Unlikely.
J-10 is a low cost, single engine fighter with Canards and delta wing.
What would TVC give J-10 other than higher costs of acquisition, maintenance for slightly better WVR performance?
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
J-10 is a low cost, single engine fighter with Canards and delta wing.
What would TVC give J-10 other than higher costs of acquisition, maintenance for slightly better WVR performance?
Why not, you can clearly see these J-10Cs standing wrapped like Christmas present on the tarmac. Not sure, what's to question?
And also I've seen one of those J-20As for Anshan. As such; YES, I thrust this report.
It's legit:
Just look at their database and ORBATs. It's a decent subscription based magazine, with its own community.
I'm just scanning some of their intel, I'm kinda impressed:
That ORBAT viewer is the best open source tool I've seen to quickly check which bases have which squadrons stationed, in any country. The UI is so nice.
Last edited:
There's no picture of the CAC tarmac in 2021, and even if the report is accurate there's no indication that the J-10s in the posted picture are the same ones allegedly there now.
So tvc is super expensive?
Its not astronomical on its own. But jet engines like these do not really benefit much from economy of scale. So if you order several hundred engines, the increase in cost for the overall purchase is quite high.The increased complexity of TVC adds to the cost over so many units who benefit little from economy of scale will significantly add to the cost.
The increased complexity of TVC means more advanced materials, engineering techniques and equipment required to manufacture. The increase complexity also carries over to maintainence. Acquisition of the complex and therefore expensive spare parts, providing further training to maintenance crews, acquiring more specialised maintenance equipment and having more things to maintain more frequently on an aircraft, all would contribute to a significantly increased cost to acquire and operate.
You know how cookers and other kitchen appliances nowadays don't last as long as they used to? A big part is because we are integrating complex computer chips and electronic components in it. In the same way, you would not leave a laptop on a tablet on an electric cooker, these electronics and other complex parts do not like being exposed to extreme temperature conditions. And eventually will break. TVC adds significant electronic, mechanical and engineering complexities to the back of a jet engine and many parts of this extremely complex TVC nozzle is in direct contact with white hot exhaust gasses. So to make such complex TVC nozzles and other related mechanisms durable and survivable despite the extremely harsh conditions, they must all be made of very advanced and expensive materials and manufacturing processes. Normal aerospace grade titanium probably wont do. All adds to the cost.
Last edited:
Plus unless you use it much, it is dead weight. Perhaps it can replace the canards.
General rule of thumb in aviation is that the more moving parts there are, the higher the cost of production, installation, and maintenance. Throwing on TVC engines isn't just a matter of strapping it onto the end of a plane, other systems (flight controls, flight envelope protection, FADEC.... etc) will have to be recalibrated/redeveloped for TVC. On top of that pilots will have to be trained/re-trained on the usage and tactics TVC offers in the dogfight. The increase of moving parts and complexity will also increase maintenance downtime, which then hinders the serviceability of aircraft to the combat air force.
As @Xsizor mentioned, TVC in a nutshell improves the WVR performance of a plane. With that said unless a pilot loses situational awareness, the modern day air skirmish will almost certainly be BVR... And the J-10C armed with AESA+IRST as well as PL-15s makes it more than a formidable BVR platform. Even if the J-10 ever found itself in a rare visual merge with the opposing force, its canard and delta wing design should give the J-10 favorable turn performance to gun down the enemy or shoot them down with high off-boresight PL-10s in a WVR engagement. Of course TVC would add to the J-10C's WVR capability, but it'd almost be overkill. As an English teacher of mine once told me, "why use a $100 dollar word when a $5 dollar word does the job?" - I believe the same analogy can be drawn here... Especially if TVC were to be used across the PLAAF/PLAN's inventory of 200-300+ J-10Cs. Its important to bear in mind that the J-10 is being marketed as a low cost easy-to-maintain single engine fighter.
Last edited:
...likely evolving into the merge, if sides are somewhat equal. Which is why, say, a2a-configured J-10 tends to carry 2/4+2 when 4/6+0 is perfectly possible, and BVR missiles are useful enough in WVR to begin with.
Range and decisiveness of BVR engagement should not be overestimated, even with larger missiles. Even NEZ figures are boldly ... overblown/optimistic(or, to be precise, their name=/=their meaning).
There is one fairly reliable indicator of BVR/WVR ratio in actual tactics: fighters themselves(J-10 itself is one of brighter examples, btw).
All modern fighters are designed to excel at BCMs, often at the expense of BVR-related specs. And it's actually the older platforms(those not far from outright bvr-leaning 3rd gen) which tend to invest more into BVR specs. And vice-versa.
Out of whole 4th gen, only 3(!) platforms distinctively went for BVR over WVR. Out of those 3, 2 are already history, and 3rd one is a pure interceptor (BVR fighter development was dropped decades ago).
Sure, part of it can be attributed to the paradigm shift (payloads over platforms; networking), but only part.
The same is true even for the 5th gen, which is supposed to avoid WVR combat. Supposed, true, but planes tell another story.