J-10 Thread IV

[Blackstone]

That's not the crux of the argument. There is no conclusive evidence that the J-10 had anything to do with Israeli technology, so there should be no reason why Israel should even respond to this alleged sale in business terms.

EDIT: Sorry Blackstone, I think I misunderstood your post.
I don't think that Israeli (military) technology would be such an issue for China at this day and age; we haven't heard of any significant Chinese purchases of Israeli products within the past decade or so.

On the other hand, China and Israel are heavily engaged in non-military technology development and transfers.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm sure the J-10's performance can be extrapolated by using data from other delta canard fighters, such as the Gripen or Rafale, if analysts wish so. New Chinese-developed Flankers differ from earlier iterations mostly in electronics and beneath-the-skin aspects, so I'm not sure how you deduced that their parameters can be so easily predicted. The appearance of the J-10 at exhibitions in both model and full form speaks to me that CAC wishes to export these fighters.

I have no doubt that J-10 will be exported eventually so it makes sense for it to be promoted at air shows. The point is that they are not ready for export right now at present.

As for SACs flankers, of course their performance can be extrapolated easier than J-10.
SAC flankers are still aerodynamically very similar if not almost identical to other flankers in service around the world, while the similarity that J-10 has to other canard delta fighters is only their control surface arrangement.
In terms of "parameters" I was mostly referring to aerodynamics and flight performance. Obviously in terms of avionics it is as difficult to extrapolate from an SAC flanker as it is a J-10 because they presumably have subsystems that are not used elsewhere or derived from subsystems in service elsewhere.

Unfortunately for Tehran, foreign maintenance of the aircraft and supply of spare parts are still subject to arms embargos against Iran, to which China has agreed (this brings up a whole new question of how China could sell arms to Iran in the first place, but that's another story). Sudan purchased the Chinese Q-5s but could barely service them precisely due to a chokehold of spare parts and service due to an embargo.

And this has nothing to do with JF-17's suitability for Iran so much as the effect of sanctions on iran's ability to buy planes. In other words, what you're talking about has nothing to do with plawolf's reasoning.

 

[Zool]

I could see reporting on discussions between China & Iran on the sale of fighters (J-10 variant presumably) being accurate. The agreement with Iran stipulates a lift of the ban on conventional military equipment after 5 years, which is about the right amount of time for China to conclude negotiations and finish batch manufacture for delivery to Iran at the end of that period.

Ties with Israel are not likely to be a major factor for China. The US has applied significant pressure on Israel regarding partnership with and the transfer of technology to China, and that is Israel's bread and butter when it comes to export and strategic relationship building. On the other hand Israel is exporting a number of capabilities to India (Electronics, Software, Radar, Missiles, UAV's etc), giving China leverage to make deals of it's own in the ME.

 

[ladioussupp]

Don't think J-10 export to Iran is mature.
--
According to media reports citing anonymous military and intelligence officials, Beijing has offered to supply the IRIAF with up to 150 J-10B fighters plus associated weaponry, while Paris is reported to have offered to supply surplus Mirage 2000 jets, which are in the process of being replaced in French service by the Rafale.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SinoSoldier]

I have no doubt that J-10 will be exported eventually so it makes sense for it to be promoted at air shows. The point is that they are not ready for export right now at present.

What makes you think the Chinese are so circumspect about exporting the J-10 at this time? The J-10 should not contain any sensitive technologies whose public knowledge could put the PLAAF's best assets in danger. If their top brass is genuinely concerned about exposing the J-10's "true colors", there is no reason CAC couldn't churn out an export-oriented variant.

As for SACs flankers, of course their performance can be extrapolated easier than J-10.
SAC flankers are still aerodynamically very similar if not almost identical to other flankers in service around the world, while the similarity that J-10 has to other canard delta fighters is only their control surface arrangement.
In terms of "parameters" I was mostly referring to aerodynamics and flight performance. Obviously in terms of avionics it is as difficult to extrapolate from an SAC flanker as it is a J-10 because they presumably have subsystems that are not used elsewhere or derived from subsystems in service elsewhere.

I'm having trouble digesting the presumption that Chinese refusal to sell the J-10 is due to the jet's mysteriousness (for the lack of a better word) amongst international military circles. Even if the J-10's kinematics does exceed those of the PLAAF's three new Flanker types, whether such a disclosure warrants a bar against its export is questionable. If Beijing is willing to sell their premier air defense system to a NATO-aligned nation with a full-on ToT, there shouldn't be a reason to believe that the J-10 would be any different.

And this has nothing to do with JF-17's suitability for Iran so much as the effect of sanctions on iran's ability to buy planes. In other words, what you're talking about has nothing to do with plawolf's reasoning.

My post was adding on to why a J-10-vs-JF-17 argument would be futile in Iran's case. Simple as that.

 

[Blitzo]

What makes you think the Chinese are so circumspect about exporting the J-10 at this time? The J-10 should not contain any sensitive technologies whose public knowledge could put the PLAAF's best assets in danger. If their top brass is genuinely concerned about exposing the J-10's "true colors", there is no reason CAC couldn't churn out an export-oriented variant.

The fact that J-10 is not being clearly offered for export is the reason why I don't think it's for export.
They might very well be working on an export variant J-10, but if such a variant is under development it clearly isn't ready for export yet other we'd almost certainly know about it.

I'm having trouble digesting the presumption that Chinese refusal to sell the J-10 is due to the jet's mysteriousness (for the lack of a better word) amongst international military circles. Even if the J-10's kinematics does exceed those of the PLAAF's three new Flanker types, whether such a disclosure warrants a bar against its export is questionable. If Beijing is willing to sell their premier air defense system to a NATO-aligned nation with a full-on ToT, there shouldn't be a reason to believe that the J-10 would be any different.

Selling a SAM is somewhat different to selling a plane, especially a fighter aircraft. The SAM can be quite easily developed into a monkey version by altering the quality of its electronics or quality of its propellant. For a fighter aircraft, it may be easy to produce a monkey version of its avionics and weapons suite, but to change the aircraft's aerodynamic performance in all flight regimes such that no party is able to effectively extrapolate the home version's performance is something else altogether. And of course, changing the flight control software that much may cause the buyer to simply become disinterested in the plane altogether.

Your entire reply is also a bit unrelated to my original assertion that you quote. I was saying that it's far easier for countries to extrapolate the aerodynamic performance of SAC's flankers compared to extrapolating J-10's, I was not necessarily saying whether J-10s were kinematically better than SAC flankers. Regardless of whether they were better or worse than a flanker, J-10 is still the Chinese Air Force's current and forseeable future mainstay fighter aircraft that only they fly at present and there are always unique strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft, and the Chinese Air Force would logically prefer that no one else know it for J-10 for as long as practically possible.

My post was adding on to why a J-10-vs-JF-17 argument would be futile in Iran's case. Simple as that.

Okay, I was just unsure if I was clear enough in describing why your initial premise for JF-17 not being suitable for Iran has nothing to do with the plane and has everything to do with Iran's ability to buy.

 

[SinoSoldier]

The fact that J-10 is not being clearly offered for export is the reason why I don't think it's for export.
They might very well be working on an export variant J-10, but if such a variant is under development it clearly isn't ready for export yet other we'd almost certainly know about it.

With the PLA's secretive nature, it would be very hard for non-industry personnel to deduce whether a product is for sale a not. For all we now, CAC could have been offering these jets to customers under the table. On the public side, the J-10 had been open for tour to numerous foreign delegates at both Chinese and international airshows.

Selling a SAM is somewhat different to selling a plane, especially a fighter aircraft. The SAM can be quite easily developed into a monkey version by altering the quality of its electronics or quality of its propellant. For a fighter aircraft, it may be easy to produce a monkey version of its avionics and weapons suite, but to change the aircraft's aerodynamic performance in all flight regimes such that no party is able to effectively extrapolate the home version's performance is something else altogether. And of course, changing the flight control software that much may cause the buyer to simply become disinterested in the plane altogether.

Which begs another question: is an aircraft's kinematics of such importance in this day and age? Would keeping its raw parameters under wraps be such a major issue when aerial warfare is being increasingly dominated by IT? Furthermore, I would imagine that varying the percentage of carbon-fibre composites within the airframe would have significant effects on its aerodynamics, and that isn't something which requires a major redesign or overhaul.

Your entire reply is also a bit unrelated to my original assertion that you quote. I was saying that it's far easier for countries to extrapolate the aerodynamic performance of SAC's flankers compared to extrapolating J-10's, I was not necessarily saying whether J-10s were kinematically better than SAC flankers. Regardless of whether they were better or worse than a flanker, J-10 is still the Chinese Air Force's current and forseeable future mainstay fighter aircraft that only they fly at present and there are always unique strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft, and the Chinese Air Force would logically prefer that no one else know it for J-10 for as long as practically possible.

I see your point, but what irks me regarding your theory is that the Chinese are known to have exported their "top-line" equipment to allies during the Cold War (e.g. Q-5, J-7, etc). We're talking about a fighter jet that mostly comprises of off-the-shelf equipment, not a billion-dollar machine with a radical fuselage design and/or avionics on steroids.

 

[Blitzo]

With the PLA's secretive nature, it would be very hard for non-industry personnel to deduce whether a product is for sale a not. For all we now, CAC could have been offering these jets to customers under the table. On the public side, the J-10 had been open for tour to numerous foreign delegates at both Chinese and international airshows.

If an export version was ready, I strongly suspect we would know about it or at least we would have heard it through the grapevine.

Which begs another question: is an aircraft's kinematics of such importance in this day and age? Would keeping its raw parameters under wraps be such a major issue when aerial warfare is being increasingly dominated by IT?

Aerodynamic performance and an aircraft's active and passive sensors are all important, and an air force should naturally prefer to keep all of them under wraps for as long as possible.

Furthermore, I would imagine that varying the percentage of carbon-fibre composites within the airframe would have significant effects on its aerodynamics, and that isn't something which requires a major redesign or overhaul.

Changing the structural weight distribution no doubt would effect an aircraft's aerodynamics, but I'm not sure if that is common practice among export fighters, as you can't degrade an aircraft's performance too much to the point that it is unflyable or if it performs so poorly in the air that nobody will want to buy it in the first place.

I see your point, but what irks me regarding your theory is that the Chinese are known to have exported their "top-line" equipment to allies during the Cold War (e.g. Q-5, J-7, etc). We're talking about a fighter jet that mostly comprises of off-the-shelf equipment, not a billion-dollar machine with a radical fuselage design and/or avionics on steroids.

I think the geopolitical demands during the cold war varied to the present day, where selling military equipment was both necessary for securing alliances which China needed as well as providing a source of revenue for the country.
Depending on when those aircraft were sold, China may also have had better top line equipment that they were not willing to sell (even the initial J-8s for example)

Ultimately keeping J-10's performance as closely a guarded secret as possible is not because it is necessarily better than other fighters or advanced or what not, it's because it is a unique fighter to China that will make up a significant bulk of China's fighter fleet in the near future.
I think you are getting too hung up over the implications of keeping the performance of J-10 a secret -- it doesn't need to be a billion dollar aircraft for the air force to want to keep its performance closely guarded from potential adversaries. Simply being an advanced, capable and (most importantly) unique aircraft to the Chinese Air Force is enough.

 

[delft]

Changing the structural weight distribution no doubt would effect an aircraft's aerodynamics, but I'm not sure if that is common practice among export fighters, as you can't degrade an aircraft's performance too much to the point that it is unflyable or if it performs so poorly in the air that nobody will want to buy it in the first place.

You choose the position of the centre of gravity to provide the best controllability and if it doesn't come out where you want it to be you add ballast . When you then replace heavy metal parts at the other and of the plane with carbon fibre structure you save weight on both ends and reduce the moment of inertia .

 

[tphuang]

I remember several years back when China exporting J-10 to Iran rumors came up for the first time and I said at that time it was complete nonsense because J-10 was not available for export. Obviously, that turned out to be fake news. Now, I think it might be possible given that J-10 is relatively mature, but there is no indication on Chinese bbs that this is happening. I've generally learnt to not have faith in third country rumors about Chinese exports. The question here is not whether J-10 is available for export to any country, but rather to Iran. If this is to Pakistan, I would say it's probably true. There is no indication that China is willing to risk major diplomatic confrontation with US on such a major export item.