Pakistan's acquisition of Chinese J-10C fighter jets significant for both sides: analysts

[White and Green with M/S]

All the false flaggers outing themselves, Mr india, I presume.

No I'm not Indian, I'm Pakistani but I'm neutral guy

 

[Rafi]

No I'm not Indian, I'm Pakistani but I'm neutral guy

Likely story, does not matter to me, or any real Pakistani, it is the Internet, and any false flagging has minimum effect.

 

[tphuang]

Again on the topic of Chinese aircraft EW capabilities, it's very advanced. Not my word, from USAF

Dominating the Spectrum | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Foreign advances and U.S. neglect have realigned the electromagnetic battlefield. Here’s how USAF is fighting back.

www.airforcemag.com

“That was a time of de-emphasis of electronic warfare, electronic attack, electronic defense, maneuvering in the electromagnetic spectrum,” Hinote said. “They studied us. … They studied many of you and your work, and they did their best to come up with ways of countering what you were doing in the electromagnetic spectrum.”

Today, as a result, China can send pulses from their radars “that are different every time,” Hinote said. “Yes—that’s happening right now.”

The Chinese became so good at electromagnetic spectrum warfare in the interim that today “they absolutely believe that [EMS] superiority is a prerequisite for victory,” Hinote said, suggesting that denying China use of the spectrum could be enough to deter it from fighting. “Maybe it’s enough that we deny the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to China,” he said, by filling “the airwaves with electromagnetic energy to the point where you could walk on it. … To make it so difficult to operate in the electromagnetic spectrum that it’s mutually denied space.”

Like the “no man’s land” between the opposing trenches in World War I, the spectrum would be a region where neither side has superiority or advantage. “Gum it up so much that China is fearful of their ability to operate in that area,” Hinote said.

Now, USAF is probably overly alarmist with this statement, but at a minimum this means China has gotten USAF attention at how good they are.

I don't really see any reason to expect Rafale to automatically be better in EW/radar technology than J-10C. If anything, the fact that J-10's internal layout was redone with J-10B project to accommodate as much advanced electronics as possible. That upgrade also came with improved engine. J-10C having a radar with more T/R modules than Rafale is probably an outcome of that. You can simply fit a larger radar in J-10 nose than Rafale, which is hamstrung by the original decision to achieve LPI mode with RBE2 rather than installing the largest and most powerful radar possible for Rafale. And similarly, J-10 probably will have more space dedicated to its EW suite and passive sensors than Rafale. Does that mean J-10C will necessarily be winning the Electromagnetic war over Rafale? I don't think so. But we should definitely not make the assumption that Rafale is better in this area because it managed to jam su-35 radar or Western stuff is better than Chinese stuff. There is at least a reasonable chance that J-10C's radar/EW suite would be able to discover Rafale first.

WS-10B can produce thrust of 89 kN in normal use. You mentioned afterburner kN rating of the engine.

Could you provide any source on that? We in SDF have been looking for accurate specs on WS-10B for a long time and have not seen any real source on this.

 

[LeGenD]

Could you provide any source on that? We in SDF have been looking for accurate specs on WS-10B for a long time and have not seen any real source on this.

Russian Saturn/Lyulka AL-31FN engine ratings:

Dry thrust (Military power) = 17,855 lb (79.4 kN)
Peak thrust (Afterburner) = 27,560 lb (122.6 kN)

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - J-10 / F-10

Chinese J-10 pilot Li Cunbao disclosed in an interview in 2007 that the original WS-10A engine is aimed to match performance of AL-31FN engine.

Shenyang WS-10

all this about aviation, airplanes, helicopters,

all-aero.com

The above was independently confirmed as well:

Liming WS10A Engine

www.globalsecurity.org

WS-10B is stated to better than WS-10A:

It is unclear whether the Taihang engines on the new batch of J-10C’s is the same as the WS-10B engines on J-16 fighters. It was rumored that the thrust of WS-10B is higher than that of WS-10A engines on J-11B and its afterburning thrust is increased to 14 tons. Perhaps it is also equipped with the full digital electronic control system (FEDAC). And the latest version of WS-10C engine is expected to benchmark General Electric’s F110-GE-132 engine used in the latest version of F-16 fighters, which has an afterburning thrust of up to 142KN (14.5 tons).

New J-10C fighters equipped with Taihang engine – probably WS-10B engine

J-10C's new pictures indicate it uses a homemade WS-10B engine - a Taihang engine, which is better than WS-10A on J-11B. Click to check more details.

www.china-arms.com

WS-10B = about 10% better thrust ratings than its predecessor as per disclosed figures.

Relevant information is in Wikipedia as well.

 

[tphuang]

Russian Saturn/Lyulka AL-31FN engine ratings:

Dry thrust (Military power) = 17,855 lb (79.4 kN)
Peak thrust (Afterburner) = 27,560 lb (122.6 kN)

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - J-10 / F-10

Chinese J-10 pilot Li Cunbao disclosed in an interview in 2007 that the original WS-10A engine is aimed to match performance of AL-31FN engine.

Shenyang WS-10

all this about aviation, airplanes, helicopters,

all-aero.com

The above was independently confirmed as well:

Liming WS10A Engine

www.globalsecurity.org

WS-10B is stated to better than WS-10A:

It is unclear whether the Taihang engines on the new batch of J-10C’s is the same as the WS-10B engines on J-16 fighters. It was rumored that the thrust of WS-10B is higher than that of WS-10A engines on J-11B and its afterburning thrust is increased to 14 tons. Perhaps it is also equipped with the full digital electronic control system (FEDAC). And the latest version of WS-10C engine is expected to benchmark General Electric’s F110-GE-132 engine used in the latest version of F-16 fighters, which has an afterburning thrust of up to 142KN (14.5 tons).

New J-10C fighters equipped with Taihang engine – probably WS-10B engine

J-10C's new pictures indicate it uses a homemade WS-10B engine - a Taihang engine, which is better than WS-10A on J-11B. Click to check more details.

www.china-arms.com

WS-10B = about 10% better thrust ratings than its predecessor as per disclosed figures.

Relevant information is in Wikipedia as well.

Right, none of these are really legit sources for dry thrust. Most of the commentary from Chinese sides have been just comparing the thrust with afterburners. The only thing we know is that the WS-10 has thrust of 12.5 with afterburners, WS-10B is most likely using the version with 12% bump in thrust vs WS-10, so around 14t with afterburners and WS-10C is a further bunch to 14.5t. We have no idea the dry thrust up to this point. We also know from J-20 designer that WS-10C provides more power than the AL-31FN version that it was replacing (which is roughly comparable to 117S).

Russian engines have in the past had lower dry thrust to A/B ratio than Western engines due to the fact that they cannot produce same quality engine as Western countries. We do not know if that will apply to Chinese engines to the same degree. We do know Chinese engines is aiming somewhere between Russian and Western engines on measurements outside of the top of line numbers like T/W ratio and thrust with afterburners.

 

[LeGenD]

Right, none of these are really legit sources for dry thrust. Most of the commentary from Chinese sides have been just comparing the thrust with afterburners. The only thing we know is that the WS-10 has thrust of 12.5 with afterburners, WS-10B is most likely using the version with 12% bump in thrust vs WS-10, so around 14t with afterburners and WS-10C is a further bunch to 14.5t. We have no idea the dry thrust up to this point. We also know from J-20 designer that WS-10C provides more power than the AL-31FN version that it was replacing (which is roughly comparable to 117S).

Russian engines have in the past had lower dry thrust to A/B ratio than Western engines due to the fact that they cannot produce same quality engine as Western countries. We do not know if that will apply to Chinese engines to the same degree. We do know Chinese engines is aiming somewhere between Russian and Western engines on measurements outside of the top of line numbers like T/W ratio and thrust with afterburners.

Dry thrust rating of the Russian AL-31FN engine is disclosed in the following source as well:

Lyulka AL-31 / Saturn AL-31 / UMPO 117

The Saturn AL-31 is a family of military turbofan engines. It was developed by Lyulka, later NPO Saturn, of the Soviet Union, originally for the Sukhoi Su-27 air superiority fighter. It produces a total thrust of 123 kN (27,600 lb) with afterburning in the AL-31F, 137 kN (30,800 lb) in the...

www.all-aero.com

79.4 kN (Aerospaceweb.org)
74.5 kN (All-aero.com)

Other sources including a Chinese J-10 pilot disclosed that the Chinese WS-10A engine was supposed to be at par with the Russian AL-31FN engine - not sure if it is actually. Peak kN ratings of both WS-10A and WS-10B are disclosed as well. Dry thrust rating of the Russian AL-31FN engine is also disclosed in some sources. WE have sufficient pointers for approximations.

Unless you want to see manufacture brochure.

 

[tphuang]

Dry thrust rating of the Russian AL-31FN engine is disclosed in the following source as well:

Lyulka AL-31 / Saturn AL-31 / UMPO 117

The Saturn AL-31 is a family of military turbofan engines. It was developed by Lyulka, later NPO Saturn, of the Soviet Union, originally for the Sukhoi Su-27 air superiority fighter. It produces a total thrust of 123 kN (27,600 lb) with afterburning in the AL-31F, 137 kN (30,800 lb) in the...

www.all-aero.com

79.4 kN (Aerospaceweb.org)
74.5 kN (All-aero.com)

Other sources including a Chinese J-10 pilot disclosed that the Chinese WS-10A engine was supposed to be at par with the Russian AL-31FN engine - not sure if it is actually. Peak kN ratings of both WS-10A and WS-10B are disclosed as well. Dry thrust rating of the Russian AL-31FN engine is also disclosed in some sources. WE have sufficient pointers for approximations.

Unless you want to see manufacture brochure.

As someone who has followed this area for a long time, I can tell you there are no accurate disclosure of dry thrust for any ws10 version. Al31 dry thrust is not meaningful here. They are completely different engines.

Therefore, analysis of how much power it can generate for ew suite based simply on dry thrust is simply not possible.

 

[帅的一匹]

@LeGenD

Look at these forumer behavior. I think he never learn from his previous ban....

It’s hard to wake up a man who pretend to sleep.

 

[MastanKhan]

Again on the topic of Chinese aircraft EW capabilities, it's very advanced. Not my word, from USAF

Dominating the Spectrum | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Foreign advances and U.S. neglect have realigned the electromagnetic battlefield. Here’s how USAF is fighting back.

www.airforcemag.com

Now, USAF is probably overly alarmist with this statement, but at a minimum this means China has gotten USAF attention at how good they are.

I don't really see any reason to expect Rafale to automatically be better in EW/radar technology than J-10C. If anything, the fact that J-10's internal layout was redone with J-10B project to accommodate as much advanced electronics as possible. That upgrade also came with improved engine. J-10C having a radar with more T/R modules than Rafale is probably an outcome of that. You can simply fit a larger radar in J-10 nose than Rafale, which is hamstrung by the original decision to achieve LPI mode with RBE2 rather than installing the largest and most powerful radar possible for Rafale. And similarly, J-10 probably will have more space dedicated to its EW suite and passive sensors than Rafale. Does that mean J-10C will necessarily be winning the Electromagnetic war over Rafale? I don't think so. But we should definitely not make the assumption that Rafale is better in this area because it managed to jam su-35 radar or Western stuff is better than Chinese stuff. There is at least a reasonable chance that J-10C's radar/EW suite would be able to discover Rafale first.


Could you provide any source on that? We in SDF have been looking for accurate specs on WS-10B for a long time and have not seen any real source on this.

Hi.

First time I attended a sales training seminar in the USA was in 1989 I believe and Jackie B Copper---may God bless his soul was the speaker---.

The theme of the training seminar was---

GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE BEST

 

[dbc]

J10c aesa has more T/R modules.

A larger nose or antenna does not always translate to more T/R modules. It is important to remember that there are sophisticated mounting techniques that permit more MMICs density for a given area. Example APG-79 pioneered the flip-chip packaging technique to accommodate more T/R modules onto a relatively narrow nose of the F/A -18 Super Hornet.

So when people say J-10 C has a larger nose than the Rafale it does not automatically mean more T/R modules.

 

[SQ8]

A larger nose or antenna does not always translate to more T/R modules. It is important to remember that there are sophisticated mounting techniques that permit more MMICs density for a given area. Example APG-79 pioneered the flip-chip packaging technique to accommodate more T/R modules onto a relatively narrow nose of the F/A -18 Super Hornet.

So when people say J-10 C has a larger nose than the Rafale it does not automatically mean more T/R modules.

I think they speculate based on public data on Chinese AESA radars and their density. Radiated power and other factors notwithstanding

 

[dbc]

I think they speculate based on public data on Chinese AESA radars and their density. Radiated power and other factors notwithstanding

..and don't forget the damned software...the devil is always in the code.

 

[SQ8]

..and don't forget the damned software...the devil is always in the code.

They are getting better at code as well - especially when they spent the last two decades doing their best to ctrl-c and ctrl-v it from our shores.