Chengdu J-10 Next Variant Developing

[Jungibaaz]

Right, the J-10B will definitely be significantly improved compared to the J-10A. However, I don't think the J-10 will ever be made into a 2-engine version, that would require way too many changes.

Agreed

a twin engined version is highly unlikely.

I mean.. when have you ever seen a single engine fighter, with a twin engine variant?

 

[Akasa]

Right, the J-10B will definitely be significantly improved compared to the J-10A. However, I don't think the J-10 will ever be made into a 2-engine version, that would require way too many changes.

Au contraire, adding two RD-33s does not require a major change at all. RD-33 "Sea Wasp" engines are much smaller than most other jet engines. Adding two of them would not have much change in the airframe.

A single-engine J-10C would be impossible to be deployed on aircraft carriers, much less make it a fighter-bomber. A take off distance of 50 meters would be impossible to achieve, even if we used the powerful WS-15 engine.

Twin-engine configuration is absolutely necessary for carrier-based planes as well as heavy air defense fighters. Especially when we don't have much powerful engines.

You might think, "hey, doesn't the F-35 have only one engine?". True, but the F-35's engine is many times more powerful than anything we have. AND the F-35 is VTOL (doesn't require runway).

 

[no_name]

Suppose this is true, then there might be enough changes from single engine to double engine to warrant the new plane a completely separate designation.

 

[Akasa]

Suppose this is true, then there might be enough changes from single engine to double engine to warrant the new plane a completely separate designation.

What makes you think that? Besides the airframe and engine size change, everything else is completely the same as J-10B, including radar and avionics.

 

[dingyibvs]

What makes you think that? Besides the airframe and engine size change, everything else is completely the same as J-10B, including radar and avionics.

The avionics have to change as well, as the change in airframe would be large enough to warrant a complete overhaul of the FBW system. Basically, the plane would be almost as different from the J-10A as a J-11 with the same radar. It would be a whole new plane, and I don't think it's worth the trouble. A combination of J-15 and L-15 would probably work better for carrier operations. The L-15 is already equipped with PESA radar and afterburning engines, giving it a 1.0+ T:W ratio with normal equipment.

IMO, the L-15 is designed with carrier options in mind, or else it'd be sort of a waste of resources to have both the JL-9 and the L-15, especially when the L-15 costs about as much as a JF-17. The L-15 will first serve as carrier operation trainers and then there should be single seat variants serving as point defense fighters. A twin-engined, highly maneuverable fighter capable of firing BVR missiles is nothing to scoff at.

 

[no_name]

Yes, if they want a twin engined canard delta wing fighter, they would design a new one rather than modify an existing design. There would be less constraints this way.

 

[Akasa]

The avionics have to change as well, as the change in airframe would be large enough to warrant a complete overhaul of the FBW system. Basically, the plane would be almost as different from the J-10A as a J-11 with the same radar. It would be a whole new plane, and I don't think it's worth the trouble. A combination of J-15 and L-15 would probably work better for carrier operations. The L-15 is already equipped with PESA radar and afterburning engines, giving it a 1.0+ T:W ratio with normal equipment.

IMO, the L-15 is designed with carrier options in mind, or else it'd be sort of a waste of resources to have both the JL-9 and the L-15, especially when the L-15 costs about as much as a JF-17. The L-15 will first serve as carrier operation trainers and then there should be single seat variants serving as point defense fighters. A twin-engined, highly maneuverable fighter capable of firing BVR missiles is nothing to scoff at.

J-10C, if twin-engined, would only require a moderate airframe change and minor avionics, fly-by-wire change (like you mentioned), but the bulk (basic design, etc) would be essentially untouched. CAC has turned the J-10A into a double-seater strike plane (J-10S) only two years after J-10A was inducted.

J-10C wouldn't be much different, since the basis (the J-10B) has already been developed. And with J-10B comes new avionics. Everything else has already been pre-developed.

L-15 would not be a very suitable carrier-based jet. L-15 has not much combat capabilities, weapons load, and fuel load (certainly no BVR missiles as of now). It cannot aerially refuel. Even if we enlarge it, it won't be stealthy enough and reconsidering the airframe/engine would take many years longer than the J-10C did.

 

[Akasa]

Yes, if they want a twin engined canard delta wing fighter, they would design a new one rather than modify an existing design. There would be less constraints this way.

That is completely the opposite situation.

Designing a completely-new fighter will increase development time tenfold, whereas developing an existing fighter into another variant (with only minor changes) will only take a couple of years.

This is why we designed and built the J-11B from an Su-27SK airframe instead of designing our own airframe.

This is also why our carrier-based strike fighter, the J-15, is also developed from a slightly-modified Su-27 airframe, and its avionics are taken from the J-11B.