J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[Quickie]

Gotcha.

What's the difference you're looking at?

I'm thinking of reverse engineering as being the total deconstruction of whatever you're reverse engineering. Can't really do that if you don't "crack" it too. In this case, "crack" the source code.

Personally I prefer reverse engineering. Cracking a software code tend to be associated with bypassing the security feature of the software and using it in a illegal way.

 

[johnqh]

This is becoming so very typical of your posts. Utterly baseless accusations.

1. Note that whenever F-15 and F/A-18 carry AIM-120, they always goes to the underbody racks first.

2. Note the location of Rafale's landing gear doors - to the side to leave room for the missiles. That's the modification Gripen NG has. J-10's landing gear doors are right between the hard points on the same line.

3. Let's be clear. Chinese has an inventory of R-77 for Su-30MKK. I am taking my words back (just to make your blood boil). There is no evidence that Chinese Su-27 (and J-11A) has the upgraded software to fire R-77. If you say evidence, show it. Some posts on discussion forums or blogs are not evidence.

4. We are not debating whether MICA is better than PL-12. They have difference length, period. Rafale cannot carry 4m missiles under the body, period. J-10 could carry mid-range A2A missiles under the body but China does not have such missiles.

Again, in case you didn't know, short-range missiles are launched on rails instead of ejected, so you cannot put PL-8 (or any other short ranged missiles) on under-body points.

4. It is not an accusation when all the evidence pointing to J-10 cannot carry missiles under the body. Your stand is the speculation at most. Even the J-10 combo rack has appeared in models many years ago.

Actually, it is very easy to prove your point. Just show a photo, even the photo of a model, or a photo of an official design drawing, or even some OFFICIAL text describing this feature. You have the easiest job to settle a debate.

 

[Deino]

Is it only me or does the AB-nozzles look different ????

 

[siegecrossbow]

Is it only me or does the AB-nozzles look different ????

I think it only you man. Those nozzles are definitely still AL. The one on the right looks very similar to the black nozzles on the J-20 so I think this is further proof that the black nozzles were AL variants.

 

[Martian]

Here we go Deino. A clearer picture to help you decide.

[Note: Thank you to Deino for the picture.]

 

[Engineer]

One engine is brand new, the other isn't. Simple.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Is it only me or does the AB-nozzles look different ????

naah....

Good old AL-31FN

 

[siegecrossbow]

New naval J-10 pictures:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

js.cn/bbs/htm_data/27/1106/342494.html

Delete the space between fy and js to go to the link.

 

[kyanges]

Test of the above link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EDIT:
It works. .

Yeah, if you use a URL shortener, users can just click on it without having to delete spaces or anything like that. Should make things easier. .

The above was shortened using Google:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's TinyURL too:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Deino]

I think it only you man. Those nozzles are definitely still AL. The one on the right looks very similar to the black nozzles on the J-20 so I think this is further proof that the black nozzles were AL variants.

One engine is brand new, the other isn't. Simple.

Yepp and no !

I didn't want to imply that this is finally the WS-10A TH - even if I wish so - but the one in the trainer is "fine", whereas the exhaust opening from the A looks a bitt "off-circle" ??

Deino