J-10 Thread IV

[plawolf]

If I'm not mistaken, you just reiterated the fact that it merely took two years for the Su-30MKI to go from prototype to production (November 2000 to 2002). The J-10B, on the other hand, took seven years.

Firstly, you are moving the goal post. That's two years to get the first prototypes delivered after first flight, not inducted as you originally claimed, which is an entirely different thing.

The first batch of MKIs were just pre-production prototypes or at best LRIP birds, which was pretty much the same as the J10B/Cs getting sent to CFTC for testing and evaluation years ago.

You are comparing the time from first flight to delivery for air force flight testing and evaluation of the MKI to first flight to induction of the J10B/C. That is comparing apples to oranges.

Secondly, the MKIs were delivered in small batches of 10 or so, whereas there are what, 75 J10B/Cs flying now? That's at least two full years' worth of production time to build that many.

If CAC were to deliver in MKI like small batches, they could have started deliveries about 2 years ago.

Granted, the newer J-10C variant seems to be moving at a much quicker pace, having made its maiden flight in December 2013 and with over 20 units built merely 2 years later.

Having reviewed the information available, I think that the J10B and C are indeed distinct, different programmes.

The J10B was the original evolutionary advancement of the J10A, to include all the new toys like DSI, AESA, IRST and better avionics etc.

To help speed up development of the J20 programme, I think CAC used J10s as avionics test beds for J20 avionics, radar (obviously a smaller version of it, but would be beneficial for proof-of-concept testing and software development) and subsystems.

At some point, CAC and/or the PLAAF realized that they could probably tidy up the J20 avionics testing J10 and get a better plane than the J10B they were originally developing, and that is where the J10C came from.

The fact that they accumulated so many J10B/Cs before delivery would support this hypothesis, as its unusual even for the PLAAF to accumulate such a huge delivery of planes and take delivery in one go rather than spread over a longer time in smaller batches.

 

[antiterror13]

75 advanced fighters like J-10B/C is a dream for any nation ... in fact, not many nations have more than 75 very advanced AESA fighters. And China get it in less than 2 years ... real amazing achievement

 

[asif iqbal]

"Amazing"? It's downright pathetic; it took merely two years for Sukhoi/HAL to induct the Su-30MKI.

It take it you have not seen time line for Typhoon and Rafale

Also you realise Su30 deal with India was ToT which is vastly different to building your own from scratch

J10B/C rate cannot be compared to a ToT project rate

And yes it's not amazing it's outstanding !

 

[SinoSoldier]

Firstly, you are moving the goal post. That's two years to get the first prototypes delivered after first flight, not inducted as you originally claimed, which is an entirely different thing.

The first batch of MKIs were just pre-production prototypes or at best LRIP birds, which was pretty much the same as the J10B/Cs getting sent to CFTC for testing and evaluation years ago.

You are comparing the time from first flight to delivery for air force flight testing and evaluation of the MKI to first flight to induction of the J10B/C. That is comparing apples to oranges.

Secondly, the MKIs were delivered in small batches of 10 or so, whereas there are what, 75 J10B/Cs flying now? That's at least two full years' worth of production time to build that many.

If CAC were to deliver in MKI like small batches, they could have started deliveries about 2 years ago.



Having reviewed the information available, I think that the J10B and C are indeed distinct, different programmes.

The J10B was the original evolutionary advancement of the J10A, to include all the new toys like DSI, AESA, IRST and better avionics etc.

To help speed up development of the J20 programme, I think CAC used J10s as avionics test beds for J20 avionics, radar (obviously a smaller version of it, but would be beneficial for proof-of-concept testing and software development) and subsystems.

At some point, CAC and/or the PLAAF realized that they could probably tidy up the J20 avionics testing J10 and get a better plane than the J10B they were originally developing, and that is where the J10C came from.

The fact that they accumulated so many J10B/Cs before delivery would support this hypothesis, as its unusual even for the PLAAF to accumulate such a huge delivery of planes and take delivery in one go rather than spread over a longer time in smaller batches.

You're right. Induction of the MKI took place in 2004, four years after the prototype's first flight, and eight years after initial orders were placed. If we are to take numbers into account, then I guess the J-10B does have a relatively impressive timeframe; I stand corrected.

Regarding your second point, the J-10C would've been late if it were a testbed for the J-20's avionics; the AESA-equipped #2002 prototype was built years before the J-10C was.

 

[SinoSoldier]

It take it you have not seen time line for Typhoon and Rafale

Also you realise Su30 deal with India was ToT which is vastly different to building your own from scratch

J10B/C rate cannot be compared to a ToT project rate

And yes it's not amazing it's outstanding !

My post was highlighting the fact that it took so long for a J-10 variant to enter mass production, I guess.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

What is of significance is that J10 is the first chinese fighter aircraft of some substance.

Even though it may have received an input from many a different sources---but to develop this aircraft as well as integrate it into the air force and to write an operational manual right from the scratch is simply an amazing feat in itself---.

Just look at the aircraft---it has dedicated IRST---the radar on the C is light years ahead of the one on the A---which was what---only 6 years back.

So---where would that put the J10C in comparison with a Blk52 with aesa or a BLK60.

Then to make matters more interesting---it will be looking at the Pl15 in the near future than the SD10 and then a High off bore sight capability as well.

The very important thing is---how do you keep the pilots up to date with so many changes occuring between the blocks---and how do you develop and integrate the aircraft at such a fast pace into the system---and that also your frontline aircraft as well---.

I think integration of the aircraft into the air force and the operational manual is the most important thing---so how do you train your pilots to be one hundred percent proficient---because you cannot squeeze time---.

The technology will have to stop somewhere for the pilot to catch up. I think that you still need upwards of 500 hours on an aircraft to start getting to know it----.

I hope some air force guys over here can share some input---.

A long time ago---I read somewhere that integration is the most lengthy part of the process for a new aircraft---and those of you who have followed the JF17 program----know how long it has taken this small aircraft to be integrated and the process still continues---.

To me---it seems like that china knows it is way behind---and it is building aircraft at a really fast pace and the pilots are going to learn on the go----.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Hi,

What is of significance is that J10 is the first chinese fighter aircraft of some substance.

Even though it may have received an input from many a different sources---but to develop this aircraft as well as integrate it into the air force and to write an operational manual right from the scratch is simply an amazing feat in itself---.

Just look at the aircraft---it has dedicated IRST---the radar on the C is light years ahead of the one on the A---which was what---only 6 years back.

So---where would that put the J10C in comparison with a Blk52 with aesa or a BLK60.

Unfortunately, all that you've said would've suited perfectly if the J-10C had entered service years ago. The J-10C no longer stands out within the ranks of the Chinese or international fighter lineup, especially when taking into account advanced Flanker variants such as the J-16, J-15S, and J-11D. The J-10C will now have to face comparable aircraft emerging in international theaters, such as the Rafale (ordered by the IAF) and the Typhoon (operated in the ME). The J-10B/C represented the zenith of PLAAF technology but unfortunately lost much of its luster.

Then to make matters more interesting---it will be looking at the Pl15 in the near future than the SD10 and then a High off bore sight capability as well.

The very important thing is---how do you keep the pilots up to date with so many changes occuring between the blocks---and how do you develop and integrate the aircraft at such a fast pace into the system---and that also your frontline aircraft as well---.

I think integration of the aircraft into the air force and the operational manual is the most important thing---so how do you train your pilots to be one hundred percent proficient---because you cannot squeeze time---.

The technology will have to stop somewhere for the pilot to catch up. I think that you still need upwards of 500 hours on an aircraft to start getting to know it----.

I hope some air force guys over here can share some input---.

A long time ago---I read somewhere that integration is the most lengthy part of the process for a new aircraft---and those of you who have followed the JF17 program----know how long it has taken this small aircraft to be integrated and the process still continues---.

To me---it seems like that china knows it is way behind---and it is building aircraft at a really fast pace and the pilots are going to learn on the go----.

What suggests that PLAAF pilots are learning "on the go"? I would presume that, with any acquisition of aircraft, comes an intensive regimen of pilot selection and training that extends far before any aircraft induction actually takes place. We've seen this happen with the development of the J-15, during which pilot training and validation was closely coupled with the technical side of the program. The Chinese are indeed building a lot of combat aircraft, but with those kind of resources to support such a technical endeavor, there isn't a reason to doubt that the same financial backing exists for pilot training and familiarization.

 

[Blitzo]

Unfortunately, all that you've said would've suited perfectly if the J-10C had entered service years ago. The J-10C no longer stands out within the ranks of the Chinese or international fighter lineup, especially when taking into account advanced Flanker variants such as the J-16, J-15S, and J-11D. The J-10C will now have to face comparable aircraft emerging in international theaters, such as the Rafale (ordered by the IAF) and the Typhoon (operated in the ME). The J-10B/C represented the zenith of PLAAF technology but unfortunately lost much of its luster.

None of what you said invalidates what he said.

J-10B/C was still the first Chinese aircraft to operationally field an AESA (or ESA depending on which rumour one believes) radar, and the newest SAC flankers are better considered to have "caught up" to certain technological standards that the J-10B/C would have first demonstrated.

And despite the prevalence of additional advanced 4th generation aircraft in the form of new variant Eurocanards or upgraded F-16s, I'd argue that even if J-10B/C entered service a year or two earlier, the overall impact on the strategic balance of airpower for China going into the late 2010s will not be too different compared to how it is now, especially if accelerating J-10B/C development may have delayed the development of J-20.

 

[Blitzo]

Then to make matters more interesting---it will be looking at the Pl15 in the near future than the SD10 and then a High off bore sight capability as well.

The very important thing is---how do you keep the pilots up to date with so many changes occuring between the blocks---and how do you develop and integrate the aircraft at such a fast pace into the system---and that also your frontline aircraft as well---.

I think integration of the aircraft into the air force and the operational manual is the most important thing---so how do you train your pilots to be one hundred percent proficient---because you cannot squeeze time---.

The technology will have to stop somewhere for the pilot to catch up. I think that you still need upwards of 500 hours on an aircraft to start getting to know it----.

I hope some air force guys over here can share some input---.

A long time ago---I read somewhere that integration is the most lengthy part of the process for a new aircraft---and those of you who have followed the JF17 program----know how long it has taken this small aircraft to be integrated and the process still continues---.

To me---it seems like that china knows it is way behind---and it is building aircraft at a really fast pace and the pilots are going to learn on the go----.

The Chinese Air Force, its suppliers, and its various testing organizations have had quite a few decades to learn the process of beginning from designing an aircraft to integrating various systems and finally developing tactics and doctrine for operational units.

The current aircraft progammes we see (not only fighters, but also bomber, transport, AEW&C), are the result of decades of experience in having the various organizations and companies work together. The Chinese Air Force and the Chinese aerospace industry is not new to this. For all the criticism of the Chinese Air Force's cold war need to copy soviet designs, it did mean they had to learn a lot of processes themselves in designing and validating new aircraft with new systems. And as they progressed to new designs such as JH-7 and J-10, they had to further tackle more steadily more complicated projects. So the development and integration of subsystems into new J-10 variants and new Flankers variants probably isn't as new to the Air Force or the industry as you describe.

In the case of JF-17, the long process of integrating weapons to the aircraft is probably more to do with the Pakistan Air Force's willingness to pay for integration of various weapons and to purchase them.
Similarly, the relative lack of a large variety of PGMs for Chinese Air Force multirole aircraft and strike aircraft is probably more to do with the fact that the Air Force has not committed itself to significant buys of unpowered PGMs, rather than any supposed inability of companies or integration capabilities in doing so. For instance, other more vital weapons such as AShMs, LACMs, and of course various AAMs over the years have all been integrated presumably successfully... across a range of aircraft. Not to mention all the mission avionics across a range of different aircraft as well.

Training pilots for new aircraft is not new to the Chinese Air Force either... developing tactics and doctrine for pilots is something every Air Force has to do when it introduces a new type of aircraft, and is always something they have to learn "on the go".

 

[plawolf]

You're right. Induction of the MKI took place in 2004, four years after the prototype's first flight, and eight years after initial orders were placed. If we are to take numbers into account, then I guess the J-10B does have a relatively impressive timeframe; I stand corrected.

We all make mistakes, that's being human and there is nothing to be ashamed about that. It takes character to hold your hand up to admit when you made a mistake, and that is the true measure of someone. So respects to you for that.

Regarding your second point, the J-10C would've been late if it were a testbed for the J-20's avionics; the AESA-equipped #2002 prototype was built years before the J-10C was.

As I said, I think CAC used J10s as avionics testbeds for J20 subsystems. If that was the case, they would probably have started years before the first J20 prototype was even built.

The benefit of using an existing, mature design as a testbed is that you can control the variables. So rather than have, say 100 new pieces of tech and software in one new airframe, you test one piece of new tech on an existing airframe at a time and the gradually replace more and more of the original systems as they are cleared by individual tests for integration trials.

This means you don't have to monitor so many potential points of failure all at the same time, and when something does go wrong, as it invariably happens, you can more easily identify where the problem is, and since its only one piece of new tech, the fault is almost certainly not going to result in a major incident.

It also means testing could be carried out in parallel on any number of sub-systems. The only limiting factor would be your budget. That should greatly speed up development, as a problem with one sub system or component should not hold up testing of others.

For all intents and purposes, such testing airframes would be near impossible to identify externally.

As I said, I think the J10C is the amalgamation of all that work on the J20. That could only happen once all the J20 sub systems had been tested and certified.

To sum up, I think CAC has been doing J20 avionics and sub systems testing using J10s for years before the J20 first flew (which would have brought the J20 first flight forwards by years maybe, and made subsequent testing easier and safer). Its only after all the individual subsystems had been tested and cleared that they brought it all together for integration trials and testing on the J20s.

The J10C first spotted in 2013 would have been after all or most of the testing had been completed and CAC decided to bring all the various pieces of work done of the J10 testbeds together to make a J10 with J20 level of radar and avionics.

In effect, we are only seeing the end product of years of hard work, so we need to be careful about taking the first date something was first spotted as the first date the program actually started.