Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[aks]

kar lia join

 

[Arsalan]

If tension with india increases and Pakistan face 26/11 like situation again paf will go for J10A and i hope they will be delivered on short notice
on the other hand PAF wants FC 20 and will get them after Chinese tests and inductions

PAF want the FC20 to be one single answer to whatever IAF can throw at them... for this reason PAF is keen to wait for a more stronger chines engine, better avionics and perhaps an AESA radar to fit in fc20!!
well to say the truth if all these demands are met it is worth waiting for it!!

regards!

 

[aks]

PAF want the FC20 to be one single answer to whatever IAF can throw at them... for this reason PAF is keen to wait for a more stronger chines engine, better avionics and perhaps an AESA radar to fit in fc20!!
well to say the truth if all these demands are met it is worth waiting for it!!

regards!

yar i have read on fb page about j10b's they are comparing it with euro fighter n rafales n claiming it to b better then lastest f16s ... and even they are saying j10b is better than chinese flankers

 

[Mani2020]

yar i have read on fb page about j10b's they are comparing it with euro fighter n rafales n claiming it to b better then lastest f16s ... and even they are saying j10b is better than chinese flankers

abay tunay tau mujhe f-35 bhi kaha tha msg kar k yeh f-35 ab kahan gaya teri post ma

 

[aks]

abay tunay tau mujhe f-35 bhi kaha tha msg kar k yeh f-35 ab kahan gaya teri post ma

f35 ka comparison khudi parh lay tu jo us nai kiya tha larkay nai fb page par

 

[Mani2020]

f35 ka comparison khudi parh lay tu jo us nai kiya tha larkay nai fb page par

lol link tau dai kabse se mang raha ho

 

[SBD-3]

PAF want the FC20 to be one single answer to whatever IAF can throw at them... for this reason PAF is keen to wait for a more stronger chines engine, better avionics and perhaps an AESA radar to fit in fc20!!
well to say the truth if all these demands are met it is worth waiting for it!!

regards!

it can not be......A multirole fighter has to make a sacrifice of A2A if it wants to become a good A2G fighter look at rafale and Typhoon....rafale is more potent A2G fighter while Typhoon is more capable in A2A.....so its always a trade off.....lets say IAF houses MKI as Airsuperiority and MMRCA as multirole....I think FC-20 being a multirole will be at par with MMRCA but below MKI.......I'm not saying FC-20 can't bring MKI down.....the point is that you can not design a fighter that can take out any fighet....(Raptor is an exception)

 

[Sanchez]

it can not be......A multirole fighter has to make a sacrifice of A2A if it wants to become a good A2G fighter look at rafale and Typhoon....rafale is more potent A2G fighter while Typhoon is more capable in A2A.....so its always a trade off.....lets say IAF houses MKI as Airsuperiority and MMRCA as multirole....I think FC-20 being a multirole will be at par with MMRCA but below MKI.......I'm not saying FC-20 can't bring MKI down.....the point is that you can not design a fighter that can take out any fighet....(Raptor is an exception)

MKI is a good plane but is also severely underpowered. It looks great in performing those aerobatics at low speed. Has anyone ever seen nice moves when MKI has a payload on or at a higher and meaningful speed? I guess no.

If India inducts Typhoon or F/A-18 as MMRCA they should bring lots more headache to PAF than MKI.

 

[Tempest II]

A.Man on SDF posted:

China National Defence University Professor, Rear Admiral Zhang rating F/A-16 C/D, M-2000 V, J-10 fighters:

YouTube - ?????20100207 -- ?????? "??"???? 02

And the screenshot below are his conclussions:

 

[DMLA]

MKI is a good plane but is also severely underpowered. It looks great in performing those aerobatics at low speed. Has anyone ever seen nice moves when MKI has a payload on or at a higher and meaningful speed? I guess no.

If India inducts Typhoon or F/A-18 as MMRCA they should bring lots more headache to PAF than MKI.

really!!!

AFAIK, the Al-31FP has 16,754 lbf dry thrust & 27,600 lbf afterburner thrust (from saturn website).
Sukhoi website claims mki's to have a maximum take off weight of 76,000 lbf and a nominal take off weight of 54,600 lbf (with including rockets 2xR-27R1 + 2xR-73E, 5270 kg fuel). Considering the latter, it still gives a TWR of more than 1 (1.01)! How the hell is it severely underpowered?

 

[SBD-3]

MKI is a good plane but is also severely underpowered. It looks great in performing those aerobatics at low speed. Has anyone ever seen nice moves when MKI has a payload on or at a higher and meaningful speed? I guess no.

If India inducts Typhoon or F/A-18 as MMRCA they should bring lots more headache to PAF than MKI.

I would love to get a further elaboration

 

[Sanchez]

I would love to get a further elaboration

If we look at the basic features of Su-27/30, they have similar aerodynamic design and engines: very good manoeuvrability (instant and sustained turn at 28d/s and 22d/s, respectively).

Su-27/30: empty weight 16400 kg, 2 x 12500 kg engines.

For MKI, the weight increased 2000 kgs to 18400 kg. It means that MKI would make slightly less in sustained turn per sec. The addition of canards and TVC both contribute to help MKI in making instantaneous turns, so called agility. The high agility enables MKI have very large angle of attack that is advantagous in WVR or dog fight.

However, the agility of MKI is speed dependent: the lower the speed the better the agility. It could do instantaneous turn between 27 - 35 d/s with help of TVC but again depending on speed. Since the thrust weight ratio of MKI drops, it may only fly as normal as a Su-27 when it's loaded.

Here's some comparison:
Su-35BM: empty weight 18400kg, 2 x 14500kg engines = better thrust/weight ratio or manoeuvrability when loaded.

J-11B: empty weight 15500kg, 2 x 13200kg engines = A lot better thrust/weight ratio

In reality one should forget the aerobatic tricks that MKI can do. Instead, ECMs, weapons or pilot skills would be more important factors to decide who will win.

 

[DMLA]

If we look at the basic features of Su-27/30, they have similar aerodynamic design and engines: very good manoeuvrability (instant and sustained turn at 28d/s and 22d/s, respectively).

Su-27/30: empty weight 16400 kg, 2 x 12500 kg engines.

For MKI, the weight increased 2000 kgs to 18400 kg. It means that MKI would make slightly less in sustained turn per sec. The addition of canards and TVC both contribute to help MKI in making instantaneous turns, so called agility. The high agility enables MKI have very large angle of attack that is advantagous in WVR or dog fight.

However, the agility of MKI is speed dependent: the lower the speed the better the agility. It could do instantaneous turn between 27 - 35 d/s with help of TVC but again depending on speed. Since the thrust weight ratio of MKI drops, it may only fly as normal as a Su-27 when it's loaded.

Here's some comparison:
Su-35BM: empty weight 18400kg, 2 x 14500kg engines = better thrust/weight ratio or manoeuvrability when loaded.

J-11B: empty weight 15500kg, 2 x 13200kg engines = A lot better thrust/weight ratio

In reality one should forget the aerobatic tricks that MKI can do. Instead, ECMs, weapons or pilot skills would be more important factors to decide who will win.

You are bringing up numbers without sources. Could you provide source for the weights you quote!?! Who told you that the weight of mki increased by 2000 kg? On top of all the unsubstantiated claims I am reading in your post, I should add that mki is slated for upgrades in 3-4 years which would include further weight reduction (compared to the vanilla mki/mkk/mkm's)

 

[sancho]

If we look at the basic features of Su-27/30, they have similar aerodynamic design and engines: very good manoeuvrability (instant and sustained turn at 28d/s and 22d/s, respectively).

Su-27/30: empty weight 16400 kg, 2 x 12500 kg engines.

For MKI, the weight increased 2000 kgs to 18400 kg. It means that MKI would make slightly less in sustained turn per sec. The addition of canards and TVC both contribute to help MKI in making instantaneous turns, so called agility. The high agility enables MKI have very large angle of attack that is advantagous in WVR or dog fight.

However, the agility of MKI is speed dependent: the lower the speed the better the agility. It could do instantaneous turn between 27 - 35 d/s with help of TVC but again depending on speed. Since the thrust weight ratio of MKI drops, it may only fly as normal as a Su-27 when it's loaded.

Here's some comparison:
Su-35BM: empty weight 18400kg, 2 x 14500kg engines = better thrust/weight ratio or manoeuvrability when loaded.

J-11B: empty weight 15500kg, 2 x 13200kg engines = A lot better thrust/weight ratio

In reality one should forget the aerobatic tricks that MKI can do. Instead, ECMs, weapons or pilot skills would be more important factors to decide who will win.

You are mixing up too many things at once don't you think?
At first the the MKI is a version of the Su 30 MK twin seater, so it is logical that it has an increased weight compared to Su 35, or J11 single seat versions. But if you compare it to similar versions like the Su 30MKK, the weight difference is only small, because of the addition of canards, a heavier PESA radar and TVC nozzels (should be a total of around 500Kgs). But unlike PLAAF that searched mainly for a twin seat multi role Flanker for strikes, IAF wanted to increase the capabilities and make it more useful for the air superiority role too. That's exactly why the MKI got these techs in addition, because although it makes the fighter slightly heavier than the MKK, the clearly increased agility and radar range was worth it!
So when it comes to agility, the MKI even with an inferior t/w ratio is way closer to single seat Flankers, than any MK version (unless the MKM of course), if not on par.
Regarding TVC and high speeds, the F22 is known for high speeds and great maneuverability, which mainly comes from its 2D TVC right? Also the US follows a BVR combat strategy and don't focus too much on dog fights and low speed maneuverability anymore, so if TVC don't offer advantages at high speed turns too, why do they use it?
Shouldn't a fighter with TVC have advantages even at high speed turns, compared to fighters that only can use the rudders to turn?
And to get back to the thread topic, the J10 is also known for its high maneuverability, but why are there still reports that the new Chinese engine for J10B will have TVC, if it only offers advantages at lower speeds?

Btw, the weight for Su 35BM is wrong! It is a single seat fighter which don't have canards anymore, reduced the weight with composites and other changes, so it can't weigh the same as a twin seat MKI and should be on par, if not lighter than J11.

 

[Chinamilitary]

Pakistan Air Force will postpone the purchase of J-10 fighter planes caused a huge reaction in China, a number of websites and forums reported and discussed the news.
China Military Report