J-10 Thread IV

I

Inst

Captain
PiSigma said:
I won't repeat myself again. The j10 is not based on the Lavi and I got evidence. So if you post more of this Lavi crab, I'll just report you for trolling .
Click to expand...
There's generally a lot of dispute as to how much design input the Israelis put into the J-10 (we know that the Israelis helped with FCS). While I was previously on the "J-10 is a J-9 derivative" line, Deino's "proof" that the J-10 is not a Lavi derivative ironically showed me that there are way too many similarities between the J-10 and the Lavi to decisively deny the link between the programs without proper proof.

I honestly don't understand why it matters, tbh. Before 2011, it might have mattered since the J-10 was the primary Chinese domestically-designed 3/4th generation fighter, after 2011, we have the J-20. Likewise, the J-10 seems to be considerably superior to the Lavi at all stages of evolution.
 
I

Inst

Captain
===

More pragmatically, though, if the Israelis DID provide substantial input on the aerodynamic design of the J-10, as opposed to merely the FCS, it has major implications for the export potential of the J-10. Since if the Israelis helped iron out the J-10 aerodynamic design, they would have had secret contracts. Part of these secret contracts might entail not transferring the aircraft or technology to the perceived enemies of Israel, or, even if there isn't, it'd be diplomatically foolish for the Chinese to bite the hand that fed them.

If such a thing is true, we have another good reason for why the J-10 platform has been having such difficulties in obtaining foreign buyers. The Iranians might be interested in the J-10 platform, but a Sino-Israeli deal might block them from actually acquiring the J-10. Given J-10 avionics advantages over comparable Russian fighters, the J-10 has been a strong alternative in the 4th generation market versus Russia and American equipment.
 
I

Inst

Captain
KampfAlwin said:
Sigh... If you guys want to settle this argument, then provide concrete evidence for your points...
Click to expand...
You really can't prove it either way, unless the Chinese or Israelis come forward with evidence that the Israelis designed the J-10.

On the other hand, we have two aircraft that are substantially similar (although definitely not identical) except that the Chinese aircraft is a classical delta, while the Israeli aircraft is a swept-delta hybrid (noticeably, the elevons on the Israeli delta are likely to interact with the fins due to the design). There's also the difference in terms of canard coupling, and the Chinese claim their mid-coupled canard provides better high AoA (read: instantaneous turn rate) performance than the Israeli close-coupled canard.

Reasonable people will admit that the J-10 and Lavi have sufficient similarity so that Israeli aerodynamic design input can be considered, but that there's no proof that the Israelis provided input beyond the FCS work. On the other hand, the Lavi died, the J-10 lived, and the J-10 is a good performer.
 
I

Inst

Captain
For all canard fighters:

J-10

Eurofighter
Canard difference (mid vs long-coupled), presence of ventral strakes on J-10, anhedral wing segment, number of engines

Rafale
Canard difference (close vs mid-coupled), presence of ventral strakes on J-10, presence of LERX on Rafale, number of engines, anhedral wing segment (although the Rafale can be considered to have anhedral dihedral wing-canards due to the entire wing being anhedral)

Gripen
Position of inlets, presence of ventral strakes on J-10, position of engine inlets (side on Gripen), anhedral wing segment

Lavi
Canard difference (very close vs mid-coupled), wing shape (the Lavi likely tried to use a semi-swept quasi-delta to gain high AoA authority deltas usually failed at to compensate for the very close canard coupling)

Eurofighter

Rafale
Presence of LERX on Rafale, canard position (close vs long)

Gripen
Canard position (long vs mid), intake position (side vs underbelly), number of engines

Lavi
Canard position (long vs very close), wing shape, number of engines, ventral strakes, anhedral wing segment, wing shape

Rafale

Gripen

Presence of LERX on Rafale, canard position (close vs mid), intake position, number of engines

Lavi

Presence of LERX on Rafale, canard position (close vs very close), number of engines, presence of anhedral wing segment, wing shape

Gripen

Lavi

Canard position (very close vs mid), position of inlets, presence of anhedral wing segment, wing shape, ventral strakes

Of the four fighters, two fighters are extremely close to each other.

When it comes to the Rafale vs the Eurofighter, the Rafale differs mainly in the presence of LERX on Rafale as well as the position of the canards. In the case of the Rafale vs the Eurofighter, we know that the French were part of the Eurofighter consortium before splitting off due to their desire to use the French engines instead of the British engines on the fighter. The French engines were distinctly underpowered, which led to the differences in Rafale design. Moreover, if we look at the initial Eurofighter design, which had AMK-like LERX and strakes, the difference between the Rafale and the Eurofighter is further lessened.

The other pair of similar fighters are the J-10 and the Lavi. The primary differences are that the Lavi has very closely placed canards, while simultaneously using a quasi-swept wing or a swept delta to regain high-AOA performance.

Note that the Lavi J-10 pair are significantly different from all other fighters in the 4th generation canard family. Therefore it is reasonable to suspect, but not conclude, that the Israelis had design input on the J-10's aerodynamics. We simply can't prove it unless someone leaks documents at this point.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Is there any evidence that the J-10 will be further developed? Currently, Chengdu seems more busy with work on the J-20, but it'd be interesting to see if the J-10 were further developed for export markets.

The Pakistanis, for instance, would most likely highly appreciate a J-10 equipped with TVC as a counter for an Indian Rafale. A high-thrust engine (138-145 kN class) will likely provide superlative sustained turn rates (the J-10 is around 11000 kg at 60% fuel, putting it already at 1.16 T/W with only Al-31s), while TVC will guarantee strong instantaneous turn rates.

Moreover, versus the Rafale, while the Rafale is capable of 0.01m^2 RCS clean, it's notable for its rather crippled radome, being optimized for the dogfight. The J-10B, on the other hand, has at least an F-16-sized radome, and quite possibly an F-35-sized radome, allowing it to see enemy targets earlier and destroy them earlier.


====

While TVC is not a "crucial" feature of a plane, especially since dogfights are dead and TVC adds very little to the sustained turn rate of a fighter, it can be a major selling point for export buyers whose air forces might prefer the fancy airshow maneuvers of a TVC fighter alongside the dogfighting advantages it might add to a 4th generation fighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top