J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[rolking]

I would agree with SinoSoldier that J-10C as depicted in GaoShan's CG (wingtip missile rail, conformal fuel tank, targeting pods) is merely further development with emphasis on AG capability, not for carrier ops.

I remember there was a Russian drawing showing all models of J-10 from J-10, J-10A, J-10AS, J-10B, J-10C?? to J-10X. The J-10X features twin engines, F/A-18 like twin tilted tail rudders. This J-10X should be CAC's carrier J-10, not J-10C.

I definitely would love to see a version of J-10 flying off the carrier, but it would make better sense for CAC to tailor a brand new carrier plane derived from J-20. That would stand a better chance against SAC's offering of long-endurance J-15 and stealthy J-31.

I also strongly suspect that any serious design on future PLAN carrier plane would only start or made public after PLAN's decision to go skid or catapult is made public. If CSIC stock suspension foretells Dalian got the contract to build PLAN next carrier, high chance it is still skid design.

 

[plawolf]

Those artist impressions are mainly just fan made and I would not place any great emphasis on them, same with the naming. Whatever CAC calls a carrier borne J10, it is extremely unlikely to be J10C, I would say J10J (J for Jian, or ship) would be more likely since J10H is already taken, or they may just give it an entirely new J-number like the J15, which in itself is a modified J11B, so I really don't see why a modified J10 would be a big problem suddenly.

The J15 may have range and payload on any J10 carrier variant, but the J11B has those same inherent advantages over the J10A and that didn't stop the PLAAF going for the J10A in a big way. With carrier aviation, deck footprint is also a big consideration and while the J15 might have inherent end advantages for being bigger, it also carries the inherent disadvantage that any carrier could be able to carry fewer of them than the smaller J10.

Why do you have to choose one of the other when you can have both with the best of both worlds? The USN has been doing just that with its air wing mix for decades until recently, and many within the USN still lament the loss of the F14 to this day.

Starting with a fresh sheet design is all fine a good, but three problems with that.

Firstly, there is the matter of timeframe. The Liaoning is in service now, and the PLAN is likely to start building their indigenous carriers soon. There simply isn't 10-15 years time for CAC to develop a clean sheet design. No doubt they would have such a next gen design on the drawing boards, bit that is more of a long term project to compete with the J31. In the meantime, there are big orders that will need to be met within the next 5-8 years, and with that timeframe, a J10 variant is the only viable option.

Secondly, there is the issue of expertise and relationships. The PLAN is less likely to award your company a big contract if you never made any carrier borne fighters before as your bid will carry higher inherent technical risk. A carrier J10 variant will allow CAC to gain valuable experience and also get their foot in the door with the PLAN so they know first hand the kind of company and products they are dealing with. It would be a valuable learning experience for CAC and make them better placed to win the next gen carrier fighter contract, which is where the big bucks will be at.

Thirdly, as big and as capable as CAC is, it is only one company, and it already has a great deal on its plate with all the projects they have going. At this point, they may simply lack the resources to committ to a clean sheet design. A modified J10B would be far less demanding on the time of their best designers and engineers.

 

[hardware]

will J-10C be power by WS-15? (WS-15M?) since PLAAF do have intend to power the J-10B with WS-15,J-10C likely candidate for Ws-15.

 

[plawolf]

will J-10C be power by WS-15? (WS-15M?) since PLAAF do have intend to power the J-10B with WS-15,J-10C likely candidate for Ws-15.

Depends on how long the PLAAF intend to keep building J10 versions. But a WS15 powered J10 probably won't be on the cards until 2018-20 depending on how progress on the WS15 goes. And to be honest, in that timeframe, you are probably better off with a clean sheet design with the WS15 as the power plant from the start and designed to meet the merging threats of that time and taking full advantage of technological improvements during that time rather than keep patching up the J10 and ending up with a second best solution.

Besides, if the PLAN was to operate a naval J10 alongside the J15, a common engine would make a lot of sense and provide a lot of efficiency savings. Further down the line, if we are looking at introducing the J31, that will also share the same engine as the likes of the Sharp Sword UCAV. So a future Chinese super carrier in 2020 might field 3-4 fix wing combat types, yet only need to stock two kinds of engines and spares.

 

[Hyperwarp]

will J-10C be power by WS-15? (WS-15M?) since PLAAF do have intend to power the J-10B with WS-15,J-10C likely candidate for Ws-15.

What the heck is a WS-15M?

 

[delft]

When the Northrop YF-17 lost against the General Dynamics YF-16 in the mid '70's Northrop re-designed their Light Weight Fighter as the ship borne F-18. That was much more than an adaptation. So too J-10 or J-20 might suggest the shape of a carrier fighter but they would have to be redesigned completely. And before PLAN can accept a proposal for a new carrier aircraft they will want to have several years experience with J-15. The trade in shares of one of the largest ship building concerns was halted over the current summer to enable the company to agree contracts about the investment necessary to build large naval vessels. That suggest that the building of the first indigenous carrier will start when a good begin has been made in equipping the ship yard concerned say end next year or later. Take four years building and two fitting out that means the second carrier will need aircraft in 2020 or, more likely some years, later.
We see in the mean time impressive developments in aircraft production techniques so the likelihood is that a next generation CAC carrier fighter will not derive from J-10 or J-20 but start from an "empty" computer screen and SAC with the experience of J-15 and possibly "J-31" will likely do the same.

 

[rolking]

Those artist impressions are mainly just fan made and I would not place any great emphasis on them, same with the naming. Whatever CAC calls a carrier borne J10, it is extremely unlikely to be J10C, I would say J10J (J for Jian, or ship) would be more likely since J10H is already taken, or they may just give it an entirely new J-number like the J15, which in itself is a modified J11B, so I really don't see why a modified J10 would be a big problem suddenly.

I did not suggest that a modified J-10 for carrier ops is a big problem. I merely wish to state that this J-10C mentioned by Huitong(post#3833) is more likely just a multi-role version with emphasis on AG and new CFT, not the carrier version SinoSoldier, no_name and you hope it is. The J-10 carrier version (if CAC is planning one) should be the one termed J-10X shown in an earlier Russian drawing and GaoShan's CG featuring twin engines. X maybe just an placeholder since they do not know the exact alphabet for carrier model.

I just wish to share my observation based on Huitong's info, recent f y j s and cd posts on J-10C, some earlier russian drawing and GaoShan's CG. And I certainly hope that as a long-time member of sdf, you would agree with me that Huitong and GaoShan are not your average fanboys regarding PLA development.

The J15 may have range and payload on any J10 carrier variant, but the J11B has those same inherent advantages over the J10A and that didn't stop the PLAAF going for the J10A in a big way. With carrier aviation, deck footprint is also a big consideration and while the J15 might have inherent end advantages for being bigger, it also carries the inherent disadvantage that any carrier could be able to carry fewer of them than the smaller J10.

Why do you have to choose one of the other when you can have both with the best of both worlds? The USN has been doing just that with its air wing mix for decades until recently, and many within the USN still lament the loss of the F14 to this day.

Starting with a fresh sheet design is all fine a good, but three problems with that.

Firstly, there is the matter of timeframe. The Liaoning is in service now, and the PLAN is likely to start building their indigenous carriers soon. There simply isn't 10-15 years time for CAC to develop a clean sheet design. No doubt they would have such a next gen design on the drawing boards, bit that is more of a long term project to compete with the J31. In the meantime, there are big orders that will need to be met within the next 5-8 years, and with that timeframe, a J10 variant is the only viable option.

Secondly, there is the issue of expertise and relationships. The PLAN is less likely to award your company a big contract if you never made any carrier borne fighters before as your bid will carry higher inherent technical risk. A carrier J10 variant will allow CAC to gain valuable experience and also get their foot in the door with the PLAN so they know first hand the kind of company and products they are dealing with. It would be a valuable learning experience for CAC and make them better placed to win the next gen carrier fighter contract, which is where the big bucks will be at.

Thirdly, as big and as capable as CAC is, it is only one company, and it already has a great deal on its plate with all the projects they have going. At this point, they may simply lack the resources to committ to a clean sheet design. A modified J10B would be far less demanding on the time of their best designers and engineers.

Again i did not say we cannot have multiple types together on Liaoning. I simply believe that J-10, even in J-10C or J-10X version, would stand less chance against J-15 and J-31 if PLAN wish to minimise types on space-conscious Liaoning-class carrier. In my view, J-15 offer great endurance and range that extra J-10s simply cannot provide. J-31 is similar in size and role to J-10C but has stealth. So J-10C does not offer any advantage over J-15 or J-31 except the possibility of faster in-service time. But do CAC have a carrier-capable J-10C right now?? My guess is no. So if CAC need extra 5 years to put out a carrier-capable J-10, then might as well go straight to J-21 since the rumored next gen carrier plane competition btw CAC and SAC is due 2016/18. This is the scenario i have in mind.

I do agree with your suggestion that CAC should quickly put out a carrier J-10 to get its feet wet and gain valuable experience operating off Liaoning. Would be a great sight seeing J-10 landing and skidding off Liaoning.

 

[hardware]

blogger claim J-10C will emphasize air to ground attack capability,multirole capability of J-10 likely influenced by F-16 Viper.
this allow the J-10C to replaced Q-5 attack aircraft.

 

[Jeff Head]

Those artist impressions are mainly just fan made and I would not place any great emphasis on them, same with the naming. Whatever CAC calls a carrier borne J10, it is extremely unlikely to be J10C, I would say J10J (J for Jian, or ship) would be more likely since J10H is already taken, or they may just give it an entirely new J-number like the J15, which in itself is a modified J11B, so I really don't see why a modified J10 would be a big problem suddenly.

Certainly they can do so. But they will have to strengthen the landing carriage and add the tail hook at the very least.

Why do you have to choose one of the other when you can have both with the best of both worlds? The USN has been doing just that with its air wing mix for decades until recently, and many within the USN still lament the loss of the F14 to this day.

The US is still doing it. The original F/A-18C/D Hornet and the larger F/A-18E/F Superhornet, which will give way in the next few years to the F-35C and the F/A-18E/F.

The US also throws in the ECM aircraft, which is switching over from the A-6E Prowler to the EF-18G Growler, the E-2D Hawkeye and the C-2 Greyhound. So the US actually operates five different fixed wing aircraft from aboard its carriers, and many of us hope at some point they add back the sixth with the the ASW Variant of the Osprey.

Historically the US has had seven types of fixed wing carrier aircraft for decades in the past. For years it was the F-8 Crusader and then the F-4 Phantom for fighters, the A-4 Skyhawk and then the A-7 Corsair II for attack, the A-3 Skyraider and then the A-5 Vigilante, and then the A-6 Intruder for heavier attack, the S-2A Tracker followed by the S-3A Viking for ASW, the EA-6B Prowler followed by the E/F-18G Growler for ECM, the E-1 Tracer followed by the E-2 Hawkeye for AEW, and the C-1 Trader followed by the C-2 Greyhound for carrier on board delivery (COD). This then developed into the F-18, the F-14, the A-7, the A-6, EA-6B, the S-3B, the E-2C and the C-2.

The progression looks like this from the 1950s until now.

Fighter: F8 Crusader then F-4 Phantom, then F-14 Tomcat then F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Attack: A-4 Skyhawk then A-7 Corsair II, then F/A-18 Hornet, then F-35C Lightning II
Heavy Attack: A-3 Skyraider then A-5 Vigilante then A-6 Intruder then None
ASW: S-2 Tracker then S-3A Viking then None and hopefully the V-22 Osprey ASW variant
Electronics: EA-6B Prowler then E/F-18G Growler
AEW: E-1 Tracer then E-2C Hawkeye then E-2D Super Hawkeye
COD: C-1 Trader then the C-2 Greyhound (they are currently considering a V-22 Osprey COD variant to follow the Greyhound).

Heavy attack and ASW are no longer available on the carriers for fixed wing, so that leaves five types. But, if they come out with an ASW Osprey, that will make it six again, and come to think of it, when the UCAV comes along...there will once again be seven.

 

[Franklin]

We haven't seen any J-10 activities at the CAC for some time now. Are they retooling to produce J-10B ? And if there is going to be a theoretical J-10C, then it will be most likely equipped with 2 WS-13 engines making them comparible to the Eurofighter or the Rafale. I don't know about carrier ops though. I mean a folded delta wing ? The Flankers will do fine for China's carriers untill there is a stealth plane of sorts to replace them. Does a twin engine J-10 give that much added value over a Flanker ? If not then why would China use 2 different kind of planes for its handful of carriers.