Navy receive first batch of J10

[aimarraul]

Is there a chance that this is twin-engined?

J10B+J11BS，i see no reason to develop a twin-engine J10

 

[Akasa]

J-10c? As a carrier base model it should be twin-engined. Odd color for a testfly model.

Yeah. That will determine whether this is simply another naval aircraft or a carrier-based aircraft.

 

[Akasa]

J10B+J11BS，i see no reason to develop a twin-engine J10

There's no way a single-engine J-10 variant can launch from a carrier deck.

J-15 is not a true multirole fighter, so PLANAF planned to induct J-10C alongside it.

One for air defense, one for strike.

 

[592257001]

There's no way a single-engine J-10 variant can launch from a carrier deck.

J-15 is not a true multirole fighter, so PLANAF planned to induct J-10C alongside it.

One for air defense, one for strike.

"J-15 is not a true multi-role fighter?"-- where did that thought pop up in your head?
"J-10C"-- god, please give me a break. When did J-10C came out? Please show me a credible course.

 

[dingyibvs]

There's no way a single-engine J-10 variant can launch from a carrier deck.

J-15 is not a true multirole fighter, so PLANAF planned to induct J-10C alongside it.

One for air defense, one for strike.

So what makes this hypothetical J-10C a multirole fighter over the J-15?

 

[Akasa]

So what makes this hypothetical J-10C a multirole fighter over the J-15?

It's not. It's for air defense

 

[Akasa]

"J-15 is not a true multi-role fighter?"-- where did that thought pop up in your head?
"J-10C"-- god, please give me a break. When did J-10C came out? Please show me a credible course.

Here's why the J-15 is not a multirole fighter:
- severe lack of stealth aspects
- does not seem to have TVC (at least on prototype)
- very bulky and heavy
- WS-10 won't provide enough thrust for high maneuverability

Here's why J-10C (which was reported many times) will fufill that role and serve alongside the J-15:
- powerful air-to-air capability
- much stealthier
- has thrust vectoring
- lighter
- more aerodynamically unstable
- delta-canard offers greater maneuverability
- J-10B is already proven technology

 

[below_freezing]

Here's why the J-15 is not a multirole fighter:
- severe lack of stealth aspects
- does not seem to have TVC (at least on prototype)
- very bulky and heavy
- WS-10 won't provide enough thrust for high maneuverability

Here's why J-10C (which was reported many times) will fufill that role and serve alongside the J-15:
- powerful air-to-air capability
- much stealthier
- has thrust vectoring
- lighter
- more aerodynamically unstable
- delta-canard offers greater maneuverability
- J-10B is already proven technology

bulky =/= less maneuverable. the F-15 and Su-27 are gigantic planes yet are extremely maneuverable.

 

[Akasa]

bulky =/= less maneuverable. the F-15 and Su-27 are gigantic planes yet are extremely maneuverable.

The current J-15 airframe, if powered by WS-10A engines, won't provide a good thrust-to-weight ratio, which is necessary for high maneuverability. Without a good ratio, the plane is pretty much an underpowered light bomber (much like the JH-7).

Su-27's are maneuverable? The J-10A's 6:1 victory over it seems to contradict your theory. Same with F-15s. F-16 Falcons had a clear agility advantage over the F-15C.

 

[scuthan]

The current J-15 airframe, if powered by WS-10A engines, won't provide a good thrust-to-weight ratio, which is necessary for high maneuverability. Without a good ratio, the plane is pretty much an underpowered light bomber (much like the JH-7).

Su-27's are maneuverable? The J-10A's 6:1 victory over it seems to contradict your theory. Same with F-15s. F-16 Falcons had a clear agility advantage over the F-15C.

First J-10A's 6:1 victory over J11 is nothing but a unconfirmed rumor.

and there is no evidence at the point that J10B has TVC.

Second J10 lightweight was designed as air-superiority interceptor in the 1980s to face the threat from the north. coz air superiority interceptors will be greatly consumed the war, the design of single engine, which means simpler structure makes itself more cost-effective than 2 engine fighter in mass air combat.

Although J10 is a maneuverable fighter, it has inevitable disadvantages compared with J11B.

one AL31F definitely provides less thrust than two Al31f(J11A) or two WS10A(J11B). hence the payload of J10A is significantly smaller than J11.

Consequently, J11 can carry more fuel, more missiles, more electronic pods, heavier but more powerful radar and other avionics, and is able to operate in a longer range. Carrying the same amount of weight, J11 will be much more maneuverable than J10. Actually J10 is clumsy enough carrying only one JY82 (C802) missile, I seriously if j10 could take off from CV if fully loaded.

Navy need a powerful, mutli-role, long range fighter preferably a bomb truck for strike purpose than a small interceptor which can barely fly loaded with anti-ship missile.

a naval version J11B is obvously the only choice for PLAN.

 

[Akasa]

First J-10A's 6:1 victory over J11 is nothing but a unconfirmed rumor.

and there is no evidence at the point that J10B has TVC.

Second J10 lightweight was designed as air-superiority interceptor in the 1980s to face the threat from the north. coz air superiority interceptors will be greatly consumed the war, the design of single engine, which means simpler structure makes itself more cost-effective than 2 engine fighter in mass air combat.

Although J10 is a maneuverable fighter, it has inevitable disadvantages compared with J11B.

one AL31F definitely provides less thrust than two Al31f(J11A) or two WS10A(J11B). hence the payload of J10A is significantly smaller than J11.

Consequently, J11 can carry more fuel, more missiles, more electronic pods, heavier but more powerful radar and other avionics, and is able to operate in a longer range. Carrying the same amount of weight, J11 will be much more maneuverable than J10. Actually J10 is clumsy enough carrying only one JY82 (C802) missile, I seriously if j10 could take off from CV if fully loaded.

Navy need a powerful, mutli-role, long range fighter preferably a bomb truck for strike purpose than a small interceptor which can barely fly loaded with anti-ship missile.

a naval version J11B is obvously the only choice for PLAN.

The J-10A defeated the J-11A in many circumstances and the 6:1 victory was reported. Don't believe me? Search it up.

J-10B is planned to use WS-10B, which will have TVC.

J-11B, because it is bulkier, carries heavier weapons, is not more maneuverable than the J-10. J-11B does not use canards, and the heavy airframe only forbids it to do high-G turns.

The delta-canard configuration allows the J-10 to have high maneuverability in low speeds and decent agility in high supersonic speeds.

Yes, the original J-10A project was to counter 1980s Soviet fighters, but when the project went into development, Russia's relations warmed up, and the J-10A was given new priorities. The J-10A was not built to counter Russian fighters.

You're mixing up aircraft roles. The fact that the J-10A can't carry as much weapons as J-11B is well known. But guess what? The J-10A is not built for strike. That's why the PLAAF inducted both J-11B and J-10A/B.

Your argument that the J-11B is more maneuverable than J-10A is pure groundless. So far, not one aspect of agility is in the J-11B's favor. The key for high maneuverability (wing configuration, aerodynamic shape, weight, airframe) is not adopted by the J-11B.

Do you really think that the Navy will use an air-defense-fighter to carry out a strike role? The so-called "problem" you emphasized is exactly why we need both J-10BH and J-15.

The J-10C uses RD-33A engines, which is both powerful and small. These engines will J-10C enough power to thunder off the deck. The range of the J-10C no longer matters because it's an air defense fighter to protect the fleet, not to carry out long-range strikes.

Which brings me to my next point. The J-15, being both clumsy and rather underpowered, will be suited towards the strike role. They lack air-to-air capability (as many fighter-bombers do), and they have longer range and load than J-10C.

The J-15 is not the only option, and can not be the only option. J-15 is not a true multirole aircraft. Just like the PLAAF, the Navy needs both strike planes and air defense planes. I think the PLAAF history already proves that point.

 

[xixi]

The J-10A defeated the J-11A in many circumstances and the 6:1 victory was reported. Don't believe me? Search it up.

J-10B is planned to use WS-10B, which will have TVC.

J-11B, because it is bulkier, carries heavier weapons, is not more maneuverable than the J-10. J-11B does not use canards, and the heavy airframe only forbids it to do high-G turns.

The delta-canard configuration allows the J-10 to have high maneuverability in low speeds and decent agility in high supersonic speeds.

Yes, the original J-10A project was to counter 1980s Soviet fighters, but when the project went into development, Russia's relations warmed up, and the J-10A was given new priorities. The J-10A was not built to counter Russian fighters.

You're mixing up aircraft roles. The fact that the J-10A can't carry as much weapons as J-11B is well known. But guess what? The J-10A is not built for strike. That's why the PLAAF inducted both J-11B and J-10A/B.

Your argument that the J-11B is more maneuverable than J-10A is pure groundless. So far, not one aspect of agility is in the J-11B's favor. The key for high maneuverability (wing configuration, aerodynamic shape, weight, airframe) is not adopted by the J-11B.

Do you really think that the Navy will use an air-defense-fighter to carry out a strike role? The so-called "problem" you emphasized is exactly why we need both J-10BH and J-15.

The J-10C uses RD-33A engines, which is both powerful and small. These engines will J-10C enough power to thunder off the deck. The range of the J-10C no longer matters because it's an air defense fighter to protect the fleet, not to carry out long-range strikes.

Which brings me to my next point. The J-15, being both clumsy and rather underpowered, will be suited towards the strike role. They lack air-to-air capability (as many fighter-bombers do), and they have longer range and load than J-10C.

The J-15 is not the only option, and can not be the only option. J-15 is not a true multirole aircraft. Just like the PLAAF, the Navy needs both strike planes and air defense planes. I think the PLAAF history already proves that point.

Relax, brother. J-10C is a good source.. It's gpit's one reply to Gambit leading to this.

Sorry I am not allowed to disclose when Mother China will publicly disclose JXX.

You know what? Stop being such a fuking Communist and just tell me the truth.

I heard from numerous sources that the J-13 will debut in 2010 and that the J-14 will also make its maiden flight in 2010.

Is it true?

 

[SomeGuy]

Here's why the J-15 is not a multirole fighter:
- severe lack of stealth aspects
- does not seem to have TVC (at least on prototype)
- very bulky and heavy
- WS-10 won't provide enough thrust for high maneuverability

Here's why J-10C (which was reported many times) will fufill that role and serve alongside the J-15:
- powerful air-to-air capability
- much stealthier
- has thrust vectoring
- lighter
- more aerodynamically unstable
- delta-canard offers greater maneuverability
- J-10B is already proven technology

Stealth is not a requirement for "multirole".

Neither is thrust vectoring - in any case, should J-15 require thrust vectoring engine there's no reason why it can't have them.

J-10B is not even officially in service and you claim it is proven, whereas J-11B has entered service and so is more proven.

J-10C will be lighter?
Going from J-10B to J-10C will add a lot of weight; you're adding an extra engine, enlarging the airframe to accomodate that engine and more fuel and you're adding an extra intake etc.
Then you have to make it carrier capable which will add even more weight.

 

[SomeGuy]

The J-10A defeated the J-11A in many circumstances and the 6:1 victory was reported. Don't believe me? Search it up.

J-11A is not J-11B or J-15.
I would imagine the results would be very different if it was against J-11B.

J-10B is planned to use WS-10B, which will have TVC.

J-11B, because it is bulkier, carries heavier weapons, is not more maneuverable than the J-10. J-11B does not use canards, and the heavy airframe only forbids it to do high-G turns.

The delta-canard configuration allows the J-10 to have high maneuverability in low speeds and decent agility in high supersonic speeds.

Your argument that the J-11B is more maneuverable than J-10A is pure groundless. So far, not one aspect of agility is in the J-11B's favor. The key for high maneuverability (wing configuration, aerodynamic shape, weight, airframe) is not adopted by the J-11B.

The last time a flanker airframe (MKI) went up against a delta-canard (EF Typhoon) IRRC it resulted in the typhoon pilots candidly admitting that the MKI had superior manoeuverability.

That's right, the bigger, heavier, bulkier flanker showed superior manoeuverability the lighter delta-canard.

Which brings me to my next point. The J-15, being both clumsy and rather underpowered, will be suited towards the strike role. They lack air-to-air capability (as many fighter-bombers do), and they have longer range and load than J-10C.

Please explain why J-15 would lack air-to-air capability when, presumably, they would be using similar radar and missiles.

 

[aimarraul]