"China's Hidden Power" - Background Article on PLAAF

tphuang · Oct 2, 2006

Gollevainen said:
The flight hour estimation may well be different with J-8III and J-11...

Anyway I cannot comment on the dimension exagerations as I lack the proper tools to calculate it. However the first dimensions that had been lying around form J-10 stated that the aircraft was about 14.5 meters which is clearly incorrect. The 16.5 meters seems to be more close to reality.

About the other "errors" of the article, lot is explained by the timeframe, not all information where around when that article was beeing constructed. Also unlike us forumlingers, the publisher of that article cannot seddle for data that is at it's best "around-". The famous "disgussed in chinese language forums by some really knowlidgable guys" explanation is likely to be unheard and without a doupt unacceptable for authors of respectfull military journals.

But thats why there's internet forums so that we can "put these guys in line"

But regardless of the numerical errors, do you guys think that the article got it right when it stated that the J-10 is intended to serve as a groundattack plane as first priority? At least I remeber hearing just the opposite claims that the plane was a air superiority fighter for main task. Could the claim be resulted for some mistake in calculations that led to over-estimated playload and range data which then led to wrongly diagnosed primary role??

Hey Golly, I seriously doubt the range numbers supplied in this article. Especially without knowing the % of composite used on J-10, it really can't get a lot of the weight numbers incorrectly. Having said that, J-10 should have better payload and range than most of the fighters in plaaf. If Q-5 is still used for ground attack, J-10 definitely can be too.

But as far as I know, all of the pictures showing J-10 so far have been with AAMs. J-10B has been rumoured as the ground attack version, but I don't recall seeing any pods or PGMs on it.

Gollevainen · Oct 2, 2006

Hey Golly, I seriously doubt the range numbers supplied in this article. Especially without knowing the % of composite used on J-10, it really can't get a lot of the weight numbers incorrectly. Having said that, J-10 should have better payload and range than most of the fighters in plaaf. If Q-5 is still used for ground attack, J-10 definitely can be too.

But as far as I know, all of the pictures showing J-10 so far have been with AAMs. J-10B has been rumoured as the ground attack version, but I don't recall seeing any pods or PGMs on it.

But how about the claimed ground attack role being the top priority of j-10 like with the Lavi as the article suggested? Is that assumption made after msicalculation of the load and range or could it be based on some other factors? As you said, most of the weapons onboard J-10 sofar have been AAMs and even the main site says that the orginal role was to be a Air-supeority fighter and multi-role ability came along only afterwards...

crobato · Oct 2, 2006

J-11 pilots should have more hours than the J-8II pilots to begin with.

bd popeye · Oct 2, 2006

We have a good idea of the Chinese flight training hours. There was a pilot certificate for a J-8II pilot, and by computing his flight hours and number of years he was commissioned, the number came to 180 hours a year.

180 hours! wow! I once read that it was believed that PLAAF pilots recieve only perhaps 100-115 flight hours a year.

If that figure(180 hours) is true that is a substainal amoumt of flight hours. I know most active duty USAF, USN/USMC pilots get about 200-240 hours a year. The pilots in training get 150 or so. But they do spend a ton of time in flight simulators.

Kudo's to the PLAAF if they are indeed giving their J-10 pilots this much flight time.

overscan · Oct 2, 2006

I agree the range and internal fuel is very overstated. You wouldn't need fuel tanks for a delivery flight if they were correct.

tphuang · Oct 2, 2006

Gollevainen said:
But how about the claimed ground attack role being the top priority of j-10 like with the Lavi as the article suggested? Is that assumption made after msicalculation of the load and range or could it be based on some other factors? As you said, most of the weapons onboard J-10 sofar have been AAMs and even the main site says that the orginal role was to be a Air-supeority fighter and multi-role ability came along only afterwards...

yeah, I can't agree with that article. Every indication has been that J-10 is treated as the primary air-superiority fighter in plaaf. The only multi-role fighters in plaaf right now is su-30mkk. As you said, I'm J-10 will turn into that, but it is not there yet. Also, for J-10 to turn into something like the super hornets, plaaf would need to develop a comprehensive set of PGMs and avionics to support that.

crobato · Oct 2, 2006

Gollevainen said:
But how about the claimed ground attack role being the top priority of j-10 like with the Lavi as the article suggested? Is that assumption made after msicalculation of the load and range or could it be based on some other factors? As you said, most of the weapons onboard J-10 sofar have been AAMs and even the main site says that the orginal role was to be a Air-supeority fighter and multi-role ability came along only afterwards...

The proof of that is the selection of the radar. If the J-10 had choosen the JL-10A radar as accepted and commissioned in the PLAAF on the JH-7A, it would make a better case that the J-10 was meant for a ground attack role. If the J-10 had chosen the Russian Zhemchug radar, a good case for the same would also have been made. The Zhemchug is the lightened and compacted version of the Zhuk ME, the radar being sold for India's MiG-29Ks.

But the PLAAF chose the Type 1473, aka KLJ-3, a radar that seems to have superior air to air abilities to the JL-10A radar, but appears only have to rudimentary ground attack functions, an observation taken from its less classified siblings on the J-8H/F fighter and the FC-1.

J-10 having a payload comparative to an Su-27 which is what the figures in the article would have meant, is simply unbelievable for me.

Furthermore, the reasons being stated on the article for the J-10 being a ground mission aircraft would have made a plane like a Mirage 2000 the same ground ponder type. He refers to hardpoints under the engine intake, and as you know the Mirage 2000 has similar hardpoint locations in the fuselage. In the end, the Mirage 2000 is a type of aircraft with different variants to suit different roles.

PanAsian · Oct 2, 2006

It was a little disappointing that the article did not venture into the topic of how they think the PLAAF would look like organizationally and strategically in the near future, at or near completion of integrating J-10s and Su27/30/J-11s in significant numbers, not to mention how they would complement the H-6s, Q-5s, and J-7s. The articles just briefly brushed by those topics.

Does anyone know of an article that addresses more force composition and re-organization? Or even similar articles regarding the PLA's helicopter fleet and industry? There seems to be very little out there on these bigger picture topics.

tphuang · Oct 3, 2006

One more thing, this is the weight information on J-8II according to sinodefence.
Empty 9,240kg; Normal take-off 14,300kg; Max take-off 17,800kg

We know that J-10 is smaller in size than J-8II and probably makes use of more advanced and lighter material. It seems very unlikely given the above that J-10 can be 9750 when it is empty. It should be somewhere between 6321 of JF-17 and 9240 kg of J-8II. I would say that 8000 kg is a pretty accurate number. And if we keep the maximum takeoff to around that of Lavi (which is 19,700 kg). Then you have 11,700kg for internal fuel and payload. On the interview translated in pakdef, a pakistani ACM stated that J-10 has larger payload than F-16. If we use my assessment above, then both would make sense.

unknauthr · Oct 6, 2006

Gollevainen said:
do you guys think that the article got it right when it stated that the J-10 is intended to serve as a groundattack plane as first priority? At least I remeber hearing just the opposite claims that the plane was a air superiority fighter for main task.

There have been other indications that the J-10 was intended to have an air-to-ground emphasis. This corroborates a similar statement that I remember reading from Jane's All the World's Aircraft:

"It has also been noted that in 2002 the China People's Daily referred to the J-10 as Qiang Shi (Attack 10), rather than the Jian (Fighter) title that might have been expected."

I would tend to think of the relationship between the J-10 and J-11 as likely being modeled after that of the American F-16C and F-15C. As demonstrated over Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War, the dedicated air-to-air missions were reserved for the F-15C, with its longer range radar and sophisticated IFF systems (including hostile IFF interrogation, which the F-16C, F-14, and F/A-18 all lacked). The F-16C's were assigned primarily to air-to-ground missions. This did not mean that the F-16 was not expected to take on an air-to-air role as circumstances warranted, merely that this was not its first duty call of the day.

The difference here is that the F-16A was originally developed as an air-to-air weapon, that later had to grow into the F-16C to fulfill the demands of an air-to-ground role. The result was an airplane with much higher weight and poorer wing loading, that lost much of the agility of the original F-16A. If this article is correct, then China started by designing the J-10 to fulfill the role of the F-16C Block 50+, rather than growing it into that role after the fact.

I'd call that smart (and realistic) planning.

"China's Hidden Power" - Background Article on PLAAF

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Gollevainen

Colonel

crobato

Colonel

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

overscan

Just Hatched

tphuang

Lieutenant General

crobato

Colonel

PanAsian

Major

tphuang

Lieutenant General

unknauthr

Junior Member