New J-10 thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Indianfighter

Junior Member
yeah, reading the article, it was just full of errors. I'm not even sure which of the points is correct, probably none. But it does look like the Iranians are getting JF-17s.
Yes its likely that Iran is getting JF-17 and not J-10, because of the latter's Israeli origin. In fact the states bordering Israel are not likely to purchase J-10 at all. It will have a market in states away from Israel like Pakistan, Indonesia and some African states.
 

IceCold

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Yes its likely that Iran is getting JF-17 and not J-10, because of the latter's Israeli origin. In fact the states bordering Israel are not likely to purchase J-10 at all. It will have a market in states away from Israel like Pakistan, Indonesia and some African states.

What difference does that make what origin the plane belongs too? Iran has already being using F-14 of the US origin. Besides chinese have already denyed any israeli involvement in the project, so IMO i dont think so it makes any difference for Iran if they choose to go for J-10.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Mockup battle held by sinlge airforce with own indegenios plane vs. exported one...not exactly the most realible test I would say. Actually its plain ridicilous for chinese side to say the Su-30MKK would have beaten their own brand new j-10, its bad for buisness.

I'm not denying that J-10 couldn't beat Su-30MKKs, only that the reports form chinese mockup battles doesen't withstand the daylight when you need to be 100% certain, completely objective and without any biases and doupts. I wouldn't bet my money on j-10 simply based on these "reports"

If you really wish to determine which one is better, you need inpartial situation where two independent institutions uses only one plane...eg a war...

well, there has a lot been said about the relevance of these exercises in the past, so I won't bother repeating those points on why J-10 is superior in A2A. That's not dissing MKK, at the time it was bought, it gave China the precision strike capability that it never had before. If you notice, China did not spend time trying to make MKK perfect, but rather just giving it a good multi-role platform that can engage multiple concurrent targets and also do precision strikes. I've given MKK a lot of hard time, but it was definitely a necessary purchase at the time.

It's also interesting, one of the "big shrimps" on Chinese bbs was mentioning some of his conversations with his pilot friends from plaaf regarding J-10. in the early 2000s (I guess 2002-3?), most of them didn't think much of the plane. But a couple of years later, they all retracted their statements and were full of praise for the plane.
 

coolieno99

Junior Member
Reposting from another forum. It's my opinion why the J-10 is not based on the Lavi. I believe the J-9 is the forerunner of the J-10::coffee:

Chengdu J-9
j9gh2.jpg


J-9: The J-9 project ran in parallel with the J-8 project but used a completely new airframe. The design target maximum speed was Mach 2.4 at above 20,000 metres altitude. In order to achieve this target the J-9 was fitted with an 8,500kg thrust turbojet engine and the 601 Institute initially used a tailless delta design. Development at this point shifted to the newly built 611 Institute and the Chengdu Aircraft Factory. At the beginning of the 1970s, the 611 Institute proposed a new design using a canard ahead of the delta wing (not dissimilar to the Swedish Viggen), but because it required new materials and know-how plus engine performance problems it wasn't until 1975 before the design could be completed. The new J-9 design was quite advanced with air intakes on the fuselage sides featuring variable inlet geometry to alter the compression mixture. It used a 12,400 kg wet thrust turbofan engine and featured a Type 205 radar (search range about 70km) and four PL-4 radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The J-9 plan was discontinued in 1980. However, the effort was not totally wasted as the J-9 development enabled Chinese engineers to gain experience with the canard layout type, experience that would prove useful in the J-10 project.
Source: china-defense.com

... According to some sources, the design of China's Chengdu J-10 fighter was influenced by the Lavi, with Israeli cooperation. However, the designer of the J-10, Song Wencong, has denied any connection whatsoever with Lavi program, pointing to similarities with the J-9, which predates the Lavi.
Source: wikipedia.org

apparently the J-9 predates the Lavi by at least 5 years.
... The Lavi project began in February 1980, when the Israeli government authorized the IAF to present it with a list of technical specifications for the development of the IAF's future fighter. The development stage began in October 1982, with the choice of a Pratt & Whitney engine already having been made.
Source: wikipedia.org
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
many photos of J-10s in the factory, it looks like one is a twin-seater and the other is single.
 

Attachments

  • FactoryAssembly-Oct26-2.jpeg
    FactoryAssembly-Oct26-2.jpeg
    144.1 KB · Views: 129
  • FactoryAssembly-Oct26-4.jpeg
    FactoryAssembly-Oct26-4.jpeg
    142.3 KB · Views: 103
  • FactoryAssembly-Oct26-5.jpeg
    FactoryAssembly-Oct26-5.jpeg
    124 KB · Views: 102
  • FactoryAssembly-Oct26-6.jpeg
    FactoryAssembly-Oct26-6.jpeg
    140.4 KB · Views: 68
  • FactoryAssembly-Oct26-8.jpeg
    FactoryAssembly-Oct26-8.jpeg
    100.1 KB · Views: 125

SteelBird

Colonel
The three steel bars between the fuselage and air-intake look odd to me. What are they used for? Or the air-intake is not strong enough to support itself?
 

AmiGanguli

Junior Member
C'mon guys. You can't really believe those are for structural support. The plane is metal.

In fact Croboto answered this question earlier in the thread:

The F-16 and the Lavi uses a circular intake, resulting
in a greater separation between the nose and the upper part of the intake and don't need these beams. These beams are also needed on planes with side mounted square intakes that are relatively close to the body. For example, both the J-8II and the JH-7 have them. I bet you the Phantom and the MiG-23 would have them too. The beams are there to counter the pressure that builds up between the intake and the fuselage, strengthening the intake against the pressure, while at the same time, diffusing the flow outward to relieve the pressure.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top