J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
It depends on the writer but it has mostly always been that way. It is amazing though how much he opines on an engine which has not been exported outside China and which externally looks little or nothing like the Su-35 engine.
I think the acquisition was mostly done because the Su-35 was available right then on a mature state. The price was reasonable. So why not just buy it? The USA spends a lot of money buying foreign hardware to test against their own systems even if they consider it to be less capable. Even if it was purchased just for that purpose alone it was worth it. But it is more advanced than most of the fighters used by other countries in the region. So they can even use it. It is a nice stop gap until the J-20 matures and reaches more significant production numbers.
With regards to the J-10 though it will be interesting to see if this engine will ever go into production with it. It seems they had enough confidence to demonstrate it publicly so I assume it is reasonably fit for combat.
So now that we have the actual ferry range figure for J10C, I will comment on my own post from awhile ago.
Stated ferry range is just 2950 km. Which is quite a bit less than expected.
Possible implications: J10C is cruising at higher thrust rating than either Su-27 (using similar class engine) or F-16 or Gripen. Why? I don't really know. Is it simply heavier? Could be. But that'd point to empty weight of perhaps full 10 tons or more.
Is the lift it generates fairly poor? For its weight, i mean. Compared to Su-27, that's no wonder, given the basically flying wing concept Su-27 uses. J-10 doesn't generate nearly as much body lift. (F-16 looks as if it generates more lift from body than J-10 as well) But is there a reason why canard-delta wing configuration would not generate as much lift per unit of weight as conventional configuration during the cruise segment of flight?
Maybe J10 doesn't hold that much fuel internally. That's another option. Instead of 3200 kg, what if it carries, say, 2800 kg? Or even less? But that'd put it closer to JF-17 when it comes to internal fuel. As per Kamra official webpage, JF-17 holds 2330 kg internally. And another 2330 kg in its tanks. For a total of 4660 kg. And Kamra states it has ferry range of 3480 km, quite respectable.
Su-27, with same if not worse engines when it comes to fuel efficiency, does 3700 km on 9.4 tons of fuel. That's 0.394 km per kg of fuel. It's probably a bit lighter per engine than J-10, though. 8.2 tons per engine. Compared to likely 9+ tons per engine for J-10. Plus, as said, Su-27 is likely to be more lift efficient. How much it would all influence cruise thrust level is hard to say, but 10% or more doesn't seem unreasonable. 10% alone would cut the 3700 figure to almost 3300 km.
There's one more option. Sometimes ferry range is given with drop tanks retained throughout flight. It's more rare way to state it, in my experience, but some manufacturers do it sometimes. If 2950 km range was ferry range with drop tanks retained, then the "true" ferry range would be, when modeled after F15C difference in tanks dropped/retained, 11% bigger. Or 3270 km. Of course, maybe it's not 11% but less. Still, there some possibility that the standard ferry range is actually around 3200 km. Give or take a hundred.
But ultimately, there is not enough data to really be sure. Nevertheless, the indications so far do point to J10A/B/C being designed for something else rather than range, with the plane family having fairly modest range for its tech level and size.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something but why are people saying that a 3,000km ferry range is very bad? And why are people saying this is with 3 drop tanks? Is the measure for ferry range typically done with 3 drop tanks? A 1240km combat radius sounds very nice to me, like it could do battle over the SCS if it had to. The heavy fighter Su-35's combat radius is given at a barely higher 1,500km with the ferry range at 4,500km. If anything, I was pleasantly surprised by the J-10C's range stats. After all, wiki had the darn thing listed at 550km combat radius and 1850km ferry range for J-10 for years.
The AL41 on the Su 35s are straight up inferior to WS10G, how would having the former improve the latter in any way?
The Su 35s were sold for very cheap and extremely useful for training since they represent the pinnacle of the Indian Air Force, which is a large regional threat to peace. There isn’t an air force in the world that would say no to a deal like that.
Just the raw intel gained is worth more than the (rather small) price.
It’s an established practice for militaries to attempt to buy enemy equipment for training purposes. To think anything could be incorporated into a new platform is laughable. US bought polish T72s and Swedish Gotland submarines. Next “National Interest” will tell me Abrams carry T72 genes. What a ridiculous claim.
You must measure Combat radius and Ferry Range with F-16blk60/70, JAS-39E, mitsuMitsub F-2 that You see J-10C combat Radius and Ferry Range is really really "Disaster" ....
On paper Su35 has TVC, but than what the J10B displayed. The Su35 have 2D TVC, but the two engines are arranged so their turning angles are 90 degrees apart. The article suggests J10B's TVC was reverse engineered from Su35, they can't be further from the truth.
Quickie
Colonel
The specs in the above post are not showing any ferry range. Where does it come from?
Any which way, a fighter jet can be designed in such a way as to have better combat range at the expense of a shorter ferry range, or vice versa. As an example, the J-10 may have a shorter ferry range than the F-16, but the J-10 may still have a better combat range than the F-16 carrying similar combat weapons load. The basic range figure,1650km, of the J-10 in the above specs seem to suggest that.
Quoting from the specs: