J-10 Thread IV

[Deino]

I can't speak for Deino. But China had and still has a load of J-7 single engine fighters to replace in its fleet. The single engine J-10 is much cheaper to build than a double engine aircraft. It should have same or better performance than F-16 which equips most of the fleets of the countries around China which are aligned with USA. Just consider Taiwan their best aircraft is the F-16. Japan has more than a few F-2 fighters in its fleet which are basically a 4+ Generation F-16 with a slightly larger wing. South Korea also has large numbers of F-16s.

So China has opted for a high-low mix of single engine J-10 constituting the bulk of its air defense fleet with the double engine aircraft based on the Flanker or the J-20 being used for more demanding scenarios.

... even more since there is not yet a J-31 and the J-20 cannot replace all fighters only since it is the best.

 

[by78]

A high-resolution magazine scan. Note the low-visibility scheme.

 

[by78]

This is the same J-10 as in the above image, taken from a different angle.

 

[xyqq]

Formation flying of J-10C and J-16 with distinct visibility schemes.

 

[The Observer]

Does anyone know the raw stats of J-10B/C compared to J-10A? Some of the Chinese sources on Wikipedia said although J-10B/C has improved combat capability (due to better radar, CEC, etc.), by raw stats like max speed and T/W ratio the newer versions are actually worse than J-10A because the increase in capability was accompanied by an increase in weight, while the engine doesn't improve thrust-wise. IIRC the source had a picture of J-10C export marketing poster with Mach 1.8 stated max speed instead of Mach 2.2 of J-10A.

That said, the tradeoff of raw performance with better multirole capability was also reported on progressive F-16 variants as they took up more and more multirole capability, so I'm not surprised if it's true.

I also seem to read from somewhere that although the DSI bump saves weight and might increase stealthiness by a small margin, it also limits the max speed of the aircraft using it (~Mach 2 Max I think). This might also be a reason for the reduced raw performance projection.

 

[lcloo]

Does anyone know the raw stats of J-10B/C compared to J-10A? Some of the Chinese sources on Wikipedia said although J-10B/C has improved combat capability (due to better radar, CEC, etc.), by raw stats like max speed and T/W ratio the newer versions are actually worse than J-10A because the increase in capability was accompanied by an increase in weight, while the engine doesn't improve thrust-wise. IIRC the source had a picture of J-10C export marketing poster with Mach 1.8 stated max speed instead of Mach 2.2 of J-10A.

That said, the tradeoff of raw performance with better multirole capability was also reported on progressive F-16 variants as they took up more and more multirole capability, so I'm not surprised if it's true.

I also seem to read from somewhere that although the DSI bump saves weight and might increase stealthiness by a small margin, it also limits the max speed of the aircraft using it (~Mach 2 Max I think). This might also be a reason for the reduced raw performance projection.

Your 3rd sentence just replied your question on the 1st sentence.

Also maneuver performance is far more important than max speed which is more relevant to bygone era interceptors.

 

[crash8pilot]

I'd argue that max speed is still very much relevant, it allows fighters to reserve kinetic energy. When flying at a higher Mach speed and firing off a missile at a target, the missile comes off the rail at the same Mach speed and further accelerates with its rocket motor - Doing so puts the target in a 'no escape zone' and maximizes the chances of the missile hitting the target. Firing a missile at lower airspeeds just means the missile runs out of energy sooner (especially in BVR where fighters are separated by greater distances) and not be able to hit the target, or other wise allow the target to defeat the missile more easily.

Bringing all this back to the topic thread, I do believe the J-10C features increased use of composite materials... So perhaps it potentially offsets the increase in weight? Either case the new AESA radar and sensors enhances the situational awareness for the pilot, and that information can be shared with other fighters or fed further up the chain through datalink to AEW&C. The ability to fire off PL-15s, which are seemingly on par with the AMRAAM and Meteor, is a game changer over legacy J-10s. So maybe the J-10C's increased 'toolbox' (especially the latest photos of the dual rack PL-15s, giving the J-10C a 4x PL-15 and 2x PL-10 loadout in an air-to-air configuration) enhances its lethality, all be its performance might suffer a bit?

 

[kentchang]

I'd argue that max speed is still very much relevant, it allows fighters to reserve kinetic energy. When flying at a higher Mach speed and firing off a missile at a target, the missile comes off the rail at the same Mach speed and further accelerates with its rocket motor - Doing so puts the target in a 'no escape zone' and maximizes the chances of the missile hitting the target. Firing a missile at lower airspeeds just means the missile runs out of energy sooner (especially in BVR where fighters are separated by greater distances) and not be able to hit the target, or other wise allow the target to defeat the missile more easily.

Bringing all this back to the topic thread, I do believe the J-10C features increased use of composite materials... So perhaps it potentially offsets the increase in weight? Either case the new AESA radar and sensors enhances the situational awareness for the pilot, and that information can be shared with other fighters or fed further up the chain through datalink to AEW&C. The ability to fire off PL-15s, which are seemingly on par with the AMRAAM and Meteor, is a game changer over legacy J-10s. So maybe the J-10C's increased 'toolbox' (especially the latest photos of the dual rack PL-15s, giving the J-10C a 4x PL-15 and 2x PL-10 loadout in an air-to-air configuration) enhances its lethality, all be its performance might suffer a bit?

Launching missiles at a fighter's max speed makes no sense. There is increased drag and heat from increased friction on the missile. It is questionable if the missile's engine can overcome the increased drag (very simplistically, a missile's top speed = its drag and faster speed exacts severe range penalties) and not to mention shockwave vibrations. Ramjets (like Meteor) can't be launched outside its designed Mach cone range. Terminal phase maneuvers are the reasons why we have dual/multi-pulse missiles coupled with a lofted trajectory for a longer reach. Assuming max speed also means using AB, why would you want to broadcast your location so loudly?

PL-15's only real competition is the forthcoming AIM-260 (2022?). AIM-120 is very second-tier. Meteor is still a great missile but aging fast. It doesn't have an onboard AESA and one must factor in the very outdated planes that carry it. Meteor's size is also inefficient for internal carriage. The U.S. has locked itself into 7-inch diameter AAM's for the next couple decades or more (F-35 weapon bay dimensions). Significant advances in range must thus come from improvements in the propulsion system or the propellant. PL-15 has an 8 inch diameter and carries an AESA. Just by matching U.S. in propulsion/propellant, PL-15 will maintain its greater reach (or punch [warhead size]). U.S. is playing catch-up and prospect is not that promising.

Carrying a full weapon load and flying at high Mach (thus equating to very short combat radius) describes a classic interceptor/manned missile shooter/air defense role. The HQ-9/S-400 systems are much better suited for that without risking pilot lives.

 

[silentlurker]

Launching missiles at a fighter's max speed makes no sense. There is increased drag and heat from increased friction on the missile. It is questionable if the missile's engine can overcome the increased drag (very simplistically, a missile's top speed = its drag and faster speed exacts severe range penalties)

What, you think the J-10 is flying around at Mach 5? LOL. AAM top speeds are far higher than fighter top speeds.

 

[kentchang]

Launching missiles at a fighter's max speed makes no sense. There is increased drag and heat from increased friction on the missile. It is questionable if the missile's engine can overcome the increased drag (very simplistically, a missile's top speed = its drag and faster speed exacts severe range penalties) and not to mention shockwave vibrations. Ramjets (like Meteor) can't be launched outside its designed Mach cone range. Terminal phase maneuvers are the reasons why we have dual/multi-pulse missiles coupled with a lofted trajectory for a longer reach. Assuming max speed also means using AB, why would you want to broadcast your location so loudly?

PL-15's only real competition is the forthcoming AIM-260 (2022?). AIM-120 is very second-tier. Meteor is still a great missile but aging fast. It doesn't have an onboard AESA and one must factor in the very outdated planes that carry it. Meteor's size is also inefficient for internal carriage. The U.S. has locked itself into 7-inch diameter AAM's for the next couple decades or more (F-35 weapon bay dimensions). Significant advances in range must thus come from improvements in the propulsion system or the propellant. PL-15 has an 8 inch diameter and carries an AESA. Just by matching U.S. in propulsion/propellant, PL-15 will maintain its greater reach (or punch [warhead size]). U.S. is playing catch-up and prospect is not that promising.

Carrying a full weapon load and flying at high Mach (thus equating to very short combat radius) describes a classic interceptor/manned missile shooter/air defense role. The HQ-9/S-400 systems are much better suited for that without risking pilot lives.

A missile designed to be launched at X speed does not suddenly become 2X if its carrier flies faster. More likely it will disintegrate.

If I am an X-15 pilot and got out of the cockpit at Mach 6, I will just be a human being flying at Mach 6 for one millisecond before I go to Stupid-Pilot-Heaven.