SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Radar will defenatly be an AESA Vixen 500/1000 or other Engine will be WS-10A.M88 will go into Thunder
Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
Radar will defenatly be an AESA Vixen 500/1000 or other Engine will be WS-10A.M88 will go into Thunder
Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
is there any offical report to support it that you know of or is this a guess??
regards!
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Vixen AESA offer cand be verified from wikipedia J-10 however PAF is looking of M-AESA developed by a sweedish co but engine is a pure guess like if J-10B is flown then why is it taking 2014 to be in Pakistan? i think it is engine prob
Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
Vixen AESA offer cand be verified from wikipedia J-10 however PAF is looking of M-AESA developed by a sweedish co but engine is a pure guess like if J-10B is flown then why is it taking 2014 to be in Pakistan? i think it is engine prob
hmmm, the engine may well be one of the reason but the main thing is that paksitan wanted massive upgrades and some beleive it to be an aircraft with entirely different specs from the existing J10 platforms!
regards!
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Not a redesign for sure Avionics upgrade should take that long I am sure PAF is looking for WS-10A
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Chinese media reported on 15 April that the Chengdu J-10 fighter was to be fitted with a indigenously-built engine "within this year".
According to the report, a senior official of Chengdu-based 611 Aircraft Design Institute recently told the press that although the early production variant of the J-10 was fitted with a foreign-made engine for lower risk, the fighter would certainly be fitted with a Chinese indigenous engine, and this was likely to happen this year.
Currently the J-10 fighters in service with the PLA Air Force are powered by a Russian-made Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan engine. This means that the aircraft cannot be sold to a foreign customer without Russia’s consent. Such a limitation was reflected in the sale of another Chinese-made fighter FC-1/JF-17, which also uses the Russian-made engine. To avoid offending its biggest weapon buyer India, Russia was reluctant to allow the fighter powered by its RD93 engine to be exported to Pakistan, causing delays in the delivery of the fighter.
China has been developing its own WS-10A (commercial name: Taihang) turbofan engine for over a decade, but the project has encountered enormous technical difficulties. The engine was only certified for design finalisation in early 2006. Integration of the engine with the J-10 fighter is believed to be underway at Chengdu Aircraft Corporation.
Although the J-10 has yet been offered to the export market, many countries including Pakistan, Thailand, and Sri Lanka have already expressed their interests in this fighter. Once the fighter is fitted with the Chinese indigenous engine, it can be sold to any customer without restriction.
J-10 Fighter to be Fitted with a Chinese-Made Engine - SinoDefence.com
According to the report, a senior official of Chengdu-based 611 Aircraft Design Institute recently told the press that although the early production variant of the J-10 was fitted with a foreign-made engine for lower risk, the fighter would certainly be fitted with a Chinese indigenous engine, and this was likely to happen this year.
Currently the J-10 fighters in service with the PLA Air Force are powered by a Russian-made Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan engine. This means that the aircraft cannot be sold to a foreign customer without Russia’s consent. Such a limitation was reflected in the sale of another Chinese-made fighter FC-1/JF-17, which also uses the Russian-made engine. To avoid offending its biggest weapon buyer India, Russia was reluctant to allow the fighter powered by its RD93 engine to be exported to Pakistan, causing delays in the delivery of the fighter.
China has been developing its own WS-10A (commercial name: Taihang) turbofan engine for over a decade, but the project has encountered enormous technical difficulties. The engine was only certified for design finalisation in early 2006. Integration of the engine with the J-10 fighter is believed to be underway at Chengdu Aircraft Corporation.
Although the J-10 has yet been offered to the export market, many countries including Pakistan, Thailand, and Sri Lanka have already expressed their interests in this fighter. Once the fighter is fitted with the Chinese indigenous engine, it can be sold to any customer without restriction.
J-10 Fighter to be Fitted with a Chinese-Made Engine - SinoDefence.com
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Future Chinese carrier aircraft: Super J-10?
With work on Chinas first aircraft carrier getting closer to completion, and the well publicized hopes of the PLAN (Chinese Navy) to gain an aircraft carrier capability, we can consider whether the notional J-10C twin engine J-10 development is likely to produce a credible fighter.
The main competitors to the much rumored (but never substantiated) J-10C (twin engine) are the Su-33 Flanker (Naval) and Mig-29k Fulcrum (Naval).
Artists impression of the Super-J10:
Note the wider air intakes and fatter fuselage.
Enlarging the fuselage/wings to accommodate two engines is likely to increase the airframe weight by around 75% (depending largely on the engines used). Also, navalization (the adding of arrester gear, wing folding mechanisms, beefed up undercarriage etc) is likely to add 3000lb to the overall weight. The increase in internal fuel carriage is not proportionate to the increase in the number of engines, meaning that the aircrafts range is likely to decrease.
Thrust to weight ratios are likely to improve, and be reflected in a heavier maximum weapons load.
The basic J-10 uses a single Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F engine which is essentially the same engine as powers the Flanker. This engine produces 27,557 lb static thrust with afterburner, which is extremely powerful. The much rumored Chinese W-10A is (reportedly) actually a copy of this engine with thrust vectoring, closely equivalent to the latest models of AL-31 which produce in the region of 32,000lb static thrust and feature thrust vectoring. The thrust vectoring (steerable) nozzles do add weight however. The first option for the Super-J-10 is thus twin AL-31FUs (or W-10A equiv) which we will call Option1. I estimate that this would increase the airframe weight by about 75% and allow a 20% increase in internal fuel.
Another option is to use a smaller engine such as the RD-33/34 which powers the Fulcrum and FC-1 fighters, and is also available with thrust vectoring nozzles. This engine produces 18,300lb static thrust with afterburner (19,180lb emergency thrust). I estimate that this option (Option2) would increase the airframe weight by around 50% and increase internal fuel by around 20%. The airframe would also be slimmer than Option1 and likely to incur less drag.
Option1 would have a truly fantastic thrust to weight ratio, even better than either the Mig or Sukhoi. Option 2 would have a terrible thrust to weight ratio for a fighter, eliminating it from further analysis (even worse than the single engine J-10A which itself is very poor for a fighter). The issue here is that unlike the Sukhoi, Option1 would have to routinely operate with external fuel tanks (see below), significantly reducing the effective thrust to weight ratio when compared to the Sukhoi this is the Achilles heal of the design.
Other performance issues
Option1s massive increase in power over the J-10A is likely to increase its maximum speeds, probably to the region of Mach 1.25; similar to the Mig and Sukhoi. Its rate of climb would be increased and the thrust vectoring control would further enhance agility. And it would be capable of carrying a heavier weapons load. Range is the obvious area of concern. The airframe holds significantly less fuel than the Su-33 (which could have the exact same powerplant). The increase in fuel consumption is not matched by the increase in internal fuel capacity, thus making a limited ranged aircraft even more reliant on external fuel tanks.
too big and yet too small?
Where it looses out to the Mig, though not the Sukhoi, is overall size. Space is at a premium onboard an aircraft carrier; the bigger and heavier the aircraft, the fewer you can carry. The Mig is around 40% lighter and much smaller than Option1. Whilst Option1 is marginally lighter, and a fair bit smaller than the Su-33, it also has a smaller nose, prohibiting the employment of the massive but extremely capable NO-11M Phased Array radar. Redesign of the forward fuselage to accommodate larger radar would drastically increase weight and bring the aircrafts thrust to weight ratio to around about the same as the Su-33, or lower.
Conclusion
On paper a twin AL-31 powered Super J-10 appears an impressive naval fighter. It would have excellent performance and benefit from an awesome thrust to weight ratio, once itd ditched its drop tanks. But it would have to carry drop tanks for nearly all missions, significantly detracting from its strike and swing-role potential. And being rather large and heavy, a carrier could carry fewer of them than say the Mig. It would also not be able to match the Sukhoi in terms of radar performance.
With work on Chinas first aircraft carrier getting closer to completion, and the well publicized hopes of the PLAN (Chinese Navy) to gain an aircraft carrier capability, we can consider whether the notional J-10C twin engine J-10 development is likely to produce a credible fighter.
The main competitors to the much rumored (but never substantiated) J-10C (twin engine) are the Su-33 Flanker (Naval) and Mig-29k Fulcrum (Naval).
Artists impression of the Super-J10:
Note the wider air intakes and fatter fuselage.
Enlarging the fuselage/wings to accommodate two engines is likely to increase the airframe weight by around 75% (depending largely on the engines used). Also, navalization (the adding of arrester gear, wing folding mechanisms, beefed up undercarriage etc) is likely to add 3000lb to the overall weight. The increase in internal fuel carriage is not proportionate to the increase in the number of engines, meaning that the aircrafts range is likely to decrease.
Thrust to weight ratios are likely to improve, and be reflected in a heavier maximum weapons load.
The basic J-10 uses a single Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F engine which is essentially the same engine as powers the Flanker. This engine produces 27,557 lb static thrust with afterburner, which is extremely powerful. The much rumored Chinese W-10A is (reportedly) actually a copy of this engine with thrust vectoring, closely equivalent to the latest models of AL-31 which produce in the region of 32,000lb static thrust and feature thrust vectoring. The thrust vectoring (steerable) nozzles do add weight however. The first option for the Super-J-10 is thus twin AL-31FUs (or W-10A equiv) which we will call Option1. I estimate that this would increase the airframe weight by about 75% and allow a 20% increase in internal fuel.
Another option is to use a smaller engine such as the RD-33/34 which powers the Fulcrum and FC-1 fighters, and is also available with thrust vectoring nozzles. This engine produces 18,300lb static thrust with afterburner (19,180lb emergency thrust). I estimate that this option (Option2) would increase the airframe weight by around 50% and increase internal fuel by around 20%. The airframe would also be slimmer than Option1 and likely to incur less drag.
Option1 would have a truly fantastic thrust to weight ratio, even better than either the Mig or Sukhoi. Option 2 would have a terrible thrust to weight ratio for a fighter, eliminating it from further analysis (even worse than the single engine J-10A which itself is very poor for a fighter). The issue here is that unlike the Sukhoi, Option1 would have to routinely operate with external fuel tanks (see below), significantly reducing the effective thrust to weight ratio when compared to the Sukhoi this is the Achilles heal of the design.
Other performance issues
Option1s massive increase in power over the J-10A is likely to increase its maximum speeds, probably to the region of Mach 1.25; similar to the Mig and Sukhoi. Its rate of climb would be increased and the thrust vectoring control would further enhance agility. And it would be capable of carrying a heavier weapons load. Range is the obvious area of concern. The airframe holds significantly less fuel than the Su-33 (which could have the exact same powerplant). The increase in fuel consumption is not matched by the increase in internal fuel capacity, thus making a limited ranged aircraft even more reliant on external fuel tanks.
too big and yet too small?
Where it looses out to the Mig, though not the Sukhoi, is overall size. Space is at a premium onboard an aircraft carrier; the bigger and heavier the aircraft, the fewer you can carry. The Mig is around 40% lighter and much smaller than Option1. Whilst Option1 is marginally lighter, and a fair bit smaller than the Su-33, it also has a smaller nose, prohibiting the employment of the massive but extremely capable NO-11M Phased Array radar. Redesign of the forward fuselage to accommodate larger radar would drastically increase weight and bring the aircrafts thrust to weight ratio to around about the same as the Su-33, or lower.
Conclusion
On paper a twin AL-31 powered Super J-10 appears an impressive naval fighter. It would have excellent performance and benefit from an awesome thrust to weight ratio, once itd ditched its drop tanks. But it would have to carry drop tanks for nearly all missions, significantly detracting from its strike and swing-role potential. And being rather large and heavy, a carrier could carry fewer of them than say the Mig. It would also not be able to match the Sukhoi in terms of radar performance.
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
WEI Gang, Minister of Equipment Department of the Air Force, Major-General recently said that the 60th anniversary of the National Day parade this year, the Air Force will display the "-10 F" fighter planes. According to foreign media, said the follow-up J -10 fighter jets are also being rolled out progressively improved in the fuselage of some local details have been improved, making the aircraft's performance is also greatly enhanced.
Entered in April 2009, the J -10 fighter has improved some pictures circulating on the Internet. All along, the Chinese have developed three generations of J -10 fighter so proud of, and the three generations of fighter planes as part of its next-generation J-10B model aircraft, its performance may have reached the standard of the three generations of half-planes.
April 2009, Pakistan's "grand strategy research institutions" had published an article by a researcher from the organization written by M Hussein, the article focused on an analysis of the main J-10B to improve the process and improved performance.
The article said that J-10B fighter aircraft -10 F and early difference is mainly reflected in its supersonic inlet, the J-10B fighter jets FC-1/JF-17 the inlet and the inlet is similar to DSI . In addition, the J-10B fighter aircraft nose and oval-shaped, with the F-16 fighter plane nose is quite similar, but slightly downward-sloping. J-10B aircraft infrared search and tracking system installed in its nose above the machine. Radome sloping line seems to be active phased array radar.
J-10B fighter wing on the vertical stability of the installation of a new housing small electronic countermeasures system, and the stability seems a long wing and the end was "shark fin" shape. J-10B aircraft electronic warfare systems of housing and the JF-17 fighter similar jacket. J-10B fighter wing abdominal 2 has also been extended. Vertical stability of a longer wing and abdominal aerodynamic wing device seems to benefit from the improved supersonic inlet - the aircraft manufacturer for the stronger side force.
F-11B fighter proud head-up display (HUD) seems to have been assembled in the J-10B fighter. Although it is impossible to confirm this, but the J-10B fighter cockpit appears to have been carried out large-scale re-engineering. In addition, with the exception of the vertical wings on the stability of the electronic countermeasures system installed outside the housing, the tail of J-10B aircraft position processes seem to be installed on the incoming missile warning device. Moreover, the J-10B aircraft fuselage section also installed the forward-looking infrared sensor. The right side of the cockpit aircraft re-emerged in the design of satellite communication devices.
The article said that from the current J -10 fighter development, the J-10B fighter retractable refueling probe may be located in the left side of the aircraft, but the latest photos from this part do not see. Internet spread out these photos also showed that the J-10B aircraft are equipped with the wing below the new pod. The new pod has a wide variety of applications, from flying a bigger drop tank to air-to-surface missile
china car: Pakistan Experts J-10B: F -10 than a significant improvement plans
Entered in April 2009, the J -10 fighter has improved some pictures circulating on the Internet. All along, the Chinese have developed three generations of J -10 fighter so proud of, and the three generations of fighter planes as part of its next-generation J-10B model aircraft, its performance may have reached the standard of the three generations of half-planes.
April 2009, Pakistan's "grand strategy research institutions" had published an article by a researcher from the organization written by M Hussein, the article focused on an analysis of the main J-10B to improve the process and improved performance.
The article said that J-10B fighter aircraft -10 F and early difference is mainly reflected in its supersonic inlet, the J-10B fighter jets FC-1/JF-17 the inlet and the inlet is similar to DSI . In addition, the J-10B fighter aircraft nose and oval-shaped, with the F-16 fighter plane nose is quite similar, but slightly downward-sloping. J-10B aircraft infrared search and tracking system installed in its nose above the machine. Radome sloping line seems to be active phased array radar.
J-10B fighter wing on the vertical stability of the installation of a new housing small electronic countermeasures system, and the stability seems a long wing and the end was "shark fin" shape. J-10B aircraft electronic warfare systems of housing and the JF-17 fighter similar jacket. J-10B fighter wing abdominal 2 has also been extended. Vertical stability of a longer wing and abdominal aerodynamic wing device seems to benefit from the improved supersonic inlet - the aircraft manufacturer for the stronger side force.
F-11B fighter proud head-up display (HUD) seems to have been assembled in the J-10B fighter. Although it is impossible to confirm this, but the J-10B fighter cockpit appears to have been carried out large-scale re-engineering. In addition, with the exception of the vertical wings on the stability of the electronic countermeasures system installed outside the housing, the tail of J-10B aircraft position processes seem to be installed on the incoming missile warning device. Moreover, the J-10B aircraft fuselage section also installed the forward-looking infrared sensor. The right side of the cockpit aircraft re-emerged in the design of satellite communication devices.
The article said that from the current J -10 fighter development, the J-10B fighter retractable refueling probe may be located in the left side of the aircraft, but the latest photos from this part do not see. Internet spread out these photos also showed that the J-10B aircraft are equipped with the wing below the new pod. The new pod has a wide variety of applications, from flying a bigger drop tank to air-to-surface missile
china car: Pakistan Experts J-10B: F -10 than a significant improvement plans
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
I'm find the similarity of the J10 and Saab Viggen interesting - BTW, I understand the Viggen was once a candidate for the PAF along with some production facilities, before the Mirage was chosen.
what similarity?
i dont see much
Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
the angle from which the picture is take make them look similar as far as the canards and delta wings are concerned but apart from this there is noting in common in the two planes!
specially if you see the side on view the difference is clear!
look at the different shape of nose
the tail is of different shape and design
the bubble canopy is absent
even the canards and the delta wing appear to be differnet in view
and
not to mention the entirely different air intakes!
so the bottom line is:
sir muse, sir jee there is no similarity!!!
regards!
Similar threads
- Article
