Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Any comment on this interpretation of the dorsal spine of J10 D
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I’m pretty sure one of the findings from wind tunnel and computer modelling is that CFTs had a disproportionately large negative impact on the J10 due to them interfering with the canard produced vortexes, thereby nullifying much of the aerodynamic benefits of the canard delta design.
Personally, I would be very surprised to see CFTs on J10s for that reason.
Personally, I would be very surprised to see CFTs on J10s for that reason.
The engine is AL-31, so that's wrong off the bat.
IMHO it´s a testbed for a twin seater variant, albeit trainer o specialized combat model. There is not a J-10B/C twin seater yet and J-10S is an truly different plane.
Regards
Last edited:
But then there's zero reason to compromise on the J-10 aerodynamics with the addition of spine unless it's for the importantly needed range for the platform.
The J-10 platform is honestly at a very awkward stage at this point for the PLAAF because of the range. If you look at the usual training runs at the taiwan strait you'd notice that the PLA almost never brings its J-10s, instead usually opting for the flankers (even older flankers like Su-30 and J-11B is more preferable than J-10) in tandem with AWACS and sometimes bombers. Because of the range limitation, compromises in other sections is currently made anyway. Having to keep bringing at least 2 fuel tanks, which is inevitably impacting its aerodynamics too, and with the already limited hardpoints of the plane, imo the J-10 as a platform is just no longer good enough for the PLA in the near future and thus an upgrade to its fuel capacity is in dire need.
So here's my 2 scenarios on what the spine addition supposed to do for the J-10:
If it's for the possibility of a CFT or even somehow an increase in internal fuel capacity, thus simultaneously increases its effective hardpoints that can be used, then the platform gets the needed upgrade and will keep being used by the PLAAF well into the future. I'd also guess that they also managed to figure out the most optimal aerodynamics configuration to warrant such an upgrade.
However, if this spine addition does not add the fuel capacity of the plane (perhaps like others said earlier it's only an EW upgrade, etc.), then I think the J-10 is now positioned similar to the F-16E/F upgrade, which is only an export-oriented platform used to expand China's geopolitical influence. It makes sense timing-wise as now there's a void that's left by russia and NATO that are currently busy replenishing its own needs for the war in ukraine, The J-10D can competitively match against other 4.5 fighter jets like -16E/F and the rafale for the international customers. On the other hand, this would mark the beginning of the end of the J-10's usage and production for the PLA, as the coming prevalence of UCAV, production ramping up for the J-20 and J-20S for CAC, clear advantages of heavyweight platforms like the flankers, and more emphasis for China's military to function and exert itself beyond just within our own territories, the J-10 imo no longer has a function that it can do better nor cheaper than other platforms.
At this point J-10's biggest advantage in the PLAAF roster is its operational cost. Good enough to replace J7/J8 (PLAAF still operates 300+ of those) in fighter/interceptor role. Cheap to operate during peacetime and during wartime you don't put all your combat aircraft on offense anyway. It will continue to have a place in the PLAAF for decades to come unless someone manages to invent truly low maintenance stealth. I see J-10, F-16 and Gripen as the B-52s of fighter aircraft. I don't count UCAV as viable replacement for J-10s as remotely controlled UCAV are too liable to EW and large scale deployment of autonomous AI controlled combat aircraft for missions over one's own territory is just too politically unattractive.
As for J-10D, none of the Eurocanards have received conformal tanks (I know there were tests but I can't find any record of conformal tanks in active service). That and the CAC designer interview provide pretty convincing evidence that conformal tanks and canards are incompatible.
And yeah it's exciting to see J-10 finally at a position to shine in the export market.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Only people who base their assessments on pictures think the J10 has a range problem. It doesn’t and the only reason that people think that is because the PLAAF seems to love releasing photos of J10s with dual drop tanks.
Out in the wild, J10s usually go on training flights without any drop tanks.
The avionics spine shouldn’t compromise much in the way of aerodynamic performance. It’s over-wing CFTs that would be a major issue.
On Taiwan patrols, range again isn’t the issue since J10s have participated in those patrols before.
Personally I think the PLA just prefer to send twin engine fighters on such patrols for the extra safety margin the second engine gives in case of engine failure. It’s the same reason navies prefer twin engine fighters in general.
These patrols are large scale and routine, meaning it’s mathematically inevitable that at some point a plane on such a patrol will develop engine issues. When that happens, it’s infinitely preferable to have twin engine fighters so the fighter still has a very good chance of being able to return to base rather than ditch in the sea and cause an embarrassing incident.
I mean the J-10’s internal range isn’t amazing by any account, but it is more than adequate for what it does. Sometimes people seem to think that it basically can’t get anything done without external fuel tanks
Replacing those old J7/J8 does not mean that the PLA have to replace them with the same light-medium class fighter jet. Back then sure, China's pretty cash-strapped, its industry was pretty under-developed, and the defence spending as a percentage to economy was already quite high too. However, such context is not only no longer applicable, it is actually already the complete opposite (strong economy, more developed industry, low defence spending as GDP% leaving a lot of room to easily grow). Sure, using heavy fighters will be more costly, but really compared to the capability and flexibility (not constrained by range so doesn't need to keep playing defence all the time) it offer, and because now we can afford it, it just seems no brainer to me that the end of J-10, at least for domestic use and ofc unless this new J-10D is able to fix some of its problems, is coming pretty soon.
Besides, I really doubt that operating J-10 is significantly more expensive than operating the flankers in practice. The stereotype of russian designs are to be cheap and easy to maintain, afterall. Then there's also the matter of those fuel tanks, when the time comes that these J-10 are put into combat, you'd have to assume that to maximize the capability of the aircrafts, the J-10 pilots will keep throwing away these fuel tanks, or they will need to be refueled mid-flight by aerial refueling aircraft more frequently, so that would be an extra operational cost that heavyweight fighters won't constantly face. PLA's procurement so far also to me doesn't seem to indicate that cost is something that they need to worry about. If that's the case, the PLA's procurement would be more a kin to that of the russian military, and things like the J-20 would suffer a similar fate to the Su-57, stuck in an uncertain low order limbo for years.
There is no official range of J-10 that I know of, but nevertheless physical constraints exist and it should be comparable to other medium fighter jets, like say the F-16. If the typical assumption that China's jet engines still have worse dry thrust than its western counterparts, it could even be worse in term of the ferry range. To me, that's just a glaring issues and if you think that the J-10 can't expand its fuel capacity, then as I've said this platform serves zero purpose, and it's time for China to transition into having a lot more long range fighter jets, a kin to the US and Russia. Hell, thinking about my post earlier about cost constraints in using heavyweight fighters, if the cash-strapped Russia is able to operate almost solely on heavyweight flankers, why can't the PLA???
On your point about taiwan patrols, I do know that J-10 did participate in it, but we don't really know whether they're able to do that without fuel tanks and without IAR or vice versa, as the only info about such exercises usually come from taiwan's "MOFA" on twitter with just arrows on their supposed flight path. Your point about the rarity of such occasions, being the safety net from having a two-engine aircraft, is it not just another benefit of a long list of benefits that heavyweight fighters like the flankers have over the J-10? Like I'm gonna ask you at this point, what's the point of J-10 then with all these aforementioned constraints? No, cost isn't an excuse as even the russian is able to afford those flankers. Because honestly, just throwing my guess here, I expect the production rate of J-10 to peak around 2025, and going down somewhat fast into a complete stop (for domestic use, make the J-10 into an export-oriented platform like the F-16 nowadays and let CAC focus on 5th gen, and prepare/develop the next gen) at early 2030s, as the drawbacks are just too much compared to J-16 or even the mythical J-11D.