J-10 Thread IV

[by78]

Some high-resolution magazine scans of J-10C...

Not certain how credible the information contained in the following two images is, but here's a summary:
1) J-10C is an evolution of J-10B. While there are no airframe modifications, avionics and radar systems have been vastly improved, thereby improving its air-to-air as well as air-to-ground/sea capabilities and allowing it to carry more capable weapons.
2) Uses improved AL31FM1, with max thrust exceeding 13 metric tons.
3) While J-10's airframe design (canards + delta) gives it superior supersonic and transonic performance over F-16, this same arrangement makes the addition of conformal fuel tanks difficult. This is why conformal fuel tanks have not been added.
4) J-10C's cockpit abandons the '1+3' arrangement to feature a single large display, borrowing elements from China's 4th-generation fighter design for information management and man-machine interface. The underlying avionics software has been completely re-architected.
5) Features a new AESA radar with low-probability-of-intercept, better detection range, target tracking, thereby allowing J-10C to utilize new generations of air-to-air and air-to-ground/sea weapons.
6) Features a completely new infrared search & track device mounted starboard side forward of the cockpit. Compared to Su-27K's equivalent system, it's more compact and has a larger aperture, longer detection range, and better resolution.
7) One-piece, non-moving DSI inlet reduces radar reflectivity, saves weight, is structurally simple and more mechanically reliable.

1) Hardpoints A: can now carry more weight and munitions of greater dimensions.
2) Hardpoints B: can now carry a wider variety of precision munitions.
3) Hardpoints C: can now mount a greater variety of targeting pods, electronic warfare payloads, and communication pods.
4) Hardpoints D: for short-range air-to-air missiles and feature no improvements.
5) Hardpoints E & C: carrying capacity remains limited due to space constrictions. However, due to China's breakthrough in miniaturized munitions, these four hard points can now carry a new class of precision guided munitions that are now entering service, such as 100-, 150-, 250-kg satellite/laser/infrared-guided munitions. Therefore, these four hardpoints are an important component to the improved strike capabilities of J-10C.
6) Top-right illustration: for air-to-ground/sea missions, configurations A and B can give a 'strike range' (攻击范围) of no less than 800km. Although Configuration C (one center fuel tank + four 500kg munitions + two short-range air-to-air missiles) trades range for more payload, it's pretty decent for a medium-size fighter such as the J-10C.
7) Bottom-right illustration: by carrying miniaturized guided munitions, J-10C's air-to-ground capabilities are vastly improved, especially for close air support missions. These new miniaturized guided munitions enable J-10C to precisely strike multiple ground targets (in a single mission) from standoff distances (10+ km to several tens of km).
8) Bottom-right illustration: for air-to-air missions, J-10C can carry six medium-range air-to-air missiles (configuration A). Unlike on previous J-10 models, the innermost underwing hardpoints are compatible with a new pylon design, which enables the launching of medium-range air-to-air missiles.

P.S. Corrections or additions are welcome.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Some high-resolution magazine scans of J-10C...

***

Thanks a lot by78!

So the AESA in the J-10C also has LPI modes. J-20 and J-16 AESA said to have multiple LPI modes. Can see why the J-20, J-16, and J-10C always seem to be together (Put in the same group).
Wonder what the rumored J-10D would offer .

 

[Blitzo]

Some high-resolution magazine scans of J-10C...

Fascinating and much thanks for the translation.

However I do wonder as to the credibility, because these sort of drawings from the magazine and past information have been inaccurate in the past.

Specifically a few things about the aircraft's characteristics are new to us, like the new cockpit display, as well as the existence of 250kg PGMs in service with near stand off range. None of this is necessarily hard to believe of course, but it is something we have yet to observe from pictures or videos -- not a surprise given how much the PLA hides regarding weapons integration testing and actual capabilities, but still some caution is advised.


Of greatest interest to me is whether a new gen of small weight/diameter PGMs are indeed entering service in the 100kg/150kg/250kg weight classes.
The claims about radar and general avionics improvements is not dissimilar to what we've heard over the years.


If we are able to get a picture of J-10Cs cockpit in the future it may boost the credibility of this overall article somewhat, as prior to this we haven't heard any claims about it using a new single piece display.

 

[by78]

Fascinating and much thanks for the translation.

However I do wonder as to the credibility, because these sort of drawings from the magazine and past information have been inaccurate in the past.

Specifically a few things about the aircraft's characteristics are new to us, like the new cockpit display, as well as the existence of 250kg PGMs in service with near stand off range. None of this is necessarily hard to believe of course, but it is something we have yet to observe from pictures or videos -- not a surprise given how much the PLA hides regarding weapons integration testing and actual capabilities, but still some caution is advised.


Of greatest interest to me is whether a new gen of small weight/diameter PGMs are indeed entering service in the 100kg/150kg/250kg weight classes.
The claims about radar and general avionics improvements is not dissimilar to what we've heard over the years.


If we are able to get a picture of J-10Cs cockpit in the future it may boost the credibility of this overall article somewhat, as prior to this we haven't heard any claims about it using a new single piece display.

Agreed. The information about the cockpit also came as a bit of surprise to me, although credible sources have indicated that J-10C uses some trickle-down tech from the J-20 program, but nothing was said about its cockpit interface. I think an actual photo of J-10C's cockpit is not far off, judging by previous patterns of release.

As for small PGMs for J-10C, this bit is believable enough to me that no photos or video confirmation is needed. China has for sometime been showing off a plethora of these at various defense expos.

 

[Blitzo]

Agreed. The information about the cockpit also came as a bit of surprise to me, although credible sources have indicated that J-10C uses some trickle-down tech from the J-20 program, but nothing was said about its cockpit interface. I think an actual photo of J-10C's cockpit is not far off, judging by previous patterns of release.

As for small PGMs for J-10C, this bit is believable enough to me that no photos or video confirmation is needed. China has for sometime been showing off a plethora of these at various defense expos.

Yes, well the existence of small PGMs has existed for years, with multiple different families from different manufacturers having been promoted and likely having been tested in the past. We've seen various photos and videos of different types being trialled and tested.

My question is more whether the PLAAF has actually procured a smaller PGM type for in-service aircraft -- up to now the only in service PGMs we've seen equipped with the PLA's commissioned fighter aircraft are the 500 kg LGBs on JH-7s and J-10s, nothing smaller than that. Considering how many different families of smaller PGMs have existed for the last decade yet we have not seen any PGMs smaller than the 500kg LGBs (LT-2/GB500) over that entire period makes me feel like we need to have definitive photo or video confirmation of in service combat aircraft using other/smaller PGM types and not assume they are in service merely because they exist.

 

[pashah.]

I imagine that this has been answered in one of the J-10 mega threads, but why no wingtip launch pylons on any of the variants?

 

[ougoah]

I imagine that this has been answered in one of the J-10 mega threads, but why no wingtip launch pylons on any of the variants?

Correct, there are no wing tip pylons due to uncropped delta wings. Jf-17 has cropped wings and wing tip pylons.

Similar story with F-16 and F-15. Reasons that some designers have selected to keep wings uncropped is because of aerodynamics and performance requirements.

 

[ougoah]

If the above claims on radar and C variant improvements are all true, j-10 has developed into quite an amazing, versatile fighter. If j-20 electronics and sensor tech were/are installed on j-10c or future variants, it should prove to be the best number filler for plaaf. Only real downside is range for SCS operations. Any other region, j-10 in numbers could dominate any airforce without 5th gens. With future radars, upgrades, and missiles, will easily meet any threat. Seems like the engine and frame can carry an impressive amount of ordinance. A mini su-35 for plaaf.

 

[gelgoog]

In a lot of cases where aircraft have missile launch rails on the wingtips these are limited to smaller missiles.
Some aircraft designers prefer not to put them if they can increase the amount of under wing or under body pylons instead.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

While J-10's airframe design (canards + delta) gives it superior supersonic and transonic performance over F-16, this same arrangement makes the addition of conformal fuel tanks difficult. This is why conformal fuel tanks have not been added.

Interesting. I can only figure that the tanks would have to be mounted farther back on the wing to not interfere with the movement range of the canards