Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
This can't be celebrated enough. If WS-10Bs are mature, then, well, the J-11D becomes a true 4.5++ aircraft, with capabilities unmatched by any of the Eurocanards and arguably the F-15DJs. A J-10C variant, as well, becomes categorically superior to the Eurocanards. It's cheaper, true, it has a weaker strike payload, true, but it has a competitive or higher T/W, and with the combination of 3D TVC and canards, it is also more maneuverable. And with cutting-edge AESA, it has nothing to fear in BVR, either.
This was completely unanticipated. We may be facing an era where China has air superiority over its immediate region, no matter what the US does.
This was completely unanticipated. We may be facing an era where China has air superiority over its immediate region, no matter what the US does.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That's stretching it a tad to say the least for Eurocanarlds. To be honest, of the three Eurocanards, the Typhoon and Rafale are clearly a class above the Gripen, so I'm just going to exclude the latter from the term in the rest of my post, so when I refer to Eurocanards, I'm only taking about the Typhoon and Rafale.
The F15DJ is an obsolete fighter by today's standard, and is about par compared to the later batches of Su27SKs with R77 China imported from Russia in the 90s. It's got a good brand name, but the vast majority of the Japanese fleet of Eagles are late 70s and 80s tech level machines in desperate need of upgrades (which are taking place, making them into F15J Kais, but at a very slow pace).
But even the Kais are only at J11B standards in terms of avionics, with only mechanical slotted arrays. The J11D, with AESA radars are clearly ahead in terms of radar and avionics.
Aerodynamically speaking, the Eurocanards are a generation beyond the Su27, which is arguably the pinnacle of 3rd generation aerodynamics design.
I would say that in terms of avionics an radar, the J11D is on par or even ahead of most operational Eurocanards, but not overwhelmingly so. In terms of aerodynamics and kinetic performance, it might struggle against the likes of the Typhoon and Rafale, but will probably be able to bully the Gripen.
To sum up, the F15J is clearly the odd one out, and does not really hold up well in any field compared to either the J11D or Eurocanards.
The J11D and Eurocanards will be an interesting match up, with both enjoying some advantages while also having areas where they suffer disadvantages, so it will be a tough call to say which is overall better, and a draw is probably about fair.
Nope. The J10C/D is pretty much a perfect match for the Typhoon or Rafale.
It holds an advantage in the fact that it has AESA whereas most operational Eurocanards use slotted array. However, both the Typhoon and Rafale probably have better T/W ratios. The Typhoon especially, is claimed to be able to Supercruise, which has never been even hinted at being on the cards for the J10.
Where did you hear that?
China has not shown any interest in pursuing 3D TVC for it's fighters. In fact, it has famously rejected Russian offers of 3D TVC AL31FNs for the J10, and instead opted to order engines without TVC.
As I have mentioned in other threads, TVC is at best of limited benefit to 4th generation fighters like the J10 or Eurocanards, since the airframe itself is already agile enough to push the pilot to the limits of human endurance.
Throwing TVC in will theoretically make the plane more agile, but will black out the pilot if he tried to fly his plane that aggressively in combat airspeeds (assuming the extreme stresses don't ripped the wings off his plane).
Not to mention the fact that extreme, post stall manoeuvres bleed airspeed and energy like crazy, so is generally only appropriate for airshows.
Try that in real air combat and you make yourself a sitting duck.
With modern HMS/D and high off-boresight AAMs, there is just no need to put yourself and your plane into the highly compromising position of post stall extreme manoeuvres to get a firing solution when you just need to turn your head instead.
The Europeans are also showing zero interest in adding TVC to their fighters.
It's really only the Russians who are super keen on TVC, but that is mostly because they lost over a decade during the fall of the USSR, so were stuck making incremental improvements to the 3rd gen Flanker while everyone else moved onto 4th and 5th gen aerodynamic designs.
The Flanker needed TVC to allow it to be compete against canard delta designs in terms of aerodynamic performance.
The canard delta aerodynamic configuration already allows the plane to fly to, and even beyond, the limits of human physical endurance in most of its flight envelope. Simply put, its not the airframe design that is now the limiting factor in terms of how agile 4th gen fighters can be, but rather the pilots' bodies.
In that context, adding TVC to make the plane even more agile at the expense of added weight, cost and maintenance demands makes no sense as the pilots would not be able to get much benefit from the extra agility theoretically possible but which they will never be able to use in reality.
I wouldn't say that exactly.
The J10C has an advance with AESA, but then the Eurocanards' radars are still pretty competitive in terms of specs. The fact that they have the Meteor operational also gives them an edge, so that's at best a draw.
Not really unanticipated, but it's the J20 that will allow China to achieve that.
The J11D and J10C/D are at minimal a match for any legacy fighter the US and regional allies have operational, but they are still no match for the F22 and will probably struggle even against the F35.
It's only the J20 that can have a chance of meeting the F22 on equal footing and holding an advantage over the F35.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Source? 2xWS-10 engines on a plane about the size of J-10 doesn't sound right.
I read somewhere in Chinese publications. I just glanced at it.
Rafael and Eurofighter have twin engined and size of J10.
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter have engines that are a whole thrust class below the WS-10 family. Only an airframe the size of Flankers would be suitable for two WS-10s. The J-31, being smaller than the F-22, which in turn is smaller than Flankers, is completely unsuitable for dual WS-10s.
The J-10 has a TWC that's almost 1 right now, being somewhat superior to the Rafale. The empty weight according to some sources is 12.5 tons. With the WS-10B with TVC, the T/W would come up to 1.18, with the Eurofighter listed as 1.15 in an interceptor configuration.
I also disagree about whether or not the J-10 would benefit from TVC. Compared to, say, a TVC F-18 or F-15, the benefits would be much less because the canards already perform most of the functions of TVC, but the J-10 has a mid-coupled canard that uses size to partially compensate for its distance. The TVC would allow the J-10 to behave like a close-coupled canard at the minimum, while possibly being able to have high-speed performance similar to a long-coupled canard.
Regarding the F-15Js, I'm surprised. I had read somewhere that they had at least AESA, but it appears they're still running APG-73v1s. That's a bit embarrassing, when the Mitsubishi F-2 has J/APG-2, an AESA radar. The reason I say that the J-11 is not wholly competitive with the F-15Js is because I assumed that the F-15Js had AESA; the F-15J with AESA and a significant large-fighter radar aperture (around 950mm in diameter) would be superior to the Eurocanards, with their smaller radar apertures, and be on par BVR with the J-11, which lacks modifications for high-speed maneuverability. With both the J-11 and F-15J having AESA and large aperture radars (the J-11 has around 1m in radar aperture), they'd be equal in sensing capability, but the J-11 would pull ahead by having TVC where the F-15J has no special maneuverability improvements.
The J-10, on the other hand, would have to depend on having AESA, since it has a radar diameter comparable to the Eurofighter (which is a weight class heavier than the J-10!)
I also disagree about whether or not the J-10 would benefit from TVC. Compared to, say, a TVC F-18 or F-15, the benefits would be much less because the canards already perform most of the functions of TVC, but the J-10 has a mid-coupled canard that uses size to partially compensate for its distance. The TVC would allow the J-10 to behave like a close-coupled canard at the minimum, while possibly being able to have high-speed performance similar to a long-coupled canard.
Regarding the F-15Js, I'm surprised. I had read somewhere that they had at least AESA, but it appears they're still running APG-73v1s. That's a bit embarrassing, when the Mitsubishi F-2 has J/APG-2, an AESA radar. The reason I say that the J-11 is not wholly competitive with the F-15Js is because I assumed that the F-15Js had AESA; the F-15J with AESA and a significant large-fighter radar aperture (around 950mm in diameter) would be superior to the Eurocanards, with their smaller radar apertures, and be on par BVR with the J-11, which lacks modifications for high-speed maneuverability. With both the J-11 and F-15J having AESA and large aperture radars (the J-11 has around 1m in radar aperture), they'd be equal in sensing capability, but the J-11 would pull ahead by having TVC where the F-15J has no special maneuverability improvements.
The J-10, on the other hand, would have to depend on having AESA, since it has a radar diameter comparable to the Eurofighter (which is a weight class heavier than the J-10!)