J-10 Thread IV

[Tirdent]

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.

The notion that the J-10 test bed is powered by Izd. 117S (or even contains technology derived from it - if Russia contributed it would have been Salyut rather than Saturn) is downright risible - that goes without saying. Nonetheless, you can discredit the article with factual information, there's no reason to counter with equally ridiculous claims.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[ougoah]

The notion that the J-10 test bed is powered by Izd. 117S (or even contains technology derived from it - if Russia contributed it would have been Salyut rather than Saturn) is downright risible - that goes without saying. Nonetheless, you can discredit the article with factual information, there's no reason to counter with equally ridiculous claims.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Which is why I'm also curious why he made the statement. I agree with the rest of the post though. Let's wait to see if he responds to it.

 

[Dizasta1]

Well Russia has clearly stated that the TVC on the J-10B is NOT of Russian origin. Quoted “It didn’t look like a Russian product. At least the geometry of the nozzle, the deflection mechanism is different from Russian aircraft,” Vladimir Karnozov, an aviation expert with avia.ru, told RT.

 

[ougoah]

Not to mention the actual work behind TVC, the flight controls. This is a single engined delta canard with DSI intakes and no blended fuselage-wing. It is as far away from what the Flanker layout is as fourth gen fighter layouts can get. They want to suggest that Chinese engineers just stripped one of PLAAF's Su-35 engines off and slapped it into a J-10. Voila TVC from China! That's just Chinese propaganda! They love feeding this nonsense to the mountains of insecure westerners out there and the hordes of Indian Hindu nationalists will be all too happy to get onboard.

 

[asif iqbal]

That vertical position with that extra bit of backward tip

Cobra move was awesome

 

[siegecrossbow]

J-10B TVC closeup.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ougoah]

I just noticed that some J-10s have the refueling probe removed. The probe is not always there on many photos of b and c variants. Is it removable and attachable depending on mission type and necessity? Doing away with a need for a retraction mechanism and freeing up space and weight? Not a bad idea actually. Most missions probably don't have a requirement for refueling and China's not got that many tankers anyway for now. But this also means the refueling plumbing is built into every J-10 and only the outward probe needs attaching if its mission requires it.

 

[Tirdent]

I would assume that the probe is optional and that at least all J-10B/C are basically plumbed to accept one if necessary, yes.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Chinese should just sit back and relish at the critic's insecurity over China's TVC. I love how if something looks like something it must be the same like claiming the J-10 is a copy of the F-16 or the Lavi. Are all the components exact copies and work the same? No. China maybe able copy the outside but insides will not be. But here with TVC it's different yet still stolen. Lou Dobbs charged China stole from the US things the US hasn't even developed yet. How can they steal something that doesn't exist? Maybe they'll claim China stole it using a time machine traveling to the future. That means the US can claim anything China develops on its own as stolen from them. How convenient.

One of the early videos of the J-10 TVC performance at Zhuhai there was a comment by someone claiming it was stolen from India. Russia or the US... okay but India? The only TVC they have is Russian. Is that an admission they steal from Russia to then claim it was stolen from India? They are hypocitically in the top five countries that steal IP. That's like Indians claiming they're a hypersonic power. I guess technically they can say that but again from Russia and technically not the kind of hypersonic club they're talking about.

It's interresting how the flight of the J-10B TVC contradicts some of the bull from before. There's an inferior Chinese aircraft with a single inferior Chinese engine using a performance costing TVC doing stunts seen done on twin engine fighters from other countries. All their bull from before says none of that should be happening.

 

[2=GT]