Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[razgriz19]

down one is latest j10 ...

no, the top one is. look at the serial number.

 

[ChineseLuver]

no, the top one is. look at the serial number.

no,the one below with IRST is.

 

[alimobin memon]

That is what I am saying the above one is also not equipped with IRST if u look closer it IFR probe

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

J-10B 1035 is the latest Prototype equipped with AESA Radar.

Notice the Distinguishing points.

1 - WS-10 Engine, See the Nozzle of 1035 it is WS-10 .......... 1031 has AL-31F.
2 - Canard front edge covering / protection against Radar rays on 1035 ....... 1031 No such Structure.
3 - Refuelling Probe + IRST at 1035 ....... Only IRST at 1031.
4 - No Pilot tube at 1035 because this PT is a sort of LSP or for weapon testing ...... Pilot tube is present at 1031.

1031 took first flight in 2009 and 1035 in 2011.

I hope this will clarify.

This will help you educate about J-10B development

The latest 1035 prototype of the J-10B (K/JJ10B?) was photographed at CAC airfield in July 2011, revealing the indigenous WS-10B (?) turbofan engine. This much improved variant (1031 prototype) made its maiden flight on December 23, 2008, powered by a Russian AL-31FN engine. The improvements include a DSI/bump engine inlet which not only cuts weight but also reduces RCS, after a similar design was first tested onboard FC-1/JF-17. The aircraft also features a J-11B style IRST/LR and a wide-angle holographic HUD. IRST allows passive detection of enemy aircraft, making J-10B more stealthy in combat. Its nose appears flatter too, similar to that of American F-16, housing fire-control radar which could be an X-band AESA developed by the 14th Institute (track 10, engage 4 simultaneously), the first of such type ever being developed for a Chinese fighter aircraft, giving J-10B a stronger multi-target engagement and ECCM capability. An ECM antenna can also be seen ahead of the canard foreplane. Two large pods housing testing equipments were attached under the wings. The tip of vertical tailfin was redesigned as well, featuring a large fairing containing communication and ECM antennas, which resembles that of French Mirage 2000. A rear facing MAWS sensor can be seen underneath the parachute boom. A similar system was tested onboard FC-1/JF-17. RAM coating is also expected in certain areas such as engine inlet and wing leading edges to reduce RCS. The aircraft may be fitted with CFTs in the future to further extend its range. All these improvements suggest that J-10B is equipped with a new generation of integrated electronic system, ranging from radar to EW system. Its mission may be changed from air-superiority to multi-role, such as CAS or EW. For air-superiority mission, normally 6 AAMs (PL-12x4 + PL-8x2, PL-12s are carried underneath the twin-rail launch pylon) can be carried. For CAS mission, normally 2 KD-88 AGMs or LS-500J LGBs can be carried. In addition, the aircraft is expected to be powered eventually by a WS-10B turbofan. Overall J-10B is thought to be comparable to American F-16E/Block 60. The 03 prototype first flew in August 2009, with the pitot tube removed from the nose tip. Both 1031 & 1034 prototypes are currently being tested at CFTE. J-10B is likely to serve as a testbed for various advanced technologies adopted by the 4th generation J-20 (see below) currently under development at CAC thus may not enter the service in large quantity with PLAAF. The production of J-10B is expected to be imminent (07 batch?). The initial batches are likely to be powered by Russian AL-31FN engines due to the low productivity rate of WS-10B. A further upgraded semi-stealth variant (J-10C?) might be developed as well but no details are available.
- Last Updated 3/5/12
http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm

 

[unicorn]

 

[fatman17]

Monday, June 25, 2012

SAC's gamble?


OpEd on the China Airforce's procurement program.


SAC's gamble?

Ok, in my opinion, the future lightweight fighter of the PLAAF/PLANAF, the most profitable military procurement in Chinese history that will see a design replacing the J-7, Q-5 and J-8 and also eventually substituting the J-10A in production, will rest on the J-10B and SAC's new design.

The J-20 could turn out to be too expensive. This would likely limit the number of aircraft the PLAAF will purchase. The complexities of the aircraft will also mean that there could very well be delays down the road and it would prohibit rapid production. Thus the PLAAF's future will still rely largely on more affordable light to medium designs in a kind of high-low mix. This is where SAC's new design comes in. While it may have lost in the design of the future air superiority medium to heavy fighter, SAC is now armed with a lot of knowledge to apply to a lighter design.

The only problem to SAC's gamble is the J-10. PLAAF and PLANAF are firmly committed to the J-10, having received over 200 copies. Although SAC's new design is a generation ahead of the J-10, CAC has smartly evolved the design into the J-10B. It seems that the PLAAF is already evaluating the J-10B (orders imminent?).

While the J-10B is not as stealthy, its design is based on relatively mature technology from nearly two decades of J-10 development married to more modern subsystems that CAC could have integrated onto the J-20. The J-10 seems to be well-liked by the PLA, with more units converting and its capability as a multirole fighter was also briefly demonstrated with its delivery of a pair of LGBs in last year's Peace Mission exercise. I would regard the J-10B as very similar to the SAAB Grippen in terms of size, capabilities, technological level, and probably cost.

SAC's design could be slightly more advanced than the J-10B. Its greatest design edge is its stealthy low-RCS design. Depending on what sort of engine it uses, the new aircraft could possess a greater power-to-weight ratio than the J-10 and even achieve advanced combat aircraft features like supercruise. However, SAC is virtually starting from scratch. This means it will take time to catch up with where the J-10B program is currently at.

And even if SAC's design is more advanced and capable than the J-10B, the PLAAF may not necessarily go for it. Take for instance the PLAAF's preference for the JL-9 over the L-15, even though the L-15 represented a quantum leap over the former. The J-10B would win brownie points for being compatible with a lot of J-10A components, and it would not require a radical investment in new production facilities, maintenance tools, training simulation systems, etc.

How about the export market? SAC could promote its newest design strategically as a "clean slate" design where foreign customisation and input can be incorporated from the start. SAC could replicate Korea's approach with the KF-X, inviting partners like Turkey to be a program participant. However, with most big buyers of new generation aircraft seemingly committed, especially Turkey and Brazil, it seems that the only likely partner would be Pakistan.

 

[sancho]

J-10B 1035 is the latest Prototype equipped with AESA Radar.

Notice the Distinguishing points.

1 - WS-10 Engine, See the Nozzle of 1035 it is WS-10 .......... 1031 has AL-31F.
2 - Canard front edge covering / protection against Radar rays on 1035 ....... 1031 No such Structure.

From the article you posted:

An ECM antenna can also be seen ahead of the canard foreplane. Two large pods housing testing equipments were attached under the wings

RWRs?

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Monday, June 25, 2012

SAC's gamble?


OpEd on the China Airforce's procurement program.


SAC's gamble?

Ok, in my opinion, the future lightweight fighter of the PLAAF/PLANAF, the most profitable military procurement in Chinese history that will see a design replacing the J-7, Q-5 and J-8 and also eventually substituting the J-10A in production, will rest on the J-10B and SAC's new design.

The J-20 could turn out to be too expensive. This would likely limit the number of aircraft the PLAAF will purchase. The complexities of the aircraft will also mean that there could very well be delays down the road and it would prohibit rapid production. Thus the PLAAF's future will still rely largely on more affordable light to medium designs in a kind of high-low mix. This is where SAC's new design comes in. While it may have lost in the design of the future air superiority medium to heavy fighter, SAC is now armed with a lot of knowledge to apply to a lighter design.

The only problem to SAC's gamble is the J-10. PLAAF and PLANAF are firmly committed to the J-10, having received over 200 copies. Although SAC's new design is a generation ahead of the J-10, CAC has smartly evolved the design into the J-10B. It seems that the PLAAF is already evaluating the J-10B (orders imminent?).

While the J-10B is not as stealthy, its design is based on relatively mature technology from nearly two decades of J-10 development married to more modern subsystems that CAC could have integrated onto the J-20. The J-10 seems to be well-liked by the PLA, with more units converting and its capability as a multirole fighter was also briefly demonstrated with its delivery of a pair of LGBs in last year's Peace Mission exercise. I would regard the J-10B as very similar to the SAAB Grippen in terms of size, capabilities, technological level, and probably cost.

SAC's design could be slightly more advanced than the J-10B. Its greatest design edge is its stealthy low-RCS design. Depending on what sort of engine it uses, the new aircraft could possess a greater power-to-weight ratio than the J-10 and even achieve advanced combat aircraft features like supercruise. However, SAC is virtually starting from scratch. This means it will take time to catch up with where the J-10B program is currently at.

And even if SAC's design is more advanced and capable than the J-10B, the PLAAF may not necessarily go for it. Take for instance the PLAAF's preference for the JL-9 over the L-15, even though the L-15 represented a quantum leap over the former. The J-10B would win brownie points for being compatible with a lot of J-10A components, and it would not require a radical investment in new production facilities, maintenance tools, training simulation systems, etc.

How about the export market? SAC could promote its newest design strategically as a "clean slate" design where foreign customisation and input can be incorporated from the start. SAC could replicate Korea's approach with the KF-X, inviting partners like Turkey to be a program participant. However, with most big buyers of new generation aircraft seemingly committed, especially Turkey and Brazil, it seems that the only likely partner would be Pakistan.

Noob question Fatman, till now all pakistani members have claimed that J10B is pakistan's answer to the Rafale deal. But you have claimed that J10B is equivalent to Gripen. Also, some time back, in the JF17 thread, many members claimed that JF17 blk 1 is comparable to Gripen C/D when specs are compared. So won't that put J10B & JF17 at an equal footing?? In this case, what is the advantage of going for J10B? Why not focus on JF17 instead?

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

From the article you posted:



RWRs?

I guess it is something like Rafale Canard edge, doesn't look like any ECM antenna to me !

 

[fatman17]

Noob question Fatman, till now all pakistani members have claimed that J10B is pakistan's answer to the Rafale deal. But you have claimed that J10B is equivalent to Gripen. Also, some time back, in the JF17 thread, many members claimed that JF17 blk 1 is comparable to Gripen C/D when specs are compared. So won't that put J10B & JF17 at an equal footing?? In this case, what is the advantage of going for J10B? Why not focus on JF17 instead?

not I. JFT is a notch below the gripen IMO. later blocks could reduce this gap. the JFT is a light-weight platform designed to match the IAF's LCA Tejas. the J10B is a different design all-to-gether and depending on its technology fit, may be comparable to the Gripen. this has yet to be seen.

 

[sancho]

I guess it is something like Rafale Canard edge, doesn't look like any ECM antenna to me !

That are jammers of Rafales SPECTRA EWS and since the source stated ECM antenna, my guess goes more to RWRs.

the JFT is a light-weight platform

So is the Gripen and that's why they are comparable, but one hast to keep in mind which versions. JF 17 B1 to Gripen A, JF17 B2 to Gripen C...
J10B from what we know so far might add only better A2A and CAS capabilities, since it could have the more powerful radar, IRST, be more maneuverable, has dedicated pod stations and more hardpoints for unguided bombs. In regard to deep strikes, SEAD or anti ship roles, it offers the same load disadvantages as the JF17 (number of heavy/wet hardpoints, centerline size limitations).

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

not I. JFT is a notch below the gripen IMO. later blocks could reduce this gap. the JFT is a light-weight platform designed to match the IAF's LCA Tejas. the J10B is a different design all-to-gether and depending on its technology fit, may be comparable to the Gripen. this has yet to be seen.

Thanx. But this gives way to another query. If J10B is comparable to Gripen, that means it cannot be an answer to Rafale. Infact, I think it will lag behind even F16 Blk 52, so that means it won't be the new frontline fighter for PAF. So what is the significance of J10B then?? At present, it is just an undercooked plane which may be too late for its time, sort of like Tejas. Shouldn't pakistan have gone for J11 instead? It would have also provided PAF experience with the flanker which could be instrumental considering the fact that IAF will have 15 squadrons of it in 4 years.

 

[SQ8]

That are jammers of Rafales SPECTRA EWS and since the source stated ECM antenna, my guess goes more to RWRs.



So is the Gripen and that's why they are comparable, but one hast to keep in mind which versions. JF 17 B1 to Gripen A, JF17 B2 to Gripen C...
J10B from what we know so far might add only better A2A and CAS capabilities, since it could have the more powerful radar, IRST, be more maneuverable, has dedicated pod stations and more hardpoints for unguided bombs. In regard to deep strikes, SEAD or anti ship roles, it offers the same load disadvantages as the JF17 (number of heavy/wet hardpoints, centerline size limitations).

Maneuoverability is a lesser issue as compared to payload, The J-10A suffers from a disadvantage that it "bulks" out before it reaches it operational weight capacity. I.e It has the ability to carry ten BVR missiles.. but due to lack of space on the hardpoints.. it cannot carry them all. The Issue lies in the structural strength distributional in the J-10 B.. and the load bearing spars.
The obvious solution is to have multiple ejector racks, but that then brings up the issue of clearance and available volume.
So yes, the J-10B offers only a slight improvement over the A2A load carrying capacity of the JF-17 due to lack of space.. and not due to lack of lifting ability so to say.

Thanx. But this gives way to another query. If J10B is comparable to Gripen, that means it cannot be an answer to Rafale. Infact, I think it will lag behind even F16 Blk 52, so that means it won't be the new frontline fighter for PAF. So what is the significance of J10B then?? At present, it is just an undercooked plane which may be too late for its time, sort of like Tejas. Shouldn't pakistan have gone for J11 instead? It would have also provided PAF experience with the flanker which could be instrumental considering the fact that IAF will have 15 squadrons of it in 4 years.

That would be an incorrect statement if radar abilities, ECM,ESM and ECCM systems are considered.
It would be a correct statement if A2A payload capacity is taken into consideration. Or rather weapons with a particular volume.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Maneuoverability is a lesser issue as compared to payload, The J-10A suffers from a disadvantage that it "bulks" out before it reaches it operational weight capacity. I.e It has the ability to carry ten BVR missiles.. but due to lack of space on the hardpoints.. it cannot carry them all. The Issue lies in the structural strength distributional in the J-10 B.. and the load bearing spars.
The obvious solution is to have multiple ejector racks, but that then brings up the issue of clearance and available volume.
So yes, the J-10B offers only a slight improvement over the A2A load carrying capacity of the JF-17 due to lack of space.. and not due to lack of lifting ability so to say.



That would be an incorrect statement if radar abilities, ECM,ESM and ECCM systems are considered.
It would be a correct statement if A2A payload capacity is taken into consideration. Or rather weapons with a particular volume.

And how will it compare to F16 Blk 52?? Is J10B capable enough to become new frontline fighter for PAF

 

[SQ8]

And how will it compare to F16 Blk 52?? Is J10B capable enough to become new frontline fighter for PAF

Enough for what is asked of it.