J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[plawolf]

J-10 during an emergency landing.

Good find, thank you for the picture.

However, having taken a second look at the picture, I am starting to think this might be a completely different unrelated accident judging by the condition of the nose - it is remarkably intact!

Fighter nose cones are hardly what you could call sturdy. If the front carriage had given up during a crash landing, a) you would expect the nose cone to be in far worse shape, just do a google search if you want some illustrations of what normally happens to a nose cone if a plane lost its front carriage on landing. b) It is hard to 100%, but the tarmac behind the J10 is remarkable clear and shows no sign of rubber tracks or scouring at the very least if a jet fighter just plaughed its nose through it. And c) you can clearly see the ground is made up of square blocks. Runways are never made out of square blocks but smooth, high quality tarmac for obvious reason.

All of this suggest to me that this was just a 'normal' landing gear malfunction where the front gear gave way suddenly and just dropped the nose on the ground.

 

[challenge]

article posted by tanlixiang may be 2~4 years old. example was J-10,j-10 first flew at 1999, it was not until late 2002 that they official confirm her exitance.
BTW, the picture he posted was PESA,not AESA. dead give away was the IFF antenna.
In AESA antenna design, radar engineers mus figure out how many T/R MMIC can fit inside antenna, the more T/R MMIC greater output per module,and greater the range.
In PESA, engineer do not have to worry how many phase shifter inside the antenna, since it still retain the main transmitter.

 

[challenge]

apg-80 (F-16E) and NORA ,both have 1000 T/R MMIC,detection range for 1.0 RCS target is 110km.slightly higher than legacy radar APG-71.
assume the AESA for J-20B has same output per module ,likely same range.
hopefully ,it do not end up like J/APG-1.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Gents we have rumor that the J-10B may be fitted with WS-10. Keep an eye out for new picts:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[A.Man]

The Don't Want You See Something In This Photo!

 

[Blitzo]

^ Is that a new photo? Hard to tell if it could be a new engine cause we've seen quite a few of these distant, backgroundish pics. But the blocking out of parts of it could signify something.

 

[plawolf]

Didn't CAC just order 123 AL31FNs from Russia? Bit of an odd choice if they are planning to shift to WS10A.

I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Blitzo]

Didn't CAC just order 123 AL31FNs from Russia? Bit of an odd choice if they are planning to shift to WS10A.

I will believe it when I see it.

The Al-31s are likely to replace ones that have been used by J-10As? (We all know of the low MTBO of russian engines)
But agreed, we've heard too many times over the years that WS-10 would be fitted on J-10 but it still hasn't arrived.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Didn't CAC just order 123 AL31FNs from Russia? Bit of an odd choice if they are planning to shift to WS10A.

I will believe it when I see it.

I think the poster mentioned that the WS-10A(B?) will be used for trial tests. The AL-31s are gonna be used for the first batch of J-10Bs about to enter service.

 

[plawolf]

Good points, or it could be that the J10B in its current configuration is an export model for Pakistan, who would obviously prefer Chinese engines for peace of mind and also to avoid all the re-export hassle with AL31s.

I always hoped that the 'final block' J10 would use the WS15 to share commonality with the production J20 as well as to give it a significant performance boost.

If the PLAAF has such plans, it may be better of holding off on a J10B purchase and stick with the A model and then jump to the J10C when the WS15 is ready. It would make more sense logistically and in terms of cost to have 50% J10As and 50% J10Cs instead of 33% of A,B,C models.

Having more of the same model would reduce unit purchase, maintenance and training costs.

The J10A is already a pretty good plane and should easily be able to handle itself in any mission the PLAAF may need it for. Unless the J10B offers a massive performance boost over the J10A, there isn't a pressing need to have it if the PLAAF have their eyes on a WS15 supercruising J10C only a few years further down the line.

I hope that the PLAAF goes for a J20 + J10C force structure instead of blindly following the USAF choice of an all 5th gen fleet. There is just no need to justify the massive expense such a move would require.

If a medium sized 5th gen is developed by China, it will, IMO, primarily be for the navy's future carriers.

I would imagine they would not be happy to have the J15 as their primary carrier fight for the next few decades, and the J10C would not be the perfect choice because it is unlikely to reach 5th gen levels of stealth, and navies seem to prefer twin engined birds for carrier ops for the added safety against engine malfunction. Which I guess might be more common because of regular exposure to sea water and the extra strain and stress from carrier landings (both needed to regularly throttle up to full power when landing in case they miss the wire, and the physical stress put on the engine of being slammed into the deck regularly).

But its all speculation so far, so we will just have to wait and see.