J-10 Thread IV

[manqiangrexue]

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" ....

I don't agree. F-2 and JAS-39E both tout 4,000km ferry range... I couldn't find numbers for F-16blk70; F-16C/D have a 4,200km ferry range with X drop tanks while the combat radius with 4 bombs is only 550km so it's not a good comparison. JAS-39E's combat radius is actually listed as less than 1,240km; it is 900km for air-to-air. C/D have a 3,200km ferry range with 800km combat radius. F-2's combat radius is not listed but it shouldn't be high as it's a more sluggish fighter (larger than F-16 with lower TWR). MiG-35 has a 1,000km combat radius with a 3,100km ferry range on 3 drop tanks. F-18 has a 740km combat radius and a 3,300km ferry range.

So 2 points are:
1. Even though J-10C's ferry range is a bit shorter, its combat radius is oftentimes longer. It indicates to me that J-10C is very very agile and turns more efficiently though it's not built to capitalize forward momentum. Fighters are for agile combat, not for ferrying; a fighter jet whose ferry range is its best attribute is like a boxer whose strongest suit is marathon jogging.

2. Even if J-10C's range is somewhat lower, ferry range is not a dck measuring contest; it is for what the PLAAF needs. With a combat radius in excess of 1,200km, it is very sufficient for a point guard and medium fighter. Increasing range beyond that only increases overlap with the big boys (Flankers and J-20). If excess range was sacrificed in order to enhance other combat-related attributes, I think that would be a smart call.

 

[Blitzo]

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" ....

Well, F-16 block 60/70 have CFTs, whereas no J-10 variant has it as standard. The F-2 is also likely a heavier fighter than the J-10C as well (considering what we know about J-10A's mtow, and how the overall size and airframe of J-10A has not changed much from J-10A to B/C whereas F-2 is a fairly larger aircraft than the F-16).

The most "equal" aircraft to compare J-10B/C with to in terms of size/range/fuel capacity would probably be F-16Cs that lack CFTs, and on that front I think it compares respectably.

 

[Tirdent]

The AL41 on the Su 35s are straight up inferior to WS10G, how would having the former improve the latter in any way?

Care to elaborate? Indications are that the thrust-enhanced WS-10 (whatever the correct designation is) is broadly comparable to the Russian Izd. 117S in terms of architecture and thermodynamic performance. However, it is only just becoming mature whereas the Izd. 117S has been in production for 7 years now, and the service life and TBO figures are twice those I've seen for the WS-10 (at very similar turbine entry temperatures, so a marked difference).

It's a significant step forward for China, but superior to the Izd. 117S? Not as far as the facts I'm aware of are concerned.

 

[Totoro]

For comparison sake, ferry ranges of some combat aircraft:

JF-17 3480 km. As per PAC Kamra website. (two 1100 and one 800 liter tanks)
USAF F-16C block 32 3470 km As per Characteristics summary document by the secretary of usaf office (two 370 and one 300 gallon tanks)
Gripen E, 4000 km, as per SAAB website (unclear whether with with 3 or 4 tanks, 450 gallon)
Italian Eurofighter, 3600 km, as per Italian Air Force website. (three 1000 liter tanks)
MiG-29K 3000 km, as per Migavia website. (three tanks)
US F-18C 2845 km, as per USN website (three 330 gallon tanks AND 2 sidewinders) This MAY LIKELY represent range with tanks retained, as the same page cites E/F variant range and explicity mentions the figure for that is for tanks retained. C/D variant text doesn't clarify.


Of course, many publications offer different, conflicting figures. Which is why I am sticking here to planes with sources I think are pretty trustworthy. Either producer of the plane or the user of the plane. Even the figures above MAY NOT be directly comparable, as we don't know if all some are done with tanks retained and others with tanks dropped. Also, reserve fuel quantity may not be the same for all.

*ferry range is in my opinion the best way to compare ranges of planes as it's a fairly standard quantity. Any sort of combat range, combat radius is way too dependent on the user air force, the mission planning, payload, etc, etc. Ferry range is mostly defined as maximum distance traveled by plane from point A to point B, including take off and landing, by using maximum possible fuel, internal and external if available, for the given user variant of the plane. Sometimes the ferry range can differ due to dropping or retaining the external fuel tanks, if available. Also, different users may require a different amount of reserve fuel by the time the plane lands. USAF standard in that regard is 20 minutes of loiter time at low altitude, for example. Of course, only similar weight class and technology class planes should be compared when taking into account the ferry range. A larger plane may require less fuel to haul around a large payload, compared to a smaller plane. Still, it's better to use ferry ranges than any sort of combat radius figure as the latter is almost surely not going to be apples to apples comparison.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

3,000 litters internally + 3,000 litters with external fuel tanks (1,100+800+1,100 litter) click here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[[email protected]]

And Kamra states it has ferry range of 3480 km, quite respectable.

1,880 NM= ~3,500 KM
source as previous

 

[ougoah]

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.

There was a period of time when PLAAF was genuinely interested in looking at acquiring Su-35s then Su-27M variants as a hedge against any J-11B and then J-20 failure. The Russian continued changing Su-35 throughout the 90s (first models after fall of USSR) and then 00s and finally as we all know it to become, the Su-35S. PLAAF lost interest in replacing Su-27SK and J-11A with Su-27M long before since that didn't eventuate into anything impressive at the slightest. Then J-11b took over as a modernised SK/A model and with the failure of J-11D, there was J-16 and J-20 on the heavy end and J-10B/C on the light end. Su-35S was no longer absolutely necessary especially in the reality of successful Chinese programs in J-16, J-10B/C, and J-20. Su-35S still is more than useful for PLAAF though. As mentioned many times in the past, it does represent value in opfor training by simulating RuAF and IAF Su-35 and Su-30MKI. It is useful in looking into the latest and greatest of RuAF (Su-57 has about five or six non-prototype models flying I think) and shows some hints of where Russian radar, engine, avionics technology is heading. They may not be the absolute best Russians have to offer but it is a useful look inside their industry nonetheless. That's worth money. It offers Chinese engineers an opportunity to study things and perhaps find qualities that can be adopted and copied outright or just simply offer an alternative way to solving certain problems.

China has not purchased single Russian engine orders in AL-31/41 types for a long while. The last orders have been to stockpile some for the existing fighters that use those engines and for replacements or spares. J-10 production have long surpassed an expected large engine order, maybe hinting future batches will be equipped with WS-10 variants or TVC capable ones if they decide it is worth the complexity.

117S that comes with Su-35 is a good opportunity to take a close look. It's not a groundbreaking engine at all and the real interesting work will be the IZD.30 but hey let's see how Russians approached TVC and FCS. If they can break things down far enough to figure it out.

It feeds the ego of those who want to desperately believe in a Chinese incapable theory. Every instance that confirms the theory is highlighted and the evidence against that confirmation bias is disregarded as 100% cheating, stealing, Clinton treason, or Chinese propaganda. So the media acting like an evolving organism, feeds that audience what they want, confirmation bias ammunition. Let it be, for the longer that lasts, the longer China has the opportunity to work in peace. Unfortunately they are crafty. On one hand, continuing this incapability theory to damage China's reputation and still hyping up the threat narrative. So essentially, pay little attention to big audience literature. They are almost always wrong on everything not just China and not just military.

J-10 will eventually be built in a domestic engine only block when WS-10 production rates can improve to exceed those sino-flanker type production rates. At the moment, huge efforts seem to be spent on a wide net of technologies. Getting WS-15 and WS-19 may be a higher priority than replacing AL-31 with WS-10x. PLAAF can't afford to dwell in the 4th gen for much longer. Having numbers is one thing, but narrowing the technology gap is more important now than ever.

 

[ougoah]

Care to elaborate? Indications are that the thrust-enhanced WS-10 (whatever the correct designation is) is broadly comparable to the Russian Izd. 117S in terms of architecture and thermodynamic performance. However, it is only just becoming mature whereas the Izd. 117S has been in production for 7 years now, and the service life and TBO figures are twice those I've seen for the WS-10 (at very similar turbine entry temperatures, so a marked difference).

It's a significant step forward for China, but superior to the Izd. 117S? Not as far as the facts I'm aware of are concerned.

While it cannot be said that 41 is inferior to 10G, it is very true that having 41 in place of 10G will not benefit the PLAAF much. It is a relatively unfamiliar engine and will be extremely dependent on Russian parts and support, effectively negating any longevity advantages. Perhaps he meant WS-15 or simply referring to effectiveness of using AL-41 over WS-10G. Maybe he will explain.

Most of his post was in reference to how ridiculous the suggestion that J-10 is sporting a Su-35 TVC engine within two years of receiving Su-35. That would be record reverse engineering the Su-35 engine, changing it totally, applying it to a single engine frame that is totally different in layout, structure, dynamics to Su-35 and getting the FCS and pilot familiarity to a level where they are certain it can perform pretty demanding moves at a public airshow. This usually indicates at least a decade of work and ongoing testing, modifying, and training to get to this level. The article is quite clearly absolute BS since WS-10x TVC is based off WS-10 core and TVC nozzle operates differently to Su-35's and the petals are entirely different. He has a good point dismissing the article but the statement on superiority of WS-10G? Yeah that's one best left for the poster to explain.

 

[goat89]

Hi all, my 1st proper 'contribution' to sinodefence. The below 2 pics were taken by me earlier this year. A J-10 of the August 1st / Ba Yi Aerobatics Team at Yangcun Air Force Base. Apologies for the blackout - privacy.

 

[Dizasta1]

Is there a plan for the dual seater J-10s to get DSI?