You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Would be better for the J-10s to have TVC upgrades though, alongside WS-10X or some heavily-upgraded engine for the J-10s. No point letting the Rafale having any area of its flight envelope superior to the J-10C.Woah, potentially 36 J-10C for Pakistan by end of this year.
Multiple Chinese sources also say the same thing, could be legit.
Woah, potentially 36 J-10C for Pakistan by end of this year.
Multiple Chinese sources also say the same thing, could be legit.
This seems very unlikely for 36 fighters to be delivered to a foreign customer in less than 6 month. That is probably more than the total production over 6 month.
Also delivering 36 new fighters to a brand new user basically all at once is a total waste. It will take the Pakistanis a while to become indoctrinated in the operation of the new fighter. You deliver a conversion trainer and a few airframes, get the ground crew indoctrinated, then you deliver a few more, etc. I would say a reasonable delivery time frame might be 2 years.
Unless the deal has been agreed to, and for that matter, unless the PLAAF is no longer receiving deliveries of J-10s and is moving production off to exports.This seems very unlikely for 36 fighters to be delivered to a foreign customer in less than 6 month. That is probably more than the total production over 6 month.
Also delivering 36 new fighters to a brand new user basically all at once is a total waste. It will take the Pakistanis a while to become indoctrinated in the operation of the new fighter. You deliver a conversion trainer and a few airframes, get the ground crew indoctrinated, then you deliver a few more, etc. I would say a reasonable delivery time frame might be 2 years.
It's a reasonable afterlife for the J-10: with the right upgrades, it's an immensely competitive alternative to the F-16V, sacrificing strike capabilities for dogfighting.
40 million per unit is good is comparison to 64 million or even 100 million as with Rafale and Eurofighters, and you get AESA and comparable aerodynamics to the Eurofighter, with possibly far superior high AoA/instantaneous turn rate performance.
I guess the real question is how good the J-10's STR is with upgraded engines. It seems to have anemic wing area (and hence high wing loading) but it has very good T/W at both full and combat loadings.
STR is far more complex than wing loading. If that were the case, the B-2 would have a stunning STR. I would imagine J-10's STR to be favourable when compared to the Gripen.
J-11A and Su-27SK beat Gripens in WVR. Lost in BVR (obviously you can't blame a 1980s fighter losing to a 2000s in BVR). A J-10C with PL-15 would flog early F-15, F-18, or F-16 in BVR as well. No achievement.
So from Thai exercise, we know the J-11A/Su-27SK is a mean WVR fighter with the right pilot (perhaps Thai pilots were very poor? but I doubt they're too bad). We also know that the J-10A held its own against Gripen. Whether this is WVR or BVR isn't clear but I can't imagine the J-10A or C to be much worse in overall flight characteristics. PLAAF itself says that J-10 outperform or keep up with Flanker series in WVR for Golden Helmet competitions. Of course WVR is mostly pilot ability but since we're dealing with PLAAF pilots winning Golden Helmet, I'd imagine their abilities to be comparably close so as to attribute the rest to the machine. Both fighters are neck and neck in WVR since the top dogfighter has swapped between the flanker and the J-10 many times. We also know the Flankers FLOGGED the Gripens in WVR. Do the maths.
BTW it's hilarious and pathetic how western publications use clickbait headlines claiming PLAAF lost in Thai exercises and when you read the articles they then mention PLAAF's WVR domination using Flankers and BVR being between a 1980s/1990s fighter with 1970s missiles against post 2000s Gripen and post 2000s AIM-120. As if that's some sort of achievement.
Those Thai exercises involving Gripen (a capable dogfighter) vindicate the Flanker's awesome WVR performance. That's the only take away from those exercises. Oh and 2000s electronics and sensors beat 1980s. I suppose westerners should feel good about that? lol
The difference between a ESAed and modern missile capable 4th gen fighter with an earlier 4th gen fighter, is possibly as great as that between a 5th gen and a truly modernised 4th gen.
Early 4th gens don't stand a chance n vs n against "4.5" gens. First sight, earlier positioning, better ECM and ECCM, much longer ranged missiles, better pK, equal kinematic performance, energy and payload. Non ESAed 4th gens are relegated to lower roles and number fillers. An airforce with no modernised fighters may as well be flying 3rd gens unless they can convert everything to WVR but with equal or inferior numbers, it's hopeless.
If Flanker is so much better WVR than Gripen, I think the score was like Flanker killing Gripen 30 times to 1 loss or something that dominating (yes the supposed PLAAF "loss" lol) AND the J-10 keeps up with Flanker in WVR. Then the J-10 is clearly no slouch and its STR must be competent enough to be able to keep up with one of the kings of WVR. The J-20 is said to outperform both Flanker and J-10 in supersonic domain but possibly much less so (to the Flanker) in slower speeds and altitudes. Different roles though. BVR is all about that supercruise and supersonic agility.
Su-35 nothing except Raptor touches below supersonic... except Su-57. J-10 being a poor dogfighter? lol that's very, very doubtful. Again STR isn't just wing loading.
Early 4th gens don't stand a chance n vs n against "4.5" gens. First sight, earlier positioning, better ECM and ECCM, much longer ranged missiles, better pK, equal kinematic performance, energy and payload. Non ESAed 4th gens are relegated to lower roles and number fillers. An airforce with no modernised fighters may as well be flying 3rd gens unless they can convert everything to WVR but with equal or inferior numbers, it's hopeless.
If Flanker is so much better WVR than Gripen, I think the score was like Flanker killing Gripen 30 times to 1 loss or something that dominating (yes the supposed PLAAF "loss" lol) AND the J-10 keeps up with Flanker in WVR. Then the J-10 is clearly no slouch and its STR must be competent enough to be able to keep up with one of the kings of WVR. The J-20 is said to outperform both Flanker and J-10 in supersonic domain but possibly much less so (to the Flanker) in slower speeds and altitudes. Different roles though. BVR is all about that supercruise and supersonic agility.
Su-35 nothing except Raptor touches below supersonic... except Su-57. J-10 being a poor dogfighter? lol that's very, very doubtful. Again STR isn't just wing loading.
Last edited:
STR is more complex than wing loading, it depends on lift to drag at different AoA as well as the engine thrust at both dry and max afterburner.
I'd also point out that a 4.5th gen and a 4th gen is not the same gap as a 5th gen vs a 4th gen; the definition of 4.5th gen is the AESA, not the PESA (Su-30MKIs aren't true 4.5th gens in that regard, nor are Su-35s). The AESA has significant advantages in that it provides substantial BVR advantages, but BVR missile hit rates aren't as good as you'd imagine, and what's more, BVR missiles often require datalinks until the active seeker can take over, which can be as low as 10 km vs a 0 dBsm target. Consequently, BVR fights have been described as a game of chicken.
As for whether the J-10 is actually viable WVR; here's a few issues. First, like most Chinese aircraft, the J-10 has a low wing aspect ratio, meaning that it'll create substantially more drag. Second, the J-10 does not have the fancy aerodynamic tricks (double lerx, body lift design) of the Rafale (although it's more sophisticated than Eurofighter with AMK). What equipment it does have are an anhedral segment in the main wing, which likely improves interactions with a mid-coupled canard, as well as a set of ventral strakes for high AoA authority. Third, wing area is relatively high, at between 28 m^2 and 34 m^2, for a wing loading of between 398 (at 11160 kg loaded with 60% fuel) and 328 kg/m^2.
On the other hand, if you compare the J-10 to the Rafale, the J-10 will win out in T/W ratio (with an engine at 142kn, it'd have a comparable T/W ratio to a Eurofighter).
===
Ultimately, we absolutely don't question the J-10 in terms of instantaneous turn rates. It's claimed to be capable of 30 degree / second instantaneous turns, and the canard design should indicate strong ITR performance (the further away the canard is from being close-coupled, the better control authority the canard can implement at high AoA). The question we really want to know is how well the J-10 does as a sustained performer. That seems to be its Achilles heel.
Just as a comparison point, though, the F-16C (i.e, an aerodynamically downgraded version) at 60% fuel should be sporting wing loadings of 383.6 kg / m^2. The Rafale has 287 kg / m^2 at 60% fuel and with missiles. The Eurofighter has 273 kg / m^2 at 60% fuel and with missiles. The Gripen has 351 kg / m^2 with 60% fuel and with 500 kg of missiles.
Where the J-10 comes out ahead, though, is that at 60% fuel, the J-10 has 1.29 T/W ratio. The Gripen has .95 T/W ratio. The Eurofighter has a 1.31 T/W ratio. The Rafale has only a 1.17 T/W ratio.
I'd also point out that a 4.5th gen and a 4th gen is not the same gap as a 5th gen vs a 4th gen; the definition of 4.5th gen is the AESA, not the PESA (Su-30MKIs aren't true 4.5th gens in that regard, nor are Su-35s). The AESA has significant advantages in that it provides substantial BVR advantages, but BVR missile hit rates aren't as good as you'd imagine, and what's more, BVR missiles often require datalinks until the active seeker can take over, which can be as low as 10 km vs a 0 dBsm target. Consequently, BVR fights have been described as a game of chicken.
As for whether the J-10 is actually viable WVR; here's a few issues. First, like most Chinese aircraft, the J-10 has a low wing aspect ratio, meaning that it'll create substantially more drag. Second, the J-10 does not have the fancy aerodynamic tricks (double lerx, body lift design) of the Rafale (although it's more sophisticated than Eurofighter with AMK). What equipment it does have are an anhedral segment in the main wing, which likely improves interactions with a mid-coupled canard, as well as a set of ventral strakes for high AoA authority. Third, wing area is relatively high, at between 28 m^2 and 34 m^2, for a wing loading of between 398 (at 11160 kg loaded with 60% fuel) and 328 kg/m^2.
On the other hand, if you compare the J-10 to the Rafale, the J-10 will win out in T/W ratio (with an engine at 142kn, it'd have a comparable T/W ratio to a Eurofighter).
===
Ultimately, we absolutely don't question the J-10 in terms of instantaneous turn rates. It's claimed to be capable of 30 degree / second instantaneous turns, and the canard design should indicate strong ITR performance (the further away the canard is from being close-coupled, the better control authority the canard can implement at high AoA). The question we really want to know is how well the J-10 does as a sustained performer. That seems to be its Achilles heel.
Just as a comparison point, though, the F-16C (i.e, an aerodynamically downgraded version) at 60% fuel should be sporting wing loadings of 383.6 kg / m^2. The Rafale has 287 kg / m^2 at 60% fuel and with missiles. The Eurofighter has 273 kg / m^2 at 60% fuel and with missiles. The Gripen has 351 kg / m^2 with 60% fuel and with 500 kg of missiles.
Where the J-10 comes out ahead, though, is that at 60% fuel, the J-10 has 1.29 T/W ratio. The Gripen has .95 T/W ratio. The Eurofighter has a 1.31 T/W ratio. The Rafale has only a 1.17 T/W ratio.
Last edited:
The biggest question of the J-10 being "good" as an aerodynamic design compared to the Rafale goes down to the anhedral segment of the main wing. This has a few effects. First, an anhedral wing improves roll rates (anhedral wings generate lift not directly down, but pushing toward a point below the aircraft and beneath its center. If you tilt anhedral wings, the downmost wing will begin to generate less lift force relative to gravity, causing it to fall and roll faster). Second, the anhedral wing is believed to have beneficial interactions with canards, allowing the canards to be less tilted (and thus generating more lift) or creating a higher canard-wing angle.
All of this the Rafale has by itself, because it has an anhedral-dihedral wing-canard layout to begin with.
However, and this is more speculative, could the anhedral wing segment on the J-20 act as a LERX? The anhedral wing segment of the Lavi and J-10 is unique, so it's hard to find information on such. If the anhedral wing segment generates vortices, then it has a LERX advantage vs the Eurofighter and a T/W advantage vs the Rafale.
As a final feature on the J-10C (and perhaps B), the J-10 also has a small fairing in front of its canards. I think this was chalked up to electronic warfare, but it's likely to have aerodynamic benefits similar but not identical to the Rafale's pre-canard LERX.
===
Also, as another aside, the superiority of the Rafale's aerodynamic design over the J-10 (and this is not to disparage the J-10's advantages over the Rafale in terms of T/W and radar aperture) should be obvious. The J-20's aerodynamic design is closer to the Rafale than it is to the J-10, since the J-20 has a full anhedral-dihedral wing set-up, a LERX in front of the canard and in front of the main wing, differing mainly in the use of ventral strakes, its V-tails, and its general stealth design.
All of this the Rafale has by itself, because it has an anhedral-dihedral wing-canard layout to begin with.
However, and this is more speculative, could the anhedral wing segment on the J-20 act as a LERX? The anhedral wing segment of the Lavi and J-10 is unique, so it's hard to find information on such. If the anhedral wing segment generates vortices, then it has a LERX advantage vs the Eurofighter and a T/W advantage vs the Rafale.
As a final feature on the J-10C (and perhaps B), the J-10 also has a small fairing in front of its canards. I think this was chalked up to electronic warfare, but it's likely to have aerodynamic benefits similar but not identical to the Rafale's pre-canard LERX.
===
Also, as another aside, the superiority of the Rafale's aerodynamic design over the J-10 (and this is not to disparage the J-10's advantages over the Rafale in terms of T/W and radar aperture) should be obvious. The J-20's aerodynamic design is closer to the Rafale than it is to the J-10, since the J-20 has a full anhedral-dihedral wing set-up, a LERX in front of the canard and in front of the main wing, differing mainly in the use of ventral strakes, its V-tails, and its general stealth design.
Last edited:
One other thing, regarding the Lavi, if we trust Golan's account, "Israeli contractors were [...] engaged to provide the aerodynamic and structural outlines for the J-10", in a similar way, he says, to the Ching Kuo project and Lockheed. Or, in other words, the Israelis provided the rough sketch of the J-10, but left it to the Chinese to work out the details, which matches how, apart from the mid-coupled vs close-coupled canard set-up and the semi-swept vs classical delta wing set-up, the J-10 and Lavi differ mainly in details.
In other words, instead of saying the J-10 was developed from the J-9 or that it was a simple Lavi clone, we now see more clearly how the Israelis were contracted to produce a rough outline for the J-10, and brought in many of their Lavi ideas for the J-10. Another way to put it, the Lavi can be considered the J-10's father, given its design philosophy and the Israeli inputs, while the J-9 can be considered the J-10's mother, given that the J-10 had to be born out of the body of the Chinese aerospace complex. Or in other words, we can say the Israelis had substantial design input on the J-10's outlines, or we can even say the J-10 and Rafale are distant cousins, since the Israeli aerospace complex got its start off the French, with Dassault being Jewish.
Thankfully, unlike the Russians with the WZ-10 project (Kamov did the initial designs and verification of the platform), the Israelis aren't glory-hounding the credit for the J-10.
====
Also, using certain wing measurements, I can get 39.8 m^2 on the J-10's wing area, which would put a wing loading in the 280 kg/m^2 range at 60% fuel. Currently, Wikipedia is sourcing a 33 m^2 wing area, which is rather low. @Totoro have there been any serious attempts to measure the J-10's wing area? How about from export materials for the J-10CE?
In other words, instead of saying the J-10 was developed from the J-9 or that it was a simple Lavi clone, we now see more clearly how the Israelis were contracted to produce a rough outline for the J-10, and brought in many of their Lavi ideas for the J-10. Another way to put it, the Lavi can be considered the J-10's father, given its design philosophy and the Israeli inputs, while the J-9 can be considered the J-10's mother, given that the J-10 had to be born out of the body of the Chinese aerospace complex. Or in other words, we can say the Israelis had substantial design input on the J-10's outlines, or we can even say the J-10 and Rafale are distant cousins, since the Israeli aerospace complex got its start off the French, with Dassault being Jewish.
Thankfully, unlike the Russians with the WZ-10 project (Kamov did the initial designs and verification of the platform), the Israelis aren't glory-hounding the credit for the J-10.
====
Also, using certain wing measurements, I can get 39.8 m^2 on the J-10's wing area, which would put a wing loading in the 280 kg/m^2 range at 60% fuel. Currently, Wikipedia is sourcing a 33 m^2 wing area, which is rather low. @Totoro have there been any serious attempts to measure the J-10's wing area? How about from export materials for the J-10CE?