Save those two pics and show it to him the first time you'll see him. Make him proud!
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Save those two pics and show it to him the first time you'll see him. Make him proud!
PiSigma
"the engineer"
He know he is in them. One was a setup piece anyway. He is all retired now from 611. His students are the ones leading the place.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Nice Photo from Henri K blog with its krank wing remind me of corsair
More than 20 years later, its development continues ...
More than 20 years later, its development continues ...
Hyperwarp
Captain
It lacks the rear maws but has the VLOC antenna on the top of the tail. This appears to be an original J-10C. The modified J-10C has MAWS front and back.
Could it be possible that the PLAAF is also looking at the possibility of installing TVC in future J-10s? It could for instance enable the J-10 to be a super-maneuverable single-engine fighter; a lower cost air-superiority homeland defence role vs a more expensive (cost, maintenance etc.) double-engine J-11. With the J-10 having AESAs and as various avionics sus-systems improve and get lighter, engines get better etc. the capability gap between the J-10 vs J-11 in the air-superiority role will only get smaller. The only difference between the two that's not solvable without substantial structural design change (other avionics & sub-system capabilities gap of the J-10 vs the J-11 would naturally improve in terms of 'how-much-can-you-pack-within-a-lower-weight-limit' as time passes) would mainly be missile load, maneuverability and single vs double engines. In the air-defence role in home territory, bailing-out with single-engine failure would entail lesser risk since the pilot will land in friendly territory. TVC would not help "directly" increase absolute missile load but would help in the sense that maneuverability would be better maintained with higher missile load compared to a lower missile load.
Also it could be that the J-10 with canards would better help simulate the effectiveness of TVC on the J-20. It could also help kick-start the basic planning, understanding and formulation of combat flight maneuvers of a plane with both canards and TVC. This is something that cannot be done with the TVC Su-35 that doesn't have canards.
TVC controls and package will come with an absolute weight cost. There will be a point where total thrust provided to an airframe is not worth the weight increases. Depending on how much heavier TVC will make J-10, it could be possible that a TVC J-10 will not be so much better than a regular J-10 without TVC. Twin engined J-11 comes with higher thrust:weight and the extra weight from TVC is a smaller proportion of total weight. Gains in maneuverability could very easily justify the extra weight. We don't know how many more Kg it adds but the only other single engined fighter tested with TVC is the F-16 and the Americans found it wasn't worth it. Nor was it for F-15. Although the reasons for this could be due to a variety of non-weight related factors, I can't see the point of adding such an expensive modification to future J-10 blocks. Isn't it meant to be a cost effective fighter? Get some WS-10 on future J-10s and be done. All said, we do know they are testing TVC on J-10 so 
Maybe it's like an F-16 VISTA equivalent. Just done for FCS experimenting and testing.
Maybe it's like an F-16 VISTA equivalent. Just done for FCS experimenting and testing.
If this link below is to be believed, the weight penalty could be as little as 40kg per engine. Though with the many described advantages, it seems a no-brainer that the Eurofighter should have implemented them. That it wasn't done could be a possibility that the weight penalty is much more than 40kg.
True. But Euro project is not reflective. e.g. they can completely upgrade their own to AESA with latest ECM and avionics, upgraded EJ200 and TVC but the programs just examine analyse and discuss. Like most western programs. 60% of time, money, and effort put into consulting and reviewing. 40% put into explaining why it shouldn't be done. The odd project that makes it into reality is sooo overpriced only smart marketing selling the end product off as "super quality" and/or "super luxury high end" to explain away its price is the end result. So it's not that they can't make it at all. They can do it and do it well. It's management and bureaucracy that hinders the projects. So the fact that Typhoon should have TVC and could have TVC but doesn't have it, does not mean TVC somehow has unforeseeable issues. At least unforeseeable by us naive observers.
It's arguably a lot safer, for testing and debugging, more complex control firmware will be needed for dual TVC setup so more to go wrong, in a dual engine setup need to control and direct 2 sets of thrust both offset from the centreline vs a single engine setup, especially if the nozzles under test are Russian style 3D affairs rather than F22 style 2D ones. Probably want to ensure the system works as intended rather than throwing unnecessary complexity at it from the outset, these days super computers can do a lot of modelling but helps to have real world data points to work from.
