Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[s90]

J-10 vertical climb at takeoff

 

[Arsalan]

I wont say that J-10 cant take on F-22 if a falcon can take out a raptor J-10 can do that aswell.
Now raptor has become a big problem for US we all know its a tactical fighter and no other fighter can even come close.
US having publicized all this created big problems for it self like just wonder an F-22 is downed by a fighter that would creat voices in US about the hundreds of billions spent on development and Maintainence of this "unmatchable" AC.US doesnt put forward Raptor against any other AC nor did they use it in Iraq War why? because the whole program would be ruined if a loop hole was detected against it.
LHM Co engaged more than a thousand sub contractors on this project so the quality management would be a real issue. I mean 44.5K USD for every hour of flight aaah its a sitting duck kept just for showcase of advancement.
(any contrary views welcomed)

yes this is the point! we may never come to fight the raptor! however the case you have pointed to regarding the falcon taking down a raptor have many clarifications that need to be made, and that was also once in the blue moon! we can not say that J10 will be able to tackel the raptor on regular basis but we will also not agree with someone who says that the SU30 can easily take down the FC20 without the second one not standing a chance against the Su! this is wrong!
the Su30 and FC20 will be a wise comparison to make!

i hope you understand what i mean to say! however thanks for your post!

regards!

 

[MastanKhan]

J-10 vertical climb at takeoff

zeuON3eGA0o[/media] - J-10 Vertical Climb At Takeoff - J-10 beats F-22 Raptor

Hi,

It is of a simple mind to accept that J 10 beats F 22 on take off---. F22's capabilities of verticle climb or other manouvers will never be made public for another 5---10 years at least.

No outsider will find the actual rate of vertical climb on the F 22---we are only shown that part which is not of much importance----.

The J 10 vertical is a little joke---I saw the F 16's take off at hill afb in 1984--85--86 ---sitting on the south side of the runway on hwy 193 in my car---I saw them go vertical right before the end of the runway till they almost disappeared from the eye sight---possibly 10000---15000 ft up in the air----and hill afb is around 3000---4000 ft elevation.

So---please don't feel the high rush for this chicken little kind of miniature vertical climb of J 10.

 

[MastanKhan]

I wont say that J-10 cant take on F-22 if a falcon can take out a raptor J-10 can do that aswell.
Now raptor has become a big problem for US we all know its a tactical fighter and no other fighter can even come close.
US having publicized all this created big problems for it self like just wonder an F-22 is downed by a fighter that would creat voices in US about the hundreds of billions spent on development and Maintainence of this "unmatchable" AC.US doesnt put forward Raptor against any other AC nor did they use it in Iraq War why? because the whole program would be ruined if a loop hole was detected against it.
LHM Co engaged more than a thousand sub contractors on this project so the quality management would be a real issue. I mean 44.5K USD for every hour of flight aaah its a sitting duck kept just for showcase of advancement.
(any contrary views welcomed)

Hi,

Americans always play the mind games---just because a person can read english, does not mean that they understand what the americans are saying---you have to know american psyche, the american mindset to understand what is being said---and if you know all that---still there is no way for a civilian to decipher what kind of confusing statement the americans are making.

It is hell of a confusion for a foreign millitary analyst to decipher the F 22 scenario---let alone some pakistani civilians on this board. What is shown on the media is supposed to put you into a lull---to get you into a state of slumber.

 

[BATMAN]

Hi,

It is of a simple mind to accept that J 10 beats F 22 on take off---. F22's capabilities of verticle climb or other manouvers will never be made public for another 5---10 years at least.

No outsider will find the actual rate of vertical climb on the F 22---we are only shown that part which is not of much importance----.

The J 10 vertical is a little joke---I saw the F 16's take off at hill afb in 1984--85--86 ---sitting on the south side of the runway on hwy 193 in my car---I saw them go vertical right before the end of the runway till they almost disappeared from the eye sight---possibly 10000---15000 ft up in the air----and hill afb is around 3000---4000 ft elevation.

So---please don't feel the high rush for this chicken little kind of miniature vertical climb of J 10.

One thing cannot be debated and this is that western engines are more advance than eastern counterparts.
name of the game is war and perhaps J-10 out number F-22 in apossible encounter. and all other realities which had been discussed in past, about offense and defense roles.
F-22 may come out as winner if it is flown out of india, Taiwan or Afghanistan but if it has no chance to over power PLAAF flying off from an AC carrier.
again same old rehtoric...imagine J-10 and F-22 both shooting their BVR at each other.. wonder who will come out as winner.
in any WVR senario, imean switching to guns....smaller AC will be more effective.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

F 22 won't be by itself---bvr does not mean that---if I can see you then in return you can see me as well. The elctronic jammers will be playing the most important part. The chinese may not be able to see what is coming from where---not now---not any time soon---they will be flying blind .

There will be no switching to guns in 99.99 % of situations. F 22 pilots are not trained to be cow boys---unless it becomes desperate---their flying techniques are based totally shoot and scoot.

It is very simplistic to say that J 10's will outnumber the F 22. Well the thing here is, that is how the F 22 has been designed to make its assault---to fight against larger numbers, launch its missiles and take off.

One must understand that neither india, taiwan or afghanistan would allow the flight of F 22---secondly the u s will not allow itself to launch its planes from these places. It knows the consequences to the locale very well.

The only enemy would be a lack of fuel for the F 22---for that, the chinese will have to take down the refuellers---the F 22 would be flying in from the base in the pacific---they will top off their tanks approximately 800 to a thousand miles away from mainland china---if the chinese are able to take down the refuellers, then the only escape route is japan---to cover that, chinese will have to place a large airforce to block the approach to the japanese island---but then the problem arises---chinse won't have front line interceptors to cover the retreat into japan---and planes coming out of japan to protect the incoming F 22's would still be superior to the chinese---.

So---the end result would be a total decimation of the chinese defencive strike force---at what cost---maybe maybe---the americans send out a total of 20 F 22's-----it will cost the chinese at least 50 to 60 of the top of the line intercptors---on their escape route maybe 2% of the F 22 are taken out---but then 2/3rd of the chinse aircraft guarding the japan route would be neutralized---possibly---out of 40 planes---maybe maybe 10 of them would return---now that is not where it ends---.

In order to take out the refuellers---the chinese will have to send a large number of aircraft to take down the KC's---the good chance is that even though the chinese may take the refuellers out---the planes guarding the refuellers will take out at least 60---80% of the chinese strike force.

So---basically---in just a period of 24 hours, the chinese air force would be pumelled into submission---with a possible loss of around 80---to a 150 of their best of the planes and the best of the best of their air force jocks. The rest will be open skies over blue waters etc etc.

 

[SBD-3]

Hi,

F 22 won't be by itself---bvr does not mean that---if I can see you then in return you can see me as well. The elctronic jammers will be playing the most important part. The chinese may not be able to see what is coming from where---not now---not any time soon---they will be flying blind .

There will be no switching to guns in 99.99 % of situations. F 22 pilots are not trained to be cow boys---unless it becomes desperate---their flying techniques are based totally shoot and scoot.

It is very simplistic to say that J 10's will outnumber the F 22. Well the thing here is, that is how the F 22 has been designed to make its assault---to fight against larger numbers, launch its missiles and take off.

One must understand that neither india, taiwan or afghanistan would allow the flight of F 22---secondly the u s will not allow itself to launch its planes from these places. It knows the consequences to the locale very well.

The only enemy would be a lack of fuel for the F 22---for that, the chinese will have to take down the refuellers---the F 22 would be flying in from the base in the pacific---they will top off their tanks approximately 800 to a thousand miles away from mainland china---if the chinese are able to take down the refuellers, then the only escape route is japan---to cover that, chinese will have to place a large airforce to block the approach to the japanese island---but then the problem arises---chinse won't have front line interceptors to cover the retreat into japan---and planes coming out of japan to protect the incoming F 22's would still be superior to the chinese---.

So---the end result would be a total decimation of the chinese defencive strike force---at what cost---maybe maybe---the americans send out a total of 20 F 22's-----it will cost the chinese at least 50 to 60 of the top of the line intercptors---on their escape route maybe 2% of the F 22 are taken out---but then 2/3rd of the chinse aircraft guarding the japan route would be neutralized---possibly---out of 40 planes---maybe maybe 10 of them would return---now that is not where it ends---.

In order to take out the refuellers---the chinese will have to send a large number of aircraft to take down the KC's---the good chance is that even though the chinese may take the refuellers out---the planes guarding the refuellers will take out at least 60---80% of the chinese strike force.

So---basically---in just a period of 24 hours, the chinese air force would be pumelled into submission---with a possible loss of around 80---to a 150 of their best of the planes and the best of the best of their air force jocks. The rest will be open skies over blue waters etc etc.

preety simple but you didnt explain what kind of resistence they would be facing i mean what kind of ACs other than raptors if they are flcons superhornets or eagles and you forgot to mention the sam networks that they would deploy

---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 AM ----------

Subject: China's anti-stealth capability
EastWind_81 4/21/2004 10:33:26 AM
This is from a while back: link

THE CIA and Pentagon fear that China may be on the verge of perfecting a new anti-aircraft technology that can locate and track the stealth fighters and bombers that form a central plank of US air power.

The US defence establishment is so concerned that China may be forging a PCL, or ?passive coherent location? system, that America?s military planners have been summoned to a meeting in Washington next month to examine the strategic implications of such a breakthrough, Newsweek reported yesterday.

Existing anti-aircraft early-warning systems rely on conventional radar, which the bat- shaped Stealth fighters are designed to evade. Such radars are also vulnerable to jamming and attack by missiles which follow the path of radar beams to transmitters.

The new Chinese system, by contrast, simply monitors civilian radio and television broadcasts and analyses the minute fluctuations caused by the passage of an aircraft through commercial wavelengths.

Relying on a network of receivers similar to television aerials, the ?silent? PCL system does not emit a tell- tale radar signal and is therefore much harder to locate and destroy.

US military strategy could be dramatically undermined if US stealth aircraft, including the F117 fighter and the F22 fighter now in development, become vulnerable to Chinese interception, particularly given China?s more aggressive recent stance over Taiwan.

?Everyone is wondering about the cost of defending Taiwan,? one senior intelligence official was quoted as saying.

The US is developing a similar system, the ?silent sentry?, which monitors energy reflected from commercial TV and radio signals to track aircraft.

The shooting down of a US Air Force F117 fighter in March during the Kosovo conflict has added to US fears that the stealth technology, developed amid intense secrecy during the 1970s, may no longer be the asset that it was.

Yugoslavia is believed to have sold on the wreckage of the F117, probably to China or Russia, and defence experts say that while the stealth technology used in that aircraft is now out of date, the wreck may still be useful for perfecting a means to track it. The Pentagon has refused to discuss how the aircraft was brought down, but defence officials say that the F117 was probably shot down by a Serb SA3 surface-to-air missile.

The B2 bomber, first deployed during the Kosovo conflict, uses a more advanced type of stealth technology than the F117, but it could still leave a ?signature? detectable by a Chinese PCL system.

The US is the only country with stealth technology in use, and both Russia and China have been researching a means of tracking the ?invisible? aircraft since the early 1970s. On conventional radar, if the technology is working correctly, a stealth aircaft is impossible to detect, but a PCL system may be able not only to ?see? the incoming aircraft, but identify the make by its disruption of television and radio signals permanently in the atmosphere.

China's anti-stealth capability

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

We are just over water till now---haven't gone over land yet---keeping the discussion simple---because that is where it was.

I mean to say---first of all there is not going to be any confrontation between u s and china----if we are talking about a scenario----then it would be a complete air strike force supported by a carrier battle group---with F 22 taking off from guam---B 2's targeting the ground targets---F 18's flying from the carriers to give air cover to refuellers and AWACS and acting as back up for the F22's---F 15's flying from japan to help escort the F 22's back to land in japan---.

The first major concern for the chinese will ne to to find the air battle group---all chinese radars systems will be heavily jammed---possibly---half the chinese air force in the air would be running around chasing phantom targets created by the americans.

The air dominance by the americans will never be the issue---the issue would be---where would the conflict lead itself to---.

You see---americans have a habbit of creating panic in their populace---so that they can get more funds for the millitary--so that they can startup a war wherever they want to---so---when you listen to an american telling you that they are concerned with someones technology etc---you gotta get your antenaes up---and watch all around you---and be on your best behaviour---that is the time that they would strike---.

Coming back---this air assault would hurt china so much that they will end up using nuclear strikes against the carrier battle group and against the air base in guam---and regular cruise missile strikes on the japanes air bases as well. The siuation will get out of control in the first hours of the contact.

 

[SBD-3]

Hi,

We are just over water till now---haven't gone over land yet---keeping the discussion simple---because that is where it was.

I mean to say---first of all there is not going to be any confrontation between u s and china----if we are talking about a scenario----then it would be a complete air strike force supported by a carrier battle group---with F 22 taking off from guam---B 2's targeting the ground targets---F 18's flying from the carriers to give air cover to refuellers and AWACS and acting as back up for the F22's---F 15's flying from japan to help escort the F 22's back to land in japan---.

The first major concern for the chinese will ne to to find the air battle group---all chinese radars systems will be heavily jammed---possibly---half the chinese air force in the air would be running around chasing phantom targets created by the americans.

The air dominance by the americans will never be the issue---the issue would be---where would the conflict lead itself to---.

You see---americans have a habbit of creating panic in their populace---so that they can get more funds for the millitary--so that they can startup a war wherever they want to---so---when you listen to an american telling you that they are concerned with someones technology etc---you gotta get your antenaes up---and watch all around you---and be on your best behaviour---that is the time that they would strike---.

Coming back---this air assault would hurt china so much that they will end up using nuclear strikes against the carrier battle group and against the air base in guam---and regular cruise missile strikes on the japanes air bases as well. The siuation will get out of control in the first hours of the contact.

Dont expect Chinese to be Dumb
Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)

 

[gambit]

The new Chinese system, by contrast, simply monitors civilian radio and television broadcasts and analyses the minute fluctuations caused by the passage of an aircraft through commercial wavelengths.

Relying on a network of receivers similar to television aerials, the ?silent? PCL system does not emit a tell- tale radar signal and is therefore much harder to locate and destroy.

The US is developing a similar system, the ?silent sentry?, which monitors energy reflected from commercial TV and radio signals to track aircraft.

The foundation for this new type of sensor is NOT new. It is called a 'bi-static' set-up. There are serious disadvantages for a bi-static radar system.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a rotating antenna that perform BOTH transmit and receive functions. This is called a 'mono-static' set-up. The transmissions are pulsed, meaning the antenna stops transmissions in order to 'listen' for any echoes. The mono-static system was developed AFTER the bi-static system due to the first serious drawback -- portability. In a bi-static system, there are two antennas, one to transmit and one to receive. The transmission can be continuous wave (CW) or pulsed. The receiver antenna is the one that does the actual 'listening' of any echoes. The portability issue is clear.

Next issue is synchronicity. The receiver must be aware of what the transmitter is doing at what time down to the picosecond. Anything less and with a target moving at several hundreds km/hr, perhaps even more, and a miss can be disastrous for the defenders. What about distance? Any competent EE will say that signals degrades as distances increases. Installing periodic amplifier stations along the cables linking the two antennas increases the portability problem.

Next issue is ownership. In a typical bi-static system, there is only one owner. But in this detection scheme where ordinary TV, radio and assorted electronic signals are exploited, the user is not the owner of the transmissions. There is now a magnitudinal difference in data processing power on the receiver end to sort out which echo come from which freq. Remember that an echo is created by two elements: the body and the frequency. Tranmit two different freqs at the same body and there will be distinct echoes, each contain slightly different information about the target. Now try to sort out all the echoes off a body traveling at several hundreds km/hr that are from TV channels 2, 3, 8, 12, etc...etc...Not counting AM/FM radios...Not counting cell phone signals...Not counting background radiation.

For each transmitter-target-receiver situation, there is what is called 'the bi-static triangle'...

Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques

Synchronization techniques used in the Bistatic Alerting and Cueing (BAC) program are examined. Particular attention is given to illuminator search, target search synchronization, RF synchronization, PRF (pulse repetition frequency) synchronization, range gate synchronization, and solution of the bistatic triangle. All of the synchronization techniques have been implemented and tested during the two and a half years of field-test demonstration of the BAC system. It is concluded that feasibility testing produced excellent results.

A receiver antenna in this detection scheme cannot afford to isolate and process a single freq due to the fact that the freq may not be as coherent as desired, or may contain freq modulations, or amplitude modulations or combinations of all. The list is not comprehensive. So the receiver antenna must process several echoes at any given time and must try to correlate them. Each bi-static triangle PER FREQUENCY must be resolved independently. Now add in multiple targets to the mix, targets that travels at different speeds, altitudes and directions. This detection scheme is best for civilian population centers, not geographically isolated military targets.

For geographically isolated military targets, several sufficiently sophisticated mono-static systems can indeed function as a bi-static system whose elements -- transmitters and receivers -- are mobile. The entire system can revert itself so that each element can become mono-static again to enhance its survivability, or to act as decoy for beamrider missiles, or pair with another mono-static element to momentarily be a bi-static system to further confuse the enemy. This also offer immunity from power outage. What if the enemy destroy the city's power stations? Iraq, anyone? Now there are gaps because of missing TV, radios and cell phone transmissions for the receivers to use. Who needs to go after the receivers when they are only receivers? Destroy the main power sources that produces those TV, radio and cell phone transmisions. But several mono-static elements that can function as a single large bi-static system do not have this weakness because they are originally mono-static, so each has its own power source.

People...Do not swallow wholesale what the Russians and the Chinese vomitted up.

The shooting down of a US Air Force F117 fighter in March during the Kosovo conflict has added to US fears that the stealth technology, developed amid intense secrecy during the 1970s, may no longer be the asset that it was.

Yugoslavia is believed to have sold on the wreckage of the F117, probably to China or Russia, and defence experts say that while the stealth technology used in that aircraft is now out of date, the wreck may still be useful for perfecting a means to track it. The Pentagon has refused to discuss how the aircraft was brought down, but defence officials say that the F117 was probably shot down by a Serb SA3 surface-to-air missile.

It was a typical 'spray and pray' tactic. If whatever that Zoltan Dani did was so good, then why is it that out of 21,000 sorties only two aircrafts, an F-16 and an F-117, was shot down? Is that a combat record to toast a few beers about? Whoever wrote the phrase '...added to US fears...' are interested only in rhetorics, nothing more. We designed the aircraft, we know its weaknesses.

The B2 bomber, first deployed during the Kosovo conflict, uses a more advanced type of stealth technology than the F117, but it could still leave a ?signature? detectable by a Chinese PCL system.

The US is the only country with stealth technology in use, and both Russia and China have been researching a means of tracking the ?invisible? aircraft since the early 1970s. On conventional radar, if the technology is working correctly, a stealth aircaft is impossible to detect, but a PCL system may be able not only to ?see? the incoming aircraft, but identify the make by its disruption of television and radio signals permanently in the atmosphere.

Could and may be...If this the best this 'expert' can come up with, we have nothing to worry about.

 

[SBD-3]

nice piece of information

 

[MastanKhan]

Dont expect Chinese to be Dumb
Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)

Hi,

It is not a matter of considering the chinese as dumb---it is a matter of talking to people who want to make china what it is not.

People---in their dislike of the u s, one must not loose focus from the devastating power they have over any adversary.

There will be no mano a mano dog fights between F 22 and J 10---but if there are---they maybe incidental for a few seconds when the planes are merging---through the merge the F 22 will be disengaging and flying away.

 

[s90]

^ i wasnt comparing it with F-22

 

[kashmir]

I think we do not need Rafale or Eurofighter any more


China builds a superpower fighter - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune
By David Lague
Published: Thursday, February 8, 2007


BEIJING — For more than two decades, China has labored to build its first state-of-the-art jet fighter as part of the country's drive to become a leading military power.

In December, it appeared to have closed in on that ambition when it revealed, in an unusual blaze of publicity, that its new fighter, the J-10, had entered service in the air force.

Footage of the new aircraft firing missiles and refueling in flight was shown on state-controlled television, and Chinese defense magazines have published lengthy reports with photographs of the single-engine fighter.

Although specific details about the J-10's performance and specifications remain highly classified, some Western and Chinese military experts say the successful development of this advanced, multirole aircraft could be the catalyst for China to become a leading force in military aviation.

They say that Chinese engineers, with help from Israel and Russia, had refined a design aimed at matching advanced aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16, the frontline U.S. Air Force fighter that has also been sold to more than 20 countries.

"A generation of engineers was put through their major production experience on that aircraft," said Rick Fisher, an expert on the Chinese military and vice president of the International Strategy and Assessment Center, a research institute based in Alexandria, Virginia.

"It has enabled China to create a cadre of experts that will be building ever more advanced aircraft over the next 50 years."

Along with China's successful test of an anti-satellite missile on Jan. 11, the new fighter is further evidence that double-digit increases in defense spending over much of the last 15 years are being converted into sharply increased firepower for the People's Liberation Army.

The introduction of modern aircraft, missiles, submarines and warships over the past decade, along with the increased professionalism of its service personnel, means that China is rapidly gaining the military muscle to match its growing economic clout.

And, according to Chinese and foreign military analysts, its domestic defense industries are steadily mastering key technologies needed to reduce the military's heavy dependence on Russian weapons.

The fanfare for the J-10 was overshadowed outside China by the international outcry over the missile strike that destroyed a defunct weather satellite.

In the aftermath of the missile test, Beijing attempted to allay fears that its military buildup poses a threat to its neighbors or other major powers.

"We do not conceal our intention to build a strong and modern national defense," the deputy chief of general staff of the People's Liberation Army, Lieutenant General Zhang Qinsheng, said in an interview last Friday that was published on the front page of the official China Daily newspaper.

"But," he continued, "we also tell the world candidly that the Chinese defense policy is always defensive in nature."

Despite these assurances, new weapons such as the J-10 are likely to contribute to growing unease, particularly in Asia, about China's long-term ambitions.

The threat from China's mounting air power is most keenly felt in Taiwan. Beijing regards the self-governing island as a renegade province and refuses to rule out the use of force if Taiwan makes any move toward formal independence.

Military experts say the deployment of the J-10 in big numbers will further erode the advantage in military technology that Taiwan's air force has enjoyed over its mainland rival.

On Jan. 23, Major General Wang Cheng-hsiao of Taiwan said that China had so far put about 60 J-10s into service and that these, in combination with China's advanced Russian-designed fighters, would give the mainland "supremacy over Taiwan in the air."

Lin Chong-pin, president of a research institute based in Taipei, the Foundation on International and Cross- Strait Studies, said Taiwan's advantage "is getting narrower and narrower."

"At the moment it is just in balance," added Lin, a former deputy defense minister in the governing Democratic Progressive Party. "If Taiwan doesn't do anything, it will tip in favor of the PLA air force."
To counter the threat, Taiwan wants to buy more F-16 fighters from the United States, but most analysts believe it is unlikely that the Bush administration will agree to this request while the island's legislature continues to block funding for an earlier arms order.

China plans to overhaul its air force as part of a larger effort to modernize its military, according to the defense White Paper that the Chinese government published in December. The document said China would concentrate on developing new fighters while reducing the overall number of combat aircraft.

"The air force aims at speeding up its transition from territorial air defense to both offensive and defensive operations and increasing its capabilities in the areas of strike, air and missile defense, early warning and reconnaissance and strategic projects," it said.

Although the official Chinese media described the J-10 as a "breakthrough" for Chinese military aviation, these reports also suggested that the plane was inferior to U.S. fighters like the F-16.

The Pentagon noted in May in its annual study on Chinese military power reports that the J-10 would be similar in weight and performance to two advanced European fighters, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.

Fisher, of the International Strategy and Assessment Center, says that of the fighters in service around the world, only the American F-22 Raptor, jointly produced by Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney for the U.S. Air Force, would clearly outmatch the J-10.

"The J-10 is a significant military capability," he said. "It's a highly maneuverable fighter."

It is unclear how many J-10's its maker, China Aviation Industry Corporation I, the country's most important aircraft manufacturer, plans to deliver to the air force.

Small numbers of single-seat and two-seat versions of the new fighter are already operational and some experts believe up to 300 could soon be produced to supplement the high-performance, Russian-designed Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30MK aircraft already in service with the Chinese Air Force.

There has been some speculation that the production run could be expanded if the J-10, which is expected to be much cheaper than an F-16, can win export orders from countries unable to pay for expensive Western aircraft.

Prices of fighters vary sharply depending on capability but Chile is paying $60 million each for 10 F-16's it has on order from the United States. Fisher estimates a J-10 could sell for $25 million to $40 million.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency forecasts that up to 1,200 of these aircraft could eventually be built, according to the Pentagon report on the Chinese military.

The publicity surrounding the new aircraft — including interviews with the leading designers — appeared to be aimed at fostering a sense of national pride in the achievements of the domestic defense industry.

For most of the period when the J-10 was under development, the Western arms embargo imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown meant that China was denied access to American and European aviation technology.

However, while acknowledging the technical advances China has made over that period, most experts believe the J-10 has relied heavily on technology transferred from Israel's aborted Lavi fighter project.

Prototypes of the Lavi, which was similar in capability to the F-16, had performed well in tests but Israel canceled the project in the late 1980s after the United States withdrew financial support.

Elements of its design are evident in the size and shape of the new Chinese fighter.

Fisher and other experts suggest that Israel also supplied the so-called fly- by-wire computer software that controls the aircraft in flight.

And technical difficulties that have long dogged Chinese efforts to build high-performance military jet engines forced the manufacturer to import Russian turbofan engines to power the J-10.

Locally produced engines could soon be available for the J-10 and other Chinese military aircraft, according to some analysts.

Lin, of the Foundation on International and Cross-Strait Studies in Taiwan, and some other military experts believe this combination of borrowed and adapted technology could detract from the J-10's operational performance, at least in the short term.

"This is a potpourri of parts from different countries," Lin said. "Naturally, there will be some limits to its capability. I suspect there is still room for improvement."

 

[notorious_eagle]

Hi,

It is not a matter of considering the chinese as dumb---it is a matter of talking to people who want to make china what it is not.

People---in their dislike of the u s, one must not loose focus from the devastating power they have over any adversary.

There will be no mano a mano dog fights between F 22 and J 10---but if there are---they maybe incidental for a few seconds when the planes are merging---through the merge the F 22 will be disengaging and flying away.

I completely agree with you sir, at present their is no country in the world that can afford to go head on against the US conventionally. If ever there was a country after WW2 that had the firepower to match the Americans, that was the Soviet Union but it came at a cost of their economy which ultimately brought their collapse. But i would say one thing, in its present power China cannot match the might of US but in the next 30 years if everything goes according to plan the Chinese will boast a military that can challenge the Americans. The Chinese are investing billions of dollars in their military, but unlike the Soviets the Chinese are expanding their economy at a rapid pace.