J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[SinoSoldier]

j10 @ CDF posted this video :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Screen cap was taken from this. Some nice footage of a J-10B simulator.

Looks a lot like the JF-17 layout.

 

[escobar]

j10 @ CDF posted this video :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

youtube version

[video=youtube;63EZkSQ5Ijc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63EZkSQ5Ijc#t=0s[/video]

 

[escobar]

from huitong

The latest rumor (June 2013) claimed that a further upgraded semi-stealth multi-role variant (J-10C?) with CFT and AG-enhanced electronics was rumored to be under development. First flight is expected in late 2013.

 

[SinoSoldier]

from huitong

Is it the same as the rumored carrier stealth fighter from CAC?

 

[AssassinsMace]

Well that sort of answers the question I was about to ask. I've been seeing a lot talk over on the Chinese forums about the J-10C multirole fighter. I had no idea if there was any thing to it. But there was a lot a buzz about it.

 

[no_name]

Could they make it twin-engined? Or will that require too much redesign?

 

[SteelBird]

Well that sort of answers the question I was about to ask. I've been seeing a lot talk over on the Chinese forums about the J-10C multirole fighter. I had no idea if there was any thing to it. But there was a lot a buzz about it.

Since J-10B is not operational yet, if the rumor is true, does it mean that J-10B doesn't satisfy requirements? Adding CFT will also add weight, it would reduce the aircraft's performance if they don't provide more powerful engine.

 

[luhai]

Radio record between the pilot and ground station during a emergency landing of J-10. Great insight into PLAAF protocols for those that can understand Chinese. From discovery of mechanical problem, end current mission, deciding to land or to jump, landing preparation, and final landing.

was surprised this is public..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[plawolf]

Since J-10B is not operational yet, if the rumor is true, does it mean that J-10B doesn't satisfy requirements? Adding CFT will also add weight, it would reduce the aircraft's performance if they don't provide more powerful engine.

Well the J10B is far too advanced to be scrapped, especially since it is already taken so long and we haven't even seem hide or hair of this new J10C yet, so even if a prototype flew tomorrow, it would be 5 or more years before it is operational of the J10B is anything to go by. Besides, the J10B would make a decent enough multirole aircraft, and if the PLAAF wanted a dedicated striker, the JH7 or new JHX would be far better candidates.

I do have to wonder if the J10C is aimed for the navy. With both the J15 and J31 being SAC babies, CAC really doesn't have a horse in carrier aviation race, yet that is going to be a massive piece of pie and certainly the area with the biggest medium to long term growth potential as I can easily see the PLAN having 6 or more carriers operational at the same time, so that's 3-500 fighters worth of work to be had, and I seriously doubt CAC is going to not even try to compete for a piece of that action.

The PLA itself would probably also want CAC involved to extend the healthy competition CAC and SAC have going with land based fighters to the carrier borne arena because they would get more choice and a better deal than if SAC was the de facto monopoly for carrier fighters. Because of that, the PLAN may even be willing to finance the development of the J10C, in which case CAC really would have to be mad to say no.

In that context, a J10C would make a lot of sense as it really isn't meant as a competitor to the J10B, but rather for the J15 and J31.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Well the J10B is far too advanced to be scrapped, especially since it is already taken so long and we haven't even seem hide or hair of this new J10C yet, so even if a prototype flew tomorrow, it would be 5 or more years before it is operational of the J10B is anything to go by. Besides, the J10B would make a decent enough multirole aircraft, and if the PLAAF wanted a dedicated striker, the JH7 or new JHX would be far better candidates.

I do have to wonder if the J10C is aimed for the navy. With both the J15 and J31 being SAC babies, CAC really doesn't have a horse in carrier aviation race, yet that is going to be a massive piece of pie and certainly the area with the biggest medium to long term growth potential as I can easily see the PLAN having 6 or more carriers operational at the same time, so that's 3-500 fighters worth of work to be had, and I seriously doubt CAC is going to not even try to compete for a piece of that action.

The PLA itself would probably also want CAC involved to extend the healthy competition CAC and SAC have going with land based fighters to the carrier borne arena because they would get more choice and a better deal than if SAC was the de facto monopoly for carrier fighters. Because of that, the PLAN may even be willing to finance the development of the J10C, in which case CAC really would have to be mad to say no.

In that context, a J10C would make a lot of sense as it really isn't meant as a competitor to the J10B, but rather for the J15 and J31.

The navy plane being developed by them is rumored to be of a brand new design instead of a J-10B offshoot; if the new J-10B variant is going naval, then it will have to adopt twin engines since the WS-10 is nowhere near as mature as required.