J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[challenge]

early this year, there are report that some PLAAF official oppose the export of J-10B to pakistan.instead PAF will get a 'down grade" version known as J-10M.
Kanwa report that J-10C was a proposal from Chengdu as a naval fighter,but lost to Shenyang J-15.speculate that the Chengdu has'nt giving up yet on the program.

 

[HKSDU]

The problem isn't that the WS-10 cannot be used, it's that they cannot produce enough of them to satisfy the orders of the PLAAF & PLANAF. They can produce small batches of high quality turbofans, but once they try and produce mass of them, they run into inconsistent quality problems. You have new batches of J-10, J-11 for both PLAAF & PLANAF, and soon J-15. Also add onto that you have to replace older ones on existing frames. So the order of AL-31 doesn't surprise me in supplementing the fleet.

Hold on a second. Isn't the J-10A mechanical adjustable air intake, compared to J-10B static DSI air intake. So doesn't that ease maintenance? Also wasn't their comments from the ground grew that the J-10A was a complicated maintenance job? You cannot always afford to wait until the ultimate frame comes out, otherwise you will have a gaping hole of obsolete fighters in your fleet. As an example if China waited for the J-20, its fleet would've been J-7 & J-8. The USAF had massive batch productions of their F-16 & F-15, and then ceased production and moved onto the next variant. China has already produced 7xRegiments of J-10A, so its about time to move onto the next variant.

 

[Blitzo]

The problem isn't that the WS-10 cannot be used, it's that they cannot produce enough of them to satisfy the orders of the PLAAF & PLANAF. They can produce small batches of high quality turbofans, but once they try and produce mass of them, they run into inconsistent quality problems. You have new batches of J-10, J-11 for both PLAAF & PLANAF, and soon J-15. Also add onto that you have to replace older ones on existing frames. So the order of AL-31 doesn't surprise me in supplementing the fleet.

I agree with this.

Hold on a second. Isn't the J-10A mechanical adjustable air intake, compared to J-10B static DSI air intake. So doesn't that ease maintenance? Also wasn't their comments from the ground grew that the J-10A was a complicated maintenance job? You cannot always afford to wait until the ultimate frame comes out, otherwise you will have a gaping hole of obsolete fighters in your fleet. As an example if China waited for the J-20, its fleet would've been J-7 & J-8. The USAF had massive batch productions of their F-16 & F-15, and then ceased production and moved onto the next variant. China has already produced 7xRegiments of J-10A, so its about time to move onto the next variant.

First, I think the talk about J-10A maintenance complexities were from strategy page. I don't remember talk from the chinese side either through official or on forums.

I partly agree with you on the rest, and also with plawolf's statement about a J-20/J-10C force mix. I think, if J-10A can be refit withi an AESA radar then a portion of the need for J-10B is reduced.
But if a hypothetical J-10C is effectively just a J-10B with WS-15 (maybe give CFTs just for the sake of things) I think they should move onto the B variant because it will be a while until WS-15 is mature enough to satisfy requirements for a single engined aircraft not to mention J-20 orders, so you're looking at near 2020 for the first batch of J-10Cs. Might be wiser to work on an F-35/J-2X powered by WS-15 instead.

J-10A's a good aircraft but I'd feel safer with a more modern plane able to match the likes of typhoon and rafale which china's neighbours like SK, Japan and India are interested in.

I also agree with plawolf in that PLAAF shouldn't go for a full 5th gen fleet. I keep hearing the 500 number WRT future J-20 numbers and I have defended the idea because not all of them will be of the same (air superiority) variant, and is more realistic if that is the only 5th gen aircraft PLAAF acquries.
It is a large plane and has the potential for development into EW(EF-111), bomber(FB-22). Eventually ~300 air superiority J-20s with ~200 bomber+EW could support a larger 4+ gen force of future J-10+s and J-11+s. SAC's 5th gen striker proposal might have a role too.

 

[schrage musik]

According to this article by an Employee from NRIET the Active Phased Array for the J 10B has 1152 Transmit and receive modules.

It has also already been tested in a airborne aircraft.

h**p:// img822.imageshack.us/img822/1206/j10bradar.jpg

h**p:// img135.imageshack.us/img135/1396/2713597603460e57e90daca.gif

h**p:// img819.imageshack.us/img819/2290/27135976e80062f76c39146.gif

h**p:// img830.imageshack.us/img830/4687/27135976c43636fece03a67.gif

hp:// img225.imageshack.us/img225/4081/2713597638e303b1fe431fe.gif

Interesting that nobody has brought this up, but 1152 t/r modules and a peak power output of 10 kw is about 8.7 watt per module. To compare this with euro and american trm's, for example, the 1100 element APG-79, if capable of 20 kw peak output (am quoting kopp here) would have t/r modules producing 18 watts. Also, the RBE2-AA trm's have been reported to be 13+ watt... just guesstimates, but i do wonder what the available figures for the irbis-e and captor are?

Edit: this seems to be my first post here in 2 years.. lol.. hi guys...its a pleasure

 

[challenge]

the article do not mention any output per module, no technical detail about the MMIC.rather it just mention the antenna design.judging from the article description of the antenna,,it uses Vivaldi slotted array desgn.
but either last year or 2009, I posted article about nanjing radar x band MMIC ,it did mention output per chip, but a lot of technical mambo jambo .but one thing it mention that the chip use Galium nitrate to fabricate the chip.

 

[nosh]

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.

PLAAF and PLANAF will be centered around long range aircraft and the main fleet will be J-20/Flankers/JH-7. This trend can be seen from the Heavy/Light ratio of 3rd generation fighters which is much higher than that in USAF. J-10 series are good aircrafts but PLA probably will not invest too much on them or buy in very large number.

 

[Blitzo]

PLAAF and PLANAF will be centered around long range aircraft and the main fleet will be J-20/Flankers/JH-7. This trend can be seen from the Heavy/Light ratio of 3rd generation fighters which is much higher than that in USAF. J-10 series are good aircrafts but PLA probably will not invest too much on them or buy in very large number.

J-7s and J-8s make a large proportion of the PLAAF and PLANAF many of which still need to be replaced, most by medium and light weight fighters. J-10s and possibly a L-15 derivative will make up most of these, the PLAAF will not be stopping J-10 procurement anytime soon.

 

[nosh]

J-7s and J-8s make a large proportion of the PLAAF and PLANAF many of which still need to be replaced, most by medium and light weight fighters. J-10s and possibly a L-15 derivative will make up most of these, the PLAAF will not be stopping J-10 procurement anytime soon.

PLA must have the capability to strike the first island chain to have a chance of winning the next war. Medium and light fighters are not really cost effective considering the mission requirement. J-10 is a good fighter for air defense in near seas but that is it.

Buying too many light and medium fighters will be a fatal mistake same as the Luftwaffe made in battle of Britain with their vast fleet of short ranged BF-109s. I think PLA already knows this and will continue to buy J-10 but not in large numbers.

 

[Blitzo]

PLA must have the capability to strike the first island chain to have a chance of winning the next war. Medium and light fighters are not really cost effective considering the mission requirement. J-10 is a good fighter for air defense in near seas but that is it. PLA will continue to buy J-10 but not in large numbers.

What the PLA would like and what it can afford are different. I don't disagree that PLAAF and PLANAF will get more numbers of heavier fighters like J-20, SAC flankers and other strikers to replace existing Q-6, J-7, J-8 and even older flankers -- but they don't need a majority or even half of their fighter fleet to be in that class, unless they're willing to downsize their numbers quite dramatically simply due to cost.

I'm not sure what constitutes as "large numbers" but I'm pretty confident PLAAF at any rate will continue J-10 production in some form up to 2020 at least.

 

[nosh]

What the PLA would like and what it can afford are different. I don't disagree that PLAAF and PLANAF will get more numbers of heavier fighters like J-20, SAC flankers and other strikers to replace existing Q-6, J-7, J-8 and even older flankers -- but they don't need a majority or even half of their fighter fleet to be in that class, unless they're willing to downsize their numbers quite dramatically simply due to cost.

PLA needs the majority of its fleet to have enough persistence at first island chain. Otherwise it may not fare better than Göring's Luftwaffe in the sky of Britain.

J-10 is a good fighter, but it was designed to fight the Soviet Mig-29 and Su-27 coming from the north. Now the mission requirement is completely different. It is still useful in air defense and PLA will buy it. But its rule will be supplemental.

As for the cost, the right weapon is expensive but losing a war is more expensive. Also, it is rumored that J-10 is not cheaper than J-11.