Is that why the first batch of J-10B/Cs are constantly being delayed into service? Why couldn't the first batch just use AL-31FNs and have the WS-10Bs on Block II, like J-11Bs? Anyway, I have to say the J-10B/C is a sexy bird.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
duncanidaho
Junior Member
Isn't it a J-10B? I think J-10C have a second antenna in front of the vertical stabilizer.
You are correct !
J-10C '1051' had this feature ... however the original prototype '201' (IMO the same aircraft prior to renumbering) did not !
Honestly I really don't know what to think about this new - if indeed new - bird at all ....
Rumors are ranging from the modified J-10B '1035' over maybe the converted J-10C '1051' or a completely new prototype ... and the speculations around its engine are nearly as wild ! Some say the new WS-10G (with about 14t thrust), others are a bit sceptical and assume the WS-10B as used in '1035' ...
Otherwise the AL-31FN Series 3 is - from what I've read - for the serial J-10B and with more than 53 aircraft build, I wonder why we still don't know confirmed what unit operates them ... also in this regard some assume - esp. in mind of the many undelivered J-10BS at CAC - there are problems, they are not assigned operationally and they will wait for this new Taihang-version !
Even more I hope for better images ASAP !
Deino
My rule of thumb. If we have this much speculation, it means a big shrimp hasn't said anything.
There seems to be a raised bump behind the cockpit or it's just an illusion.
The new picture of J-10B with WS-10 is a test vehicle... possibly for J-10C/J-10B block II. the J-10Bs/J-10B block Is with Al-31s that were some 50+ in number, finished production months ago and as far as we know they've already been sent to their operational units. We've just had no photos of them operating with in their units, nor their unit numbers.
Sometimes we don't always need the word of a big shrimp to try and deduce what may be going on.
Doesn't change that baseless speculation is baseless speculation, and this sort of baseless speculation has never had a very good track record.
I see nothing wrong with speculation so long as everyone's aware that reality may turn out not to be that... it should be reasonable, if not expected and logical, to put out all the possible options on the table and wait for confirmation of what it actually is.
A lot of speculation is wild and motivated by considerations other than accuracy. People are free to speculate all they want. I personally wouldn't ascribe a sense of credibility without some basis of fact though.