New J-10 thread II

[unknauthr]

Night Vision Goggles?

Why would you need night vision for an air superiority fighter? Plus, are NVG's lighter than HMS?

Historically speaking, night vision goggles have typically been relatively heavy. They also shift the helmet's CG too far forward to engage in any heavy, air-to-air maneuvering. That's why all of the early helmet mounted sights to enter operational service (as opposed to the laboratory test specimens) incorporated a sight - but no display. It took nearly a decade for the helmet-mounted display technology to catch up to the point where even simple, HUD-type symbology could be reliably projected onto a helmet visor without exceeding weight and CG limits for air combat.

If this really is an example of a helmet, fitted for night vision goggles, then it merely confirms that the J-10 was always intended to be a more multirole platform than what some analysts have portrayed. This would make the J-10 much more analogous to the American F-16 - which was originally designed for the air combat role, but which has primarily carried out air-to-ground missions during actual, wartime usage.

I would anticipate that, much like the Eurofighter Typhoon, the J-10 was cleared for its air-to-air weapons compliment first - since both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions will require at least a minimal self-defense capability. All of the basic air-to-air sensors and weapons would have been needed in either capacity. The integration of air-to-ground weapons would have followed afterwards.

 

[crobato]

The reason F15 does not need wingtip rails is the simple fact that it already has that many stations on the belly (4bvr) and it can handle also 4 on the first wingpylons (even bvr)... So why adding so many wepoals if you can use only few? It would be intresting question if you ask why Mirage 2000 doens't have wingtip rails.

That's not the reason why because after all, there is no harm adding two more points even if you have that many, aka Su-27.

If you want to talk about more modern aircraft, the F-35 and the F-22 are not putting wing tip rails either. Just because the F-15 is an old design does not mean its not aerodynamically efficient.

But if you caount number of BVR on J10 then you would do anything to have some more... Normally it has 2 BVR with fuel tanks and if uprated you end up with 4 but a lot less range. F15 is an old design. I used gripen as an example. So why don't you compare more current designs?

We can also say the Lavi also uses wing tip rails. But why remove them on the J-10? This is not a technological issue, the JH-7s and JF-17s also have wing tip rails.

You can put four BVR on the J-10 with a belly tank. If you want more BVR stations, just use more dual racks instead.

A plane that already has finished its wing design is not going to have the wing added with wing tip pylons without some major redesign of the wing. You will have to strengthen and thicken the portions of the wing right to the tip. One thing you have to realize that wings with wingtip rails generally have reduced or narrowed wingspans, increased reinforcement, lengthened chord, or increased wing thickness, or any one or combination of the three. Once you put adding weight on the tip, so will your wing elasticity or flex increase, and these are the ways to reduce that. Reducing wingspan affects aspect ratio of the wing, and so will its low speed handling, increasing reinforcement increases weight, and the other two methods only serve to increase the wing drag.

From an aerodynamics combined with a structural point of view, if you want an optimum performing wing, you get rid of the wing tip rails.

About the helmet. I still doubt that it is HMS cause you do not want to have heavy weight on front of your head mass. It is the usual one with the usual attachment for NVG. HMS needs more then the very old simple chin strap and I miss all the wiring and sensors you need for HMS...

Sorry but that design is the same design used in the helmets for pilots on the Su-27s and that attachment is used to hang the HMS. This is not a matter of opinion---this is a matter of reality. Citing disadvantages don't change the reality, it only means the disadvantages are only real. Yes it is true that the HMS used on the Su-27 is front heavy and yes all the cabling is right in front. That's something they have to live with until the next generation of HMS already being developed. BTW, for TC-2 HMs, it only has sensors on the added visor which aligns to the sensors located on the dashboard or HUD. This is a first generation design. Second generation HMS would have sensors all over and built into the helmet.

 

[Munir]

>>>That's not the reason why because after all, there is no harm adding two more points even if you have that many, aka Su-27.

I never saw SU-27 using all those points. It hardly is adding any power cause in a2a battle you do not need dozens of BVR. You add drag and RCS.

>>>If you want to talk about more modern aircraft, the F-35 and the F-22 are not putting wing tip rails either. Just because the F-15 is an old design does not mean its not aerodynamically efficient.

Nopes, they prefer stealth above points.


>>>We can also say the Lavi also uses wing tip rails. But why remove them on the J-10? This is not a technological issue, the JH-7s and JF-17s also have wing tip rails.

It has to do with the movable surfaces, strengts of the wing, weight and aerodynamics. If you add fueltanks then you have only 2 stations left if you do not have wintips. You do know ewhat happened to F2 and that was just a bigger F16... So the wintiprails aren't exactly a simple added feature. In reality the plane is optimized for having that. For that reason F16 with AIM9 flies much better then without them.


>>>You can put four BVR on the J-10 with a belly tank. If you want more BVR stations, just use more dual racks instead.

You cannot add that many on J10 belly. Just do the match with aerodynamica, lengths etc... You have to replace the main gear and even then the surface should be redesigned. Adding them on a long pylon will not work.


>>>A plane that already has finished its wing design is not going to have the wing added with wing tip pylons without some major redesign of the wing. You will have to strengthen and thicken the portions of the wing right to the tip. One thing you have to realize that wings with wingtip rails generally have reduced or narrowed wingspans, increased reinforcement, lengthened chord, or increased wing thickness, or any one or combination of the three. Once you put adding weight on the tip, so will your wing elasticity or flex increase, and these are the ways to reduce that. Reducing wingspan affects aspect ratio of the wing, and so will its low speed handling, increasing reinforcement increases weight, and the other two methods only serve to increase the wing drag.

Correct.

>>>From an aerodynamics combined with a structural point of view, if you want an optimum performing wing, you get rid of the wing tip rails.

But in this case you need more BVR and WVR... And since J10 has no belly stations, does not use multiple racks yet and is tially not stealty we can see that as a missed logic. Gripen got it. Lavi had them. EF2000 uses them as ECM stations. Flanker uses them etc etc. And we need see where the multiple racks will be added... You do not have the option to put them everywhere (area or weight restrictions). To put it simple. As long as you have no internal bay, no stealthy features and sofar 2 to max 4 BVR you desperately want to move beyond that.


>>>Sorry but that design is the same design used in the helmets for pilots on the Su-27s and that attachment is used to hang the HMS. This is not a matter of opinion---this is a matter of reality. Citing disadvantages don't change the reality, it only means the disadvantages are only real. Yes it is true that the HMS used on the Su-27 is front heavy and yes all the cabling is right in front. That's something they have to live with until the next generation of HMS already being developed. BTW, for TC-2 HMs, it only has sensors on the added visor which aligns to the sensors located on the dashboard or HUD. This is a first generation design. Second generation HMS would have sensors all over and built into the helmet.

Did not know that Russian HMS works this way. Would love to see a pic of that helmet. I had some Russian helmets (Mig29) and though they were extremely comfortable and light I did not see this feature. I do not want to be the pilot wearing this unlogical weight in front of my head and pulling high G's... I doubt that it is a realistic design.


I red in a mag called Combat aircraft that they did not added wingtiprails on J10 cause it would be rearmed in the middle of nowhere. Looking at the height it is easier to reload then F16. And reloading WVR isn't exactly a big deal. So we read a lot of unrealistic info. Just as the fact that the tilted F16 seat sin't exactly a big point but merely PR stunt. You probably know what Chuck Yeager said about that.

 

[crobato]

>>>That's not the reason why because after all, there is no harm adding two more points even if you have that many, aka Su-27.

I never saw SU-27 using all those points. It hardly is adding any power cause in a2a battle you do not need dozens of BVR. You add drag and RCS.

Yes but they added them anyway.

>>>If you want to talk about more modern aircraft, the F-35 and the F-22 are not putting wing tip rails either. Just because the F-15 is an old design does not mean its not aerodynamically efficient.

Nopes, they prefer stealth above points.

It does not change the fact that the wingtips of the aircraft are pointed or rounded for aerodynamic efficiency.

>>>We can also say the Lavi also uses wing tip rails. But why remove them on the J-10? This is not a technological issue, the JH-7s and JF-17s also have wing tip rails.

It has to do with the movable surfaces, strengts of the wing, weight and aerodynamics. If you add fueltanks then you have only 2 stations left if you do not have wintips. You do know ewhat happened to F2 and that was just a bigger F16... So the wintiprails aren't exactly a simple added feature. In reality the plane is optimized for having that. For that reason F16 with AIM9 flies much better then without them.

And the J-10 is probably more aerodynamically efficient flying with two PL-8s under the wing than without. That seems to be besides the point of having wing tip rails or without. The issue is that it's more aerodynamically efficient without them.

You cannot add that many on J10 belly. Just do the match with aerodynamica, lengths etc... You have to replace the main gear and even then the surface should be redesigned. Adding them on a long pylon will not work.

You cannot say that unless you have accurate measurements of the matter.

But in this case you need more BVR and WVR... And since J10 has no belly stations, does not use multiple racks yet and is tially not stealty we can see that as a missed logic. Gripen got it. Lavi had them. EF2000 uses them as ECM stations. Flanker uses them etc etc. And we need see where the multiple racks will be added... You do not have the option to put them everywhere (area or weight restrictions). To put it simple. As long as you have no internal bay, no stealthy features and sofar 2 to max 4 BVR you desperately want to move beyond that.

The J-10 has stations underneath the intake and further down the tunnel. The Lavi does not have this nor does the Gripen. The stations on the front can be used to put laser targeting pods so it has interfaces on them, which means you can put other things like ECM pods. The two stations behind are for 250kg bombs. The J-10 also has a centerline point for a center fuel tank. Four bombs can also be put in the four fuselage points without ever using the wing stations.

Did not know that Russian HMS works this way. Would love to see a pic of that helmet. I had some Russian helmets (Mig29) and though they were extremely comfortable and light I did not see this feature. I do not want to be the pilot wearing this unlogical weight in front of my head and pulling high G's... I doubt that it is a realistic design.

Its not a good design but nonetheless its there.

I red in a mag called Combat aircraft that they did not added wingtiprails on J10 cause it would be rearmed in the middle of nowhere. Looking at the height it is easier to reload then F16. And reloading WVR isn't exactly a big deal. So we read a lot of unrealistic info. Just as the fact that the tilted F16 seat sin't exactly a big point but merely PR stunt. You probably know what Chuck Yeager said about that.

Kind of an odd reason, considering the JF-17 and JH-7A have wing tip rails, as well as every Su-30 and Su-27 in the PLAAF.

 

[challenge]

according to the 1991 back issue of MilTech, West German engineer examing the east germany soviet supplied arsenal's HMS for MiG-29,claim the technology is quite simple. the technology resemble your TV remote control. small IR emitter mounted on the helmet being track by IR tracker located HUD.
the helmet unlike western HMS do not display data or flight information .
But recently the Russian is offering more advance version to replace the original Ukrainian aresnal HMS.
it is not known if PLAAF willing to adapt south africa design HMS,which is far more advance that Russian HMS,which first saw action in angola against cuban pilot .

 

[Scratch]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese J-10 'benefited from the Lavi project'

Now Russian engineers who are said to have worked with the chinese and visited Chengdu for decades state J-10 obviously profitted from Lavi tech tranfer.
Only weeks after the Russian charged the chinese over Su/J-11 aircraft and a general decline in defence contracts, this "revelation".

 

[Delbert]

Base on overall aspects like avionics, radar, engine, armaments, maneuverability, etc. Which do you think is a BETTER plane in a combat from a distant range?

J-10 or F-16E/F?
J-10 or F-18E/F?

 

[evereachyu]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now Russian engineers who are said to have worked with the chinese and visited Chengdu for decades state J-10 obviously profitted from Lavi tech tranfer.
Only weeks after the Russian charged the chinese over Su/J-11 aircraft and a general decline in defence contracts, this "revelation".

BMW, Honda, Lexus, Audi and Malibu etc. all looked alike, they also have four wheels and do the same function. Who copies who?

 

[Londo Molari]

Russians also claimed that J-10s were being sold to Iran.

 

[tphuang]

in case anyone is wondering, this article basically says CAC is fully back to work.

中国一航成都所员工奋力自救全面恢复科研生产
据中航一集团网站报道 中国一航成都飞机设计研究所干部、职工面对地震灾害奋力自救，目前已经全面恢复科研、生产正常秩序，各项工作正按计划有条不紊地进行。

地震当天，一航成都所在第一时间内迅速成立了抗灾现场指挥部，在所长杨伟统一指挥下，职能机关部分同志由副所长李松带队，在余震间隙深入研究所工作核心区域受损严重的科研综合大楼，初步排查，基本摸清了大楼受损情况，制定严密措施，争分夺秒开展紧急抢修。

5月14日上午，所抗灾现场指挥部召开会议，杨伟所长通报了相关情况，部署恢复工作的安排。按照统一要求，各单位负责人组织相关人员于当天全面、彻底地检查清理办公室、机房和设备，针对地震引起的各种问题尤其注意细节检查，杜绝不安全因素，制定整改措施，启动备份方案，为全面恢复科研生产工作做好充分准备。尽管研究所出于安全考虑当天没有下达上班通知，但研究室很多同志自觉回到岗位上，如往常一样开始工作。

5月15日，在“坚定信心、克服困难，全面恢复科研生产秩序”精神感召下，全所干部、职工基本恢复上班。部分研究室和职能机关部门一上班就立刻召开全体会议，周密地安排部署灾后各项恢复工作。大家都以尽快恢复正常科研生产工作的实际行动作为对灾区人民、对祖国的真诚回报。很快，各项工作按计划紧锣密鼓地进行，办公室里、厂房内、试验室中……昔日熟悉的紧张有序的工作场景再次出现在人们眼前。（中航一集团网站）

no need to worry about the progress of J-10/JF-17