J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

zoolander

New Member
there is really no point for argument. you guys could argue all you want about a vague definition of "big" gap but the reality is there is a gap.

Now would someone tell me more about the DSI
i know it is more stealthy and lighter but how does it affect performance? be pretty clear, don't just use numbers but how it would affect it in combat.
 

Troika

Junior Member
you actually believe that China is high tech juggernaut like Japan?,let us try to be realistic and honest,Chinese high tech industrial base is weak.if you do not believe me,just open up Chinese make DVD,cell phone or lcd TV.

And if you take apart a 787, it's made all over the world too.

I am sure you think you have a point somewhere, but it is no immediately clear what it is.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
there is really no point for argument. you guys could argue all you want about a vague definition of "big" gap but the reality is there is a gap.

Now would someone tell me more about the DSI
i know it is more stealthy and lighter but how does it affect performance? be pretty clear, don't just use numbers but how it would affect it in combat.

Its every bit as an improvement. The comments on the F-16 DSI project was quite encouraging, almost as if the plane was up-engined. But then again, you're comparing the DSI to the F-16's fixed intakes, whereas the J-10 has a variable intake that allows for greater power at higher speeds.

Given the J-10, the DSI would have reduced the drag that is created by the trap between under the nose and the upper intake ramp. There is a potential for turbulent airflow coming out from the sides of that trap that it may affect the canards.

In my opinion, it would have increased the plane's acceleration, reduce drag and turbulence, making the plane smoother to fly. But there is no advantage in top speeds over the variable intake, so I don't expect the maximum Mach number to increase. Yet all these improvements happen in the flight regime where the J-10 is most likely to commit combat.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
If you all want to discuss telecom and datalink technology I moved all relevant posts to the Member's Room under the Tired of Foreign domination thread.
 

mean_bird

New Member
In my opinion, it would have increased the plane's acceleration, reduce drag and turbulence, making the plane smoother to fly. But there is no advantage in top speeds over the variable intake, so I don't expect the maximum Mach number to increase. Yet all these improvements happen in the flight regime where the J-10 is most likely to commit combat.

Weight reduction is also another area where DSI is helpful. Maximum Mach 'may' increase as 'may' payload slightly because of weight reduction. Kind of what happened with the JF-17, when speed increased from 1.6 to 1.8
 

Engineer

Major
I think weight reduction in the intake would translate the C.G. further aft, lengthening the moment arm of the canards and increase the plane's turn rate.
 

mean_bird

New Member
I don't know if there is a different thread for AAMs, but I would like to ask if there are any news of any new AAM currently being developed?

The PAF Air Chief has mentioned earlier that "The Chinese are making some new weapons for themselves and us, but these will have to be integrated which would require 2/3 yrs ..." when the JF-17 factory inauguration was taking place at PAC back in Jan. 2008.

Then again at IDEAS 2008, he said that "we have specified the kind of Radars, navigation systems and weapons that we need for the FC-20 and the Chinese companies are working on it..." when he was talking about the FC-20.

So my question is what kind of AAMs and BVRAAMs are being rumored currently?
 

Troika

Junior Member
I don't know if there is a different thread for AAMs, but I would like to ask if there are any news of any new AAM currently being developed?

The PAF Air Chief has mentioned earlier that "The Chinese are making some new weapons for themselves and us, but these will have to be integrated which would require 2/3 yrs ..." when the JF-17 factory inauguration was taking place at PAC back in Jan. 2008.

Then again at IDEAS 2008, he said that "we have specified the kind of Radars, navigation systems and weapons that we need for the FC-20 and the Chinese companies are working on it..." when he was talking about the FC-20.

So my question is what kind of AAMs and BVRAAMs are being rumored currently?

PL-10, a AIM-9X class missile, and PL-21, a Meteor-class missile, are rumoured.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

HKSDU

Junior Member
Interesting talk about the need supercruise capability for its Naval and Airforce fighters.
A supercruising combat aircraft is a high priority of the Chinese navy, the country’s top admiral says in a revealing official interview that gives strong clues of perceived shortcomings and future directions for the maritime force.

Adm. Wu Shengli also says China must step up work on precision missiles that can overcome enemy defenses, and the nation should move faster in developing large combat surface ships—probably meaning the aircraft carrier program that looks increasingly imminent (AW&ST Jan. 5, p. 22).

Wu’s demand for supercruise—supersonic flight without afterburner—hints that such performance will be available from the next Chinese fighter, sometimes called the J-XX.

“One possibility is that the J-XX is being designed for supercruise and that Wu is trying to build support for a naval version of the aircraft,” says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

The J-10’s configuration is similar to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which the manufacturer says can supercruise at Mach 1.5, although it is likely to be somewhat slower with a useful external load.

For the Chinese navy, one advantage of supercruising would be the ability to cover a large defensive area in less time—quite useful if the imagined target is a U.S. carrier group at long range.

Importantly, Wu lists a supercruising fighter among a series of technological demands that all look quite achievable for the Chinese navy over the next decade or so, suggesting that he does not regard such flight performance as a pie in the sky.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

challenge

Banned Idiot
back in the 90's the russian do offer AL-41F,like F-119 and EJ-2000 the engine capable of supercruise, but China politely turn down the offer.
later russian offer improve AL-31F-3 (?) which is more powerful thrust than WS-10A,and able to performed supercruise,retrofit the existing SU-27/J-11 but China has to date no reply from the offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top