Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[Jango]

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

Looks like it has a tumor!!

 

[Nestea]

 

[Donatello]

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

It's been hitting the Gym lately.

 

[[--Leo--]]

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.

new engine which 1?

 

[PWFI]

new engine which 1?

Chinese WS-10

 

[IceCold]

For me the A version always looked more meaner and tougher then the B version. B version is kinda cute lolll with dsi intake.



Sorry could not resist.

 

[siegecrossbow]

For me the A version always looked more meaner and tougher then the B version. B version is kinda cute lolll with dsi intake.



Sorry could not resist.

Braces look cuter...

 

[Imran Khan]

For me the A version always looked more meaner and tougher then the B version. B version is kinda cute lolll with dsi intake.



Sorry could not resist.

but my dear friend B is so for at this time we should love that baby which is infront of us and we can got it .B is like you love britny .lolz

 

[Silk]

The j10b is a nice plane but one shortcoming is extremely problem. If you look at the counterparts in the iaf mrca program then i have to conclude that the design is not good enough. Both the Rafale as Eurofighter have belly stationd for three or four bvr's. They both better utilized wingstations (either ecm/decoy or full wing station). I truly thinj that dual launchers are nice but they are far less handy then what the opponents have. The plane can never be truly omnirole/multirole. I thing it was a bad move to focus on the dsi while this issue is neglected.

 

[TaimiKhan]

The j10b is a nice plane but one shortcoming is extremely problem. If you look at the counterparts in the iaf mrca program then i have to conclude that the design is not good enough. Both the Rafale as Eurofighter have belly stationd for three or four bvr's. They both better utilized wingstations (either ecm/decoy or full wing station). I truly thinj that dual launchers are nice but they are far less handy then what the opponents have. The plane can never be truly omnirole/multirole. I thing it was a bad move to focus on the dsi while this issue is neglected.

The rafale & EF are twin engine fighters, thus have wide body airframes compared to the single engine J-10. Thus, both the twin engine airframes are able to accommodate more hard points under the fuselage compared to J-10. But still, J-10 has 11 hard points and with MERs, the weapon carrying capacity can be further increased.

And again, we are not in a tit for tat response situation when it comes to IAF. They are buying MRCA as per their own requirements and resources, while we are getting J-10s as per our requirements and resources. They get twin engine fighter does not means you also have to get a dual engine fighter, a dual engine can be countered with a single engine fighter.

And J-10 is a perfect choice for us, it has good weapon carrying capacity and meets our requirements and will be a good answer to any 4th or 4.5 Gen fighter. And it will be a good multi-role fighter jet once introduced in PAF.

 

[houshanghai]

J-10B Vigorous Dragon pre-flight check by engineers and/or technicians.

J-10B PT05 with WS-10A engine taxis onto the runway.

J-10B prepares to takeoff.

J-10B is airborne.

J-10B engages in maneuvers, such as climbs, dives, and sharp turns.

J-10B finishes the flight test and comes in for landing.

J-10B touches down on runway.

J-10B deploys its drag


thx martian edit

 

[houshanghai]

thx 8800 and himitechworld

link
http://www.avicone.com/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=16554

 

[ziaulislam]

The j10b is a nice plane but one shortcoming is extremely problem. If you look at the counterparts in the iaf mrca program then i have to conclude that the design is not good enough. Both the Rafale as Eurofighter have belly stationd for three or four bvr's. They both better utilized wingstations (either ecm/decoy or full wing station). I truly thinj that dual launchers are nice but they are far less handy then what the opponents have. The plane can never be truly omnirole/multirole. I thing it was a bad move to focus on the dsi while this issue is neglected.

Ef and rafale have 13 hard points while j10 has 11..not a much difference.
under fuselage j-10 has 5 same to that EF..

 

[Silk]

Ef and rafale have 13 hard points while j10 has 11..not a much difference.
under fuselage j-10 has 5 same to that EF..

If you could use them efficiently then there is indeed just two difference but you do not look at the numbers but the usage. If you have no decent BVR stations then you are bound to use your wingstations for that. Two of those wingstations are to be fueltanks. And those body stations can only have unguided small bombs.

 

[SQ8]

The J-10A has around 4 usable BVR stations under the fuselage.. and another four on the wings.
If fuel tanks are carried.. that still give it 4 BVR weapons under the fuselage.. +2 tanks in the inboard plumbed stations.. +2 BVR in stations 3 and 4.. along with 2 WVR at the outer wing stations...
However.. that all depends on whether the stations underneath the fuselage are capable of holding BVR's.. weight and ground clearance being the primary factors.
In case they arent.. the J-10 may use a dual rack on 3 & 4 to carry 4 MRAAM's..and 2 SRAAM's.. not a very potent mix.
The fuselage hardpoints for the J-10 are crucial to offer any competitive ability in A2A combat against the eurocanards.