Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[Dil Pakistan]

Can somebody please tell me which other fighters use the Russian AL31FN engine (I gather this engine is envisaged for J10B / FC20). Thank you.

 

[Beast]

Bro... F-35 is an export plane. The spec of AESA will be hard to hide. Espcially it is going to export to more than a dozen countries.

 

[Beast]

Can somebody please tell me which other fighters use the Russian AL31FN engine (I gather this engine is envisaged for J10B / FC20). Thank you.

Only J-10 uses AL-31FN. It gearbox is located below instead on top of the AL-31 engine uses on Su-27SK. That is the reason why mass production of WS-10 is successful because China has long time never import AL-31 from Russian. Then J-11B engine if not using WS-10 then where did it come from?

An one thing to remember. China build a massive plant to overhaul and upgrade AL-31 engine and AL-31FN, if China immediately switch to WS-10, then this factory will suddenly be redundant and money will be wasted. Part of the reason to import some AL-31FN is to make full use of this facilities with money already spend.

 

[[--Leo--]]

Bro... F-35 is an export plane. The spec of AESA will be hard to hide. Espcially it is going to export to more than a dozen countries.

F-35 Have better AESA or F-22 Have better one because F-22 is like mini awacs

 

[[--Leo--]]

Bro... F-35 is an export plane. The spec of AESA will be hard to hide. Espcially it is going to export to more than a dozen countries.

F-35 Have better AESA or F-22 Have better one because F-22 is like mini awacs

 

[IceCold]

based on this extract from a defence paper, dont see how the J-10A/B will be in PAF service anytime soon...

Power problems

Engines are among the selective technologies that China must, for now, continue to import. While AVIC intends to invest CNY10 billion (USD1.55 billion) over the next five years in high-performance engine development and to restructure its research and development (R&D) operations, self-sufficiency in this area could still be five to 10 years away.

The Chinese Ministry of Defence is certainly still hedging its bets, having signed a USD500 million deal with Russia for 123 AL-31FN turbofan engines (which already power much of the PLAAF) in June despite Chinese media reports in late 2010 that the domestically developed WS-10 turbofan engine had entered series production and was now powering the J-11B. Indeed, early production of the WS-10 is reported to have been encountering problems and nobody knows when more advanced Chinese-designed engines like the WS-15 - which could power high-performance aircraft like the J-20 - might be ready for use in the field.

A shortage of engines may be one factor that accounts for China's unusually slow rate of aircraft production. Cliff pointed out that only around 12 J-10s have been coming off the production line per year so far, compared with the 100 more complex F-35s that will be built annually once that programme is fully up and running. "What this means is that China either still has technical constraints on the production side or that it has very high production costs," he said. This has potentially important consequences for the PLAAF's hopes of replacing the large numbers of legacy aircraft in its inventory. Hundreds of these older aircraft, such as the MiG-19/Q-5, the MiG-21/J-7 and the Chinese-designed J-8, still make up two-thirds of the PLAAF's strength and slow production rates suggest that this state of affairs will not change any time soon.

Slow production rates and high costs would also inhibit the export potential of the J-10 and the FC-1/JF-17, both of which have attracted only one foreign customer so far: Pakistan. China has generally been able to compensate for the inefficiency of its uncompetitive aviation sector by effectively handing blank cheques to aircraft manufacturers like Chengdu and Shenyang. However, this level of funding will not continue indefinitely and Beijing will be unwilling to export aircraft at a significant loss, even if the sales have strategic value.

High costs and slow production rates could also eventually tip the balance in favour of acquiring new Russian aircraft. If AVIC succeeds in getting on top of these problems within the next five years and also succeeds in mastering the development of core systems such as engines and avionics, then the PLAAF should be inducting the J-20 - or one of the other fifth-generation designs that AVIC subsidiaries are working on - by the 2020s. If not, then acquiring the Su-35 or the T-50 could become necessary.

Even then, the PLAAF faces major hurdles if it is to become a force capable of more than simply defending the homeland, possessing as yet only a negligible air-to-air refuelling capability, for example. As long as these key enabling capabilities remain only nominal, the theory that impressive-looking programmes like the J-20 are more about grabbing headlines than about military contingency will continue to sound plausible

The fact that J-10 has started to be powered by a domestic built engine speaks volume about their confidence in local built engines and the fact that it has matured up to be used in single engine jets such as the J-10 and JF-17. I wonder why the author is producing a sob story.
As for the cost factor, J-10 to date is still cheaper then its counterparts available world wide. For e.g a eurofighter costs around 90 million euros, add training and spare parts, the cost goes too around 120m. Compare to that J-10 costs much low. So i am not sure how would it loose market.

 

[SBD-3]

Husnain don't mind but your statement is bit exaggerated one,Isarel latest developed AESA radar is known to have some 1400 TR modules compared to the rumored 1200 TR modules of J-10B radar ,so if you are comparing them on TR modules basis then certainly Isareli radar is more capable than what we will see on J-10B ,

Also Isarel is known to have incorporated many indigenous systems on their US origin aircrafts and their policy of hiding their stuff is not different to PAF rather i would say more strict so i will not be amazed if they have already incorporated that AESA radar on their F-16's and F-15's.

And as far as JSF is concerned we don't know the number of modules JSF AESA has , you cant judge that on the basis of F-16 block 60's radar , coz there are three things to be kept in mind

1) Block-60 is an export aircarft so don't expect US to incorporate their best radar in that aircraft
2) There have been many developments of AESA radar in US and some examples of F-15's and F-18's are flying with way more capable AESA radar than what we see on F-16's , so F-35 radar will be easily considered as a better than f-15 and f-18 and either on par with f-22's or slight variation.
3) The AN/APG-81 used on F-35 is a successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77 , so one can think of it to be more capable than AN/APG-77, where as AN/APG-77 AESA radar used on
F-22 has 1500 TR modules

As far as sensor fusion is concerned what we know is that sensor fusion on j-10b will be some what hybrid form of sensors found on su-30 series and some european ones , but after su-30 Russia has come up with new and more advanced aircrafts like mig-35 and su-35 (although a su-30 variant but more advance then any existing variant of su-30 series) so i will not wonder that these aircrafts will be having better sensor fusion compared to su-30 variants , so no one cant judge from the looks which aircraft has more advance sensor fusion.

Above all we know that all the info of j-10B is hypothetical or based on rumors so jumping to conclusion will be too early

Agreed, but few things to discuss further
1-F-22 has around 2000 TRMs on its AESA as per my reads JSF 1200-1000 and F-16 1000, However, how F-22 it can achieve more from F-16 and JSF is that to compensate the threat of being picked by enemy sensors at long range amid higher radiations emitted,it uses the concept of LPI aka bandpass radome. So having an AESA on a platform is another thing but how do one augment the capabilities, is of course another.Yet I do agree that AESA's performance is a combination of a host of factors, i.e. maturity, sophistication, quality, reliability etc, no questions whatsoever about it, I am certain that there will certainly be a significant difference in capability of NRG AESA when compared with NIRET or ELTA AESA.
2- Since TRMs work as a both emitter and receivers on the radar, thus a rough concept would be the more TRMs, the more Receivers and Emitters the more the expected quality of the radar (not necessarily range),of course, TRM range in terms of capabilities putting a simple TRM structure vs a sophisticated one is one issue. However, intergration of Higher number of TRM essentially would require miniaturization, just like chips on a board where you have a fixed pie available to you. This might be a reason why Chinese were considering it a challenge to move towards higher TRM aesas. If Israel has been able to produce an aesa with 1400 TRMs on that and both Chinese and Israeli aesa are of the same size, I would certainly make a hatz off to them.
3- On F-16 aesa being less capable, and JSF being more capable than F-22 i would have to disagree, F-16 aesa was funded by UAE, it would also mean that F-16s AESA should have met UAEAF's requirements.Its not necessary that US always offers "watered down" products in export market, I do remember an interview of US official who pointed out that some time US is compelled to offer the fully capable or even more sophisticated product to its allies. If export range AESA is an argument then JSF's aesa should also be less capable than F-22 since it is also an exportable aircraft. However, what gives JSF an edge over F-22 is its sensor fusion technology or to be more specific DAS which augments situation awareness capabilities in addition to aesa.
4- I do have to disagree on that as well, If all Chinese would have been implementing on their 4th Gen is a mixture of Su-30 systems, then it effectively puts J-20 in the same league or even behind PAK-FA which has somewhat tried to make up for sensor fusion by adding radars.Even Russians IMHO dont have a match for DAS and Chinese lag as per your inference, J-20 is only a stealth shaped 3rd gen put it 3.5. Did you hear the news about JSF data hack a few years ago, Tera bites of data about JSF programs was hacked and transferred, US was quick to blame Chinese. Lets suppose if China was not involved, they would have certainly been sniffing on the net for JSF data. If someone makes a statement that Chinese create a hybrid system for 5th Gen by merely combining 4th Gen technologies, it would be pretty hard to digest, for me at least.

 

[Imran Khan]

 

[Manticore]

 

[Pfpilot]

The sd-10 in the first picture closely resembles the amraam series, while the one in the second picture looks much more like the old sparrow. Is the missile in the first picture the latest sd-10 variant being tested?

 

[Mani2020]

Agreed, but few things to discuss further
1-F-22 has around 2000 TRMs on its AESA as per my reads JSF 1200-1000 and F-16 1000, However, how F-22 it can achieve more from F-16 and JSF is that to compensate the threat of being picked by enemy sensors at long range amid higher radiations emitted,it uses the concept of LPI aka bandpass radome. So having an AESA on a platform is another thing but how do one augment the capabilities, is of course another.Yet I do agree that AESA's performance is a combination of a host of factors, i.e. maturity, sophistication, quality, reliability etc, no questions whatsoever about it, I am certain that there will certainly be a significant difference in capability of NRG AESA when compared with NIRET or ELTA AESA.
2- Since TRMs work as a both emitter and receivers on the radar, thus a rough concept would be the more TRMs, the more Receivers and Emitters the more the expected quality of the radar (not necessarily range),of course, TRM range in terms of capabilities putting a simple TRM structure vs a sophisticated one is one issue. However, intergration of Higher number of TRM essentially would require miniaturization, just like chips on a board where you have a fixed pie available to you. This might be a reason why Chinese were considering it a challenge to move towards higher TRM aesas. If Israel has been able to produce an aesa with 1400 TRMs on that and both Chinese and Israeli aesa are of the same size, I would certainly make a hatz off to them.
3- On F-16 aesa being less capable, and JSF being more capable than F-22 i would have to disagree, F-16 aesa was funded by UAE, it would also mean that F-16s AESA should have met UAEAF's requirements.Its not necessary that US always offers "watered down" products in export market, I do remember an interview of US official who pointed out that some time US is compelled to offer the fully capable or even more sophisticated product to its allies. If export range AESA is an argument then JSF's aesa should also be less capable than F-22 since it is also an exportable aircraft. However, what gives JSF an edge over F-22 is its sensor fusion technology or to be more specific DAS which augments situation awareness capabilities in addition to aesa.
4- I do have to disagree on that as well, If all Chinese would have been implementing on their 4th Gen is a mixture of Su-30 systems, then it effectively puts J-20 in the same league or even behind PAK-FA which has somewhat tried to make up for sensor fusion by adding radars.Even Russians IMHO dont have a match for DAS and Chinese lag as per your inference, J-20 is only a stealth shaped 3rd gen put it 3.5. Did you hear the news about JSF data hack a few years ago, Tera bites of data about JSF programs was hacked and transferred, US was quick to blame Chinese. Lets suppose if China was not involved, they would have certainly been sniffing on the net for JSF data. If someone makes a statement that Chinese create a hybrid system for 5th Gen by merely combining 4th Gen technologies, it would be pretty hard to digest, for me at least.

Husnain agree on some of your points, but my reply was in accordance to your post where you said TR modules somewhat describes the capability of a radar , In case of F-16 block 60 UAEF may have been agreed upon 1000 TR module based AESA because US was the only country who was offering them an AESA radar while no other country till then had AESA operational so it was a monoply and in monoply you have no chance to bargain about atleast not freely other part is that at that time other than US or may be Israel no other country had AESA operational in their aircrafts so it was an opportunity for UAEF to get what others are still striving for, also not to forget that no matter how less TR modules an AESA has still its better than Pulse doppler or other conventional radars most importantly the good anti-jamming capabilities it provides you , so it may have created some soft spot in the mind of UAEF.

Secondly as you say that JSF also is an export variant so how come i conclude its AESA to be better , Husnain F-16 block 60 was just made for UAEF and USAF was not even using it but in case of JSF its a joint development b/w many partner countries and US also will be using it , even if US provides other countries with downgraded version of AESA still the JSF in USAF inventory will be using the best AESA radar. now as i already said that AN/APG-81 used on F-35 is a successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77 so its common sense to think that JSF AESA will be better than F-22's AESA as in technology there is just move ahead and no down turn . Tell me one thing is it possible for a company to forst produce pentium 4 processor and then produce pentium 3 as its successor?

Lastly China has taken many leaps towards latest technology but still one has to understand they are new to this arena they yet have to see the operational capabilities of their systems so far neither J-20 nor J-10B is operational , you cant just hypothetically say that if J-20 has come out it will probable will be the best out of China because still many people are not sure whether J-20 is a technology demonstrator or real form. Even if its not technology demonstrator still you don't know whether in case of avionics suite and sensors it is fully equipped or not , China is still experimenting with the aircrafts it has , so give them some time before concluding everything virtually

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

The sd-10 in the first picture closely resembles the amraam series, while the one in the second picture looks much more like the old sparrow. Is the missile in the first picture the latest sd-10 variant being tested?

Missile in 1st Picture is SD-10 / PL-12 and the one in 2nd is PL-11 which is similar to Aim-7 Sparrow.
Chinese Military Aviation | China Air Force

 

[Manticore]

 

[Beast]

Somehow I feel J-10B looks fat with the DSI intake....

 

[BATMAN]

PT05 is rightfully dragon.

Ever improving.. clearly the fuel capacity had been increased, improved airintake, improved frame, new engine, AESA + electro-optical radar, more advance CM and EW suite.