What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

Sir, does than mean, an adversary in numbers, will avoid BVRs when his mates are dispersed...

There are many complexities in ensuring that you only shoot your enemy and not your friendlies. Various tactics, procedures supported by electronics are usually employed to ensure it. You need to identify what you are pitched against to change your tactics. there are times when you need to avoid the BVR and lure your enemy into the "Furball" and use yoyr SRAAM.

But if you identify that the adversary is a non BVR platform then you keep him away by using BVR and he has no defence. Of course the tactics by your wingman and other friendlies need to be coordinated carefully when employing the BVR option in a crowded situation.
 
.
well if we see J10as Yes But J10bs are Better Then f16 even better then their block60

no, block 60 are wayy better than J-10A or B.
everything about that aircraft is perfect, it even uses higher thrust engines. most powerful ever built for f-16s.
everything that J-10B has, Block 60 also has it and on top of that its a proven platform!
 
.
其实太行矢量早就有了,386当年看的就是太行的矢量喷口的&#

 张恩和:我觉得有以下这么几个方面的启示:
  启示之一是要加大基础研究工作的力度。我们这支队伍在基础研究和基础理论方面还需要多花点力量。也就是说我们的基础研究能力有待加强,技术储备还要增强。如果这种情况不改变,今后的研制会很吃力,再上台阶就很难了。"太行"发动机是"三代机",要想在它基础上改进改型,进一步提高性能上水平,向"三代半"迈进,就必须上些新的东西,用几项四代水平的新技术,如:采用电调系统;装用矢量推力喷口;使用瓦片式燃烧室等。这些势必要求我们提前着眼新设计、新材料、新工艺,进行大量结构、部件、工艺等的研究和试验。"太行"发动机研制整整用了18年,而国外一个发动机型号研制仅需10年左右。就是因为我们发动机的各项关键技术几乎都是在型号立项后同步走的,所以还要一项项去攻关。而先进国家发动机研制的规律是,当发动机型号立项时,许多上水平的关键技术已经预先取得成功了,型号立项后只需进行整机集成。
  启示之二是要实现新机研制过程中硬件生产的快速反应。一种新型发动机研制要分几个批次,设计完成之后先生产,不仅要把整机制造出来,还要把一些部件制造出来,然后分别用来做各种整机试验和部件试验;问题暴露出来后修改设计,再投一批;然后再改、再投一个批次。现在我们走一个批次,大概需要2-3年时间。在一些发达国家,发动机生产时间只有6-9个月;而我们生产出一台发动机快的1年半,慢的两年。三年一个周期,硬件生产就占了两年,太长了。如果硬件生产周期可以缩短,"太行"发动机的研制成功就会提前。
  启示之三是要坚持不懈地加强发动机研制人才队伍建设。现在虽然有了经过"太行"研制锻炼的技术人员队伍,但还远远不够。搞发动机研制,人是第一重要的,没有人,什么也搞不成。从我们所的情况来看,技术人员绝对数量少,在全所员工中所占的比例也少,不能满足发动机研制新形势的要求,应该进一步壮大这支队伍。而且,技术人员承担的科研任务很重,白天黑夜地干,没有时间进行系统地学习和深造。各级领导应该积极创造条件让技术人员进一步接受再教育,不断充电,实现技术能力的提升,这样才能保证这支队伍在未来担当重任,创造出更出色的成绩。


·ÃÌ«ÐÐ×ÜʦÕŶ÷ºÍ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊ - ÐÅÏ¢×ÊѶ - [¾üÊÂÖ÷Ìâ] - Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ

google translate

En and: I think that the following aspects of such a revelation:
One revelation is to increase the basic research efforts. Our team in basic research and basic theory needed to spend more power points. That is our basic research capabilities to be strengthened, but also enhance the technical reserves. If this does not change, future research will be very difficult, higher level will be very difficult. "Taihang" engine is a "third generation machine", in order to improve it, based on modifications to further improve the performance level to the "Three and a half," forward, it must be on some new things, with several levels of four generations of new technologies such as: the use of electronic transfer system; equipped with thrust-vectoring nozzle; use tile combustion chamber and so on. These will inevitably require us to look ahead of the new design, new materials, new processes, a great deal of structure, components, technology and other research and testing. "Taihang" engine developed a whole spent 18 years, and foreign developed an engine model is only about 10 years. Is because the engine of the key technologies we are almost in sync after the model project to go, so also a key to the research. The engine developed by advanced countries, the law is that when the engine model project, many key technologies on the level of pre-made successful, model for the whole project only after the integration.
The second revelation is to achieve a new machine developed during the hardware production of rapid response. To develop a new engine in several batches, the first production after the design is completed, not only to machine manufactured, but also some parts manufactured, and then were used for a variety of machine testing and component testing; problems exposed modify the design came out, and then cast a group; and then change, then vote in a batch. Now we walk a lot, takes about 2-3 years. In some developed countries, the engine production for only 6-9 months; and we produce a fast one and a half years the engine, slow for two years. A three-year cycle, hardware production accounted for two years too long. If the hardware can shorten production cycle, "Taihang" engine will be developed in advance.
Implications of the three engines is to make unremitting efforts to strengthen the development of qualified personnel. Although there has been now been "Taihang" develop training of technical personnel, but not enough. Engaged in engine development, people are the first important, no one, nothing can be done. From our situation, the absolute number of small technical staff in the whole of the proportion of employees less, the engine can not meet the requirements of the new situation developed, should further strengthen the team. Moreover, the technical research tasks undertaken by heavy, dry day and night, no time for systematic study and further studies. Leaders at all levels should actively create conditions to allow technical staff to further re-education, continued charging, the ability to achieve technological upgrading, so as to ensure that the team take a leading role in the future to create better results.


还有这篇八股:


以航空发动机的尾喷管为例,几十年来尾喷管采用了大量先进的结构设计。已经从一种简单的热排气收缩管道,演变成在现代飞机设计中一种可变几何形状和可实现多种任务的非常复杂的部件。新的任务包括控制推力大小、实现反推力、实现矢量推力、抑制噪声和红外辐射等。为了达到这些目的,必须在喷管冷却、驱动和制造方面有所进展。

????????????????_????_???

Thanks Houshangai for this post. I also thank you for pictures of J-10B with WS-10A engine. This particular engine is said to possess TVC.
Regards
 
.
no, block 60 are wayy better than J-10A or B.
everything about that aircraft is perfect, it even uses higher thrust engines. most powerful ever built for f-16s.
everything that J-10B has, Block 60 also has it and on top of that its a proven platform!

J-10B is said to be equivalent to block 60s.

I also read somewhere that due to the different designs of the airframes, the J-10 and F-16 have advantages in different areas of engagement: The F-16 having the advantage in low altitude, subsonic arena and J-10 having the advantage in high altitude, supersonic arena.
 
.
j 10 is not combat proven n f-16 is one of the most reliable jet but for paf j 10 will prove far better then f 16 as we can use it according to our wishes
 
. .
By that logic, neither is F22 and F35 - is the F16 better than those as well, you know, since it's "battle proven"?

battle proven was just ONE point that i mentioned..
Block 60 is a very capable aircraft, and definetly is better than J-10B.
the payload it can carry is very diverse, it can basically carry any weapon that USAF has in its arsenal...
with more powerful engine and radar, it is one of the deadliest aircraft!
 
.
no, block 60 are wayy better than J-10A or B.
everything about that aircraft is perfect, it even uses higher thrust engines. most powerful ever built for f-16s.
everything that J-10B has, Block 60 also has it and on top of that its a proven platform!

I don't know where you get the facts f-16 block 60 is way better than j-10b? Basically block 60 is just an old f-16 frame fit with a not that dated AESA and powerful engine. While j-10b is a 4.5th gen airframe. RCS of J-10b is way better than any F-16. The canard, delta wing design gives it high agility while good range without CFT. The AESA on J-10B is the latest from China possibility from J-20 design.

F-22 also unproven design so it's inferior to block 60?
 
.
but u can search abt the performance of raptors against f-16s n f-15s in various exercises.it proved to be far superior to US legacy fighters.
 
.
J-10B is said to be equivalent to block 60s.

I also read somewhere that due to the different designs of the airframes, the J-10 and F-16 have advantages in different areas of engagement: The F-16 having the advantage in low altitude, subsonic arena and J-10 having the advantage in high altitude, supersonic arena.

JF-17s would not only allow PAF to counter numbers, but also allow her to maintain larger numbers of FC-20s and F-16s for war-time and lower their depreciation - providing a low cost training aircraft to fly liberally during peacetime. This would be a similar arrangement to how the Israeli Air Force uses F-16s to keep meet the flight time allocations of its F-15 pilots.


The F-16 has also been adding weight over time and attempting to counterbalance this with increased engine thrust. However, since wing area remained the same, maneuverability has been sacrificed. Higher wing loading is particularly detrimental for higher altitude maneuverability. The J-10 on the other hand, has all the wing area it could ever need with a delta canard layout.

The newer block F-16s however, are great for low altitude air-to-ground missions. The high wing loading favors low fliers and the moderate wing sweep helps handling at lower speeds often necessary during ordnance delivery. The J-10 is thus not ideal for the CAS role. However, because of the range and payload advantages, the J-10 can be considered an effective deep striker. CAS was never a pressing need for the PLAAF, and the PAF has the JF-17 which is ideal for that role.''
Grande Strategy
 
.
no, block 60 are wayy better than J-10A or B.
everything about that aircraft is perfect, it even uses higher thrust engines. most powerful ever built for f-16s.
everything that J-10B has, Block 60 also has it and on top of that its a proven platform!
Who's superior and who'z not, would be only proven by a series of one-on-one duels. But interms of capabilities, Block 60 is a very verstile aircraft, carries an operational AESA from the leading AESA manufacturer (NRG), has the range and not to mention the stand off strike capability. Whats the negative is that while designing, the weight addition by AESA and other technologies have not been compensated by reduction in airframe's weight. This warrented the need for a more powerful engine adding to the costs. I was reading that tyre bursts are common for Block 60 while landing, virtue of heavy weight. On the other hand, we yet dont know what weapons J-10B will be able to carry out, however, according to different reads on the platform, though Multirole (MR) capability has been enhanced, the foucus has remained on air superiority, thus an underscore viz a viz block 60 in MR capabilities. The positive is that the weight addition of new tech in J-10B has been compensated by reducing the platform's weight via composites and DSI, so the need for a more powerful engine was eliminated, saving costs, that is very reason we see J-10B operating the same engine as the J-10A. So interms of MR i think Bl 60 has an edge, for ASup J-10B has the edge and for structure both are roughly the same but J-10B is more economical than block 60
 
.
Hi, I wanted to add one more point in regards to thrust-vectoring control (TVC) on an engine, in a post made by Mr. MK. In it he mentioned that TVC was "show boating".

I would tend to agree with that statement. While TVC looks cools and allows a pilot to pull off cool air show moves like the Cobra maneuver, in a dog-fight it is probably of limited use.

I clearly remember reading an article by Air Forces Monthly a few years back, that in a study by the USAF, it was shown that having high-off boresight AAM capability was far more powerful than having TVC engines.

Also the cost of maintaining a TVC engine would also be higher than a regular engine.
 
.
but u can search abt the performance of raptors against f-16s n f-15s in various exercises.it proved to be far superior to US legacy fighters.

You can search about j-10A performance against su-27 conducted by plaaf. 5 kill of them without a single loss in various exercise. It proved far superior to the Russia legacy fighter.
 
.
Who's superior and who'z not, would be only proven by a series of one-on-one duels. But interms of capabilities, Block 60 is a very verstile aircraft, carries an operational AESA from the leading AESA manufacturer (NRG), has the range and not to mention the stand off strike capability. Whats the negative is that while designing, the weight addition by AESA and other technologies have not been compensated by reduction in airframe's weight. This warrented the need for a more powerful engine adding to the costs. I was reading that tyre bursts are common for Block 60 while landing, virtue of heavy weight. On the other hand, we yet dont know what weapons J-10B will be able to carry out, however, according to different reads on the platform, though Multirole (MR) capability has been enhanced, the foucus has remained on air superiority, thus an underscore viz a viz block 60 in MR capabilities. The positive is that the weight addition of new tech in J-10B has been compensated by reducing the platform's weight via composites and DSI, so the need for a more powerful engine was eliminated, saving costs, that is very reason we see J-10B operating the same engine as the J-10A. So interms of MR i think Bl 60 has an edge, for ASup J-10B has the edge and for structure both are roughly the same but J-10B is more economical than block 60

now thats the kind of response i was looking for..
everyone else seems to be stuck on one my comment about f-16 being battle proven.
and the points u raised, based on those points i was assessing falcon over J-10B. having an operational AESA radar, stand off weapons, ability to accomodate future US weapons, and many more things.
like you said, J-10B has also many different advantages and in some cases it has equivelant or better equipment than blk 60.
but overall i think Block 60 is better.....but thats just my opinion.
 
.
You can search about j-10A performance against su-27 conducted by plaaf. 5 kill of them without a single loss in various exercise. It proved far superior to the Russia legacy fighter.

Older Su-27s were disadvantaged by their avionics. Goes to show that superior avionics and radar could make a huge difference in combat.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom