpoer review, 40000lb is its max take off weight. So, not very fair to compare T/w of max takeoff weight of J-10 and to combat weight of J-11.
should compare the max T/o weight of the J-11 which is 73000lb.
Unfortunately nobody knows the combat load of the J-10. So i guess this will suffice. But of course even then, the T/W of the J-11 is still higer than the J-10 at max weight. So a point to you.
Hmm now that makes a bit of sense.... cos I saw from somewhere else that the max t/o weight was 42,500lb. Okay lets just calculate from ground up....
The empty weight, I'm guessing is about 20,000lb... at about 9000lb of fuel ( the F-16 slightly smaller is about 7000lbs, im guessing the J-10 should be able to manage 9000 ) and approx 2000lb worth of AAM ( 4 x each AMRAAM sized weapon is abt 400lb).
Leaves us at about still 32000lbs.
AL-31F about 27000lb of thrust in Afterburner
I guess the only way it breaks 1:1 ratio is if it carries about 50% fuel load; which is what the flanker does anyway...
I really do feel that they are trying to circumvent export restrictions on the J-11 licenses. Hence they'd try to market the J-10 instead.
sgstars:
This page has some snaps of the cockpit that seems the most consistent with other sites.
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/military_photos_20080804224738.aspx
Three color MFDs and a basic 6 under the centre (slightly smaller) MFD. Reminds me of the Eurofighter cockpit....
-
To Shotgun:
J-10 may be longer than F-16, but it also slimmer, make it the overall size similar to F-16:
The F-16C’s empty weight is 8300kg, so it’s reasonable to assume J-10 is around 8500kg instead of 9000kg you estimate.
For the internal fuel, let’s benchmark J10 against the other fighters, Israeli Lavi can contain 2650kg ( 5900 ibs) max internal fuel, European Typhoon can have 4500kg(10000ibs) max. F16 is around 7000ibs(3150kg), You put J-10’s internal fuel at 9000ibs(4050kg), which put it in the same class of a heavier, twin engine fighter instead of closer design single engine fighters.So it’s not strange to see you underestimate J-10’s combat loading, let the pics make the talking, see it’s really 2000ibs of AAMs or not:
-
True that the actual weight could actually be similar to the F-16Cs due to supposedly extensive use of composite materials. It maybe under 19000lb.
Erm, my combat loading is not referring or specifying the max amount of stores it can carry. My bad for not clarifying.
What I was referring to is a "benchmark" number of weapons being carried when considering its "effective" manueverability against another type of aircraft.
Say when I compare an F-16 to a MiG-29, we'd consider a full load or maybe 60% load of fuel, and the weight of 4 AAMs (in this case, i was using AMRAAMskis which way about 400lb a piece, totalling to 1600lb)
Without doing that, I can't make an useful estimation of flight performance of any aircraft IMO. I cant gauge it when the aircraft is loaded with 4000lb of bombs, and I can't gauge it when its flying totally clean. So some factorization for an aircraft loaded out for air to air is included.
I think my estimation of the J-10s fuel load is considerably light. Sino defence posted somewhere around 4500kg (approx. 9900lbs).
So lets say its 18500lb empty, give it 1600lb of AAMs, and 9000lb of fuel. Again, the numbers are still within the ballpark of Under 1:1. Which is FINE really... All I'm saying is that the Su-27 does have the upper hand in terms of t/w ratio.
-
I’d rather believe commonsense than some other enthusiast’s website. As I said, EF2000 features larger delta wing, smaller canard and most import of all, 2 powerplants instead of J10’s 1, it only can have 10000ibs/4500kg max internal fuel, how come J10 matches that?
If I were the PLAAF procurer, why I need a light fighter having so much internal fuel, yet every time the same fighter still carrying at least 1 external fuel tank? Why I need a long haul light fighter, when I have almost double the J10’s number of heavy Su27/30 to accomplish the same mission?
Taking a look at J10’s sister fighter, the FC-1/JF-17 is produced in the same factory but only for export, the FC-1/JF-17’s official internal fuel numer is 2300kgs/5110ibs, the J-10 is only slightly larger than FC-1/JF17, but holding almost twice the internal fuel at 4050/4500 kgs? No way.
FC-1 with J-10
