What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

Look at the J-10B in the back, seems slightly different from J-10Bs we've seen til now.


8227593164_32c5c15b8a_b.jpg



that one at the back was a F-7 (J-7 export version):

bc305baebed8121eb37f54.jpg



see this super low pass of J-10 and abrupt climb and turn demonstrating superb maneuverability:

http://www.tudou.com
 
. . .
That's the question why Retractable IFR idea was dropped and why Fixed IFR is appearing in block 2 why not in block 1?

Money ,the transfer of tech to the chinese and roughly 200lbs in wt which is added on to the plane. I personally think PAF has doubts about its utility and like the chinese prefers a fixed probe to begin with.
Araz
 
. .
J10b is a 4++ fighter, which means RCS indicator is more important than J10A. You can't just mount a fixed IFR on a semi stealthy fighter like J10b. More importantly, J10b cost much higher than a J10a.
 
.
J10b is a 4++ fighter, which means RCS indicator is more important than J10A. You can't just mount a fixed IFR on a semi stealthy fighter like J10b. More importantly, J10b cost much higher than a J10a.

To the best of my knowledge no chinese plane has yet demonstrated a retractable IFR Probe. Please do correct me if I am wrong.I dont think you would worry too much about the RCS of a simple IFR probe when you are carrying external weapons on pylons.Hence your point is yet to be proven.
Araz
 
.
To the best of my knowledge no chinese plane has yet demonstrated a retractable IFR Probe. Please do correct me if I am wrong.I dont think you would worry too much about the RCS of a simple IFR probe when you are carrying external weapons on pylons.Hence your point is yet to be proven.
Araz

In the end, none of the current generation aircraft can be made into low observable aircraft without the kind of investment that would be better spent producing a completely new aircraft. A single vertical stabilizer, canards and the carriage of weapons and fuel tanks on the wings would butcher most, if not all, incremental advantages provided by RCS reduction measures on the j-10. It's one thing to reduce the RCS of the original Flanker, which seemed to have been designed with an almost comical lack of interest in low observability (LO). But in the case of j-10 and Euro-canards, the RCS is unlikely to be large, relatively, to begin with. Since these aircraft are unlikely to be subject to wholesale design changes at this stage, it is more a cursory attempt by aircraft manufacturers to swindle more funds from export customers and domestic governments in the name of a radical leap in capabilities.

A retractable probe on it's own may have low observability advantages, but when installed on an aircraft with protrusions and missiles everywhere, it becomes a largely irrelevant piece of the puzzle. On the likes of the f-35, a hidden probe helps keep the RCS at an acceptable threshold, but that is only because the aircraft was designed with LO as a major requirement and adhered to it in every facet of design and development. On the other hand, the primary goal of neither the j-10 or the jf-17 was ever to disappear off the adversary's radar.
 
.
To the best of my knowledge no chinese plane has yet demonstrated a retractable IFR Probe. Please do correct me if I am wrong.I dont think you would worry too much about the RCS of a simple IFR probe when you are carrying external weapons on pylons.Hence your point is yet to be proven.
Araz

The J-15 and J-16 both have retractable IFR probes but in J-10's case, I don't think its nose has sufficient unused internal space rfor mounting fully retractable probes.
 
.
@Pfpilot; Good analysis sir!

In addition to that, producing more JF-17 for PAF was the first requirement, which is mostly filled by first two batches of JF-17. The reason behind not changing much in these two batches is to avoid extra effort in testing newly added components. Refueling probes on second block will be added but only when avionics and other sensors related changes are done.

Right now there is no problem with JF-17's on-station time (hence the need for refueling probe is not mandatory). JF-17 has visited Pasni (from Kamra) few times with 3 fuel tanks, this is enough range we need from an air-defence fighter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
J-10 Going through 360 Deg. RCS tests .

[video]http://www.top81.cn/top81bbs/article.php?cid=1&rootid=4606095[/video]
 
.
@Pfpilot; Good analysis sir!

In addition to that, producing more JF-17 for PAF was the first requirement, which is mostly filled by first two batches of JF-17. The reason behind not changing much in these two batches is to avoid extra effort in testing newly added components. Refueling probes on second block will be added but only when avionics and other sensors related changes are done.

Right now there is no problem with JF-17's on-station time (hence the need for refueling probe is not mandatory). JF-17 has visited Pasni (from Kamra) few times with 3 fuel tanks, this is enough range we need from an air-defence fighter.

I think JF-17 time without drop tank is 3 hours?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
The J-15 and J-16 both have retractable IFR probes but in J-10's case, I don't think its nose has sufficient unused internal space rfor mounting fully retractable probes.

It is simply a case of the costs involved in making the changes and the benefits that this change brings to the plane.At this point in time this change has been considered of little benefit and has not been made. Later on if a benefit is to be had Both PAF anadPPLAAFwill bring about these changes.
Araz
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom