I think they are different things up to now (and I hope in the future too). But just like you the more read about twin engined J-10 and J-XX, the more I start to think there might be some links between these two in the end. Maybe twin engined J-10 will be just like EF2000 (3.5 fighter). And the future J-XX will be based on it with some cosmetic (stealthier) changes and similar (maybe little improved) hardware.
New J-10 thread II
- Thread starter wlchang
- Start date
- Status
Schumacher
Senior Member
It'd be a real disappointment if this twin engine J-10 doesn't match EF2000 in most areas. If it does, I see J-xx becoming less of an urgency allowing more time to fine tune various tech that are to go on it.
Or maybe the twin engine J-10 is just a carrier version of J-10 to be used on the Varyag, the timeframe certainly fits.
Once the twin engined J-10 is ready for operational use and will be mass-produced (if that's the truth at all), do you think it would be the only J-10 version up from then or will the current single engined one be produced further?
Somehow it seems strange to me to have two "versions" of a plane with a different number of engines.
Because if that twin engined J-10 will stay under the J-11 in class, the two J-10s would fill the same role.
From how I understand that, it would be "closer" then the gap from F-16->YF-17->F-18 ...
If they ever come up with a twin engined version in the Typhoon weight class, its safe to presume they would stop building the single engined type. Whatever low end would be left to the FC-1, probably even imported from Pakistan. The resources to build such planes would be finite even for Chengdu, and I would probably put it on which plane it would be most effective.
I don't know if the so called stealthy plane and the twin engined plane are one and the same, but in my opinion, most likely are, as it is not efficient to be developing two planes at once. And it probably isn't as stealthy if it decides to recycle as much of the current J-10's front end.
Logically its simpler for the single engined J-10 to follow an upgrade path for the engine, to more powerful versions of the WS-10A or AL-31F. If they are pushing for a twin engined variant, two things must apply.
1. China intends to fully keep the plane domestic, ruling out future versions of the AL-31F or AL-41.
2. China's engine technology still has its limits. It would be easier to achieve the same thrust level with two smaller engines of less thrust combined than one single powerful engine with one overwhelming thrust. Note this lesson applied to the J-8II vs. J-9 development.
3. Chengdu intends to create a larger plane with a bigger wing planform that can hold more hardpoints and weight. Probably means much of the plane from the front end downward may be new, and probably longer.
IMO, if they are trying to retain the J-10 front end, DSI may be ruled out. Personally I was hoping of a plane with a front end more similar to the FC-1, but bigger, with canted sides and DSI, then with the canards behind the intake, followed by the main delta wing and twin canted tail.
I don't know if the so called stealthy plane and the twin engined plane are one and the same, but in my opinion, most likely are, as it is not efficient to be developing two planes at once. And it probably isn't as stealthy if it decides to recycle as much of the current J-10's front end.
Logically its simpler for the single engined J-10 to follow an upgrade path for the engine, to more powerful versions of the WS-10A or AL-31F. If they are pushing for a twin engined variant, two things must apply.
1. China intends to fully keep the plane domestic, ruling out future versions of the AL-31F or AL-41.
2. China's engine technology still has its limits. It would be easier to achieve the same thrust level with two smaller engines of less thrust combined than one single powerful engine with one overwhelming thrust. Note this lesson applied to the J-8II vs. J-9 development.
3. Chengdu intends to create a larger plane with a bigger wing planform that can hold more hardpoints and weight. Probably means much of the plane from the front end downward may be new, and probably longer.
IMO, if they are trying to retain the J-10 front end, DSI may be ruled out. Personally I was hoping of a plane with a front end more similar to the FC-1, but bigger, with canted sides and DSI, then with the canards behind the intake, followed by the main delta wing and twin canted tail.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
So when does it get classified as a new fighter? If you guys are right, it sounds like a lot of changes for just a modification.
Maybe they're working on the naval carrier version.
Hope they get rid of the struts.
And with all this talk about the J-10 getting the WS-10A lately, what ever happened to all those TVC engines bought from Russia for the J-10. Was that an error in reporting?
Maybe they're working on the naval carrier version.
Hope they get rid of the struts.
And with all this talk about the J-10 getting the WS-10A lately, what ever happened to all those TVC engines bought from Russia for the J-10. Was that an error in reporting?
Its hard to say when a plane gets classified as a new fighter and when it is not. The Q-5 lost its J-6 designation even though its practically just the front end was changed, as the plane remained a J-6 behind the intakes.
Yet the J-8II is still a J-8 despite so many changes in the aircraft from the previous J-8 that only 30% of the original remained. Formally, the J-8II is now called the J-8B, while the previous round inlet J-8I is now the J-8A.
As for the TVC project, it may have been part of the serious roadmap and may still be is. Just remember, AVIC also developed their own TVC nozzle for the WS-10A. The single engined J-10 is likely to evolve further before being supplanted or replaced by the twin engined version. and there is nothing that says the twin engined type won't be TVC'ed either.
If you're serious in putting the J-10 into a carrier related project, then the TVC may be a crucial part in this. But if the PLANAF is thinking of putting an Su-33 like J-11 into the future Chinese carrier, that could have doused cold water on the J-10 plans.
Yet the J-8II is still a J-8 despite so many changes in the aircraft from the previous J-8 that only 30% of the original remained. Formally, the J-8II is now called the J-8B, while the previous round inlet J-8I is now the J-8A.
As for the TVC project, it may have been part of the serious roadmap and may still be is. Just remember, AVIC also developed their own TVC nozzle for the WS-10A. The single engined J-10 is likely to evolve further before being supplanted or replaced by the twin engined version. and there is nothing that says the twin engined type won't be TVC'ed either.
If you're serious in putting the J-10 into a carrier related project, then the TVC may be a crucial part in this. But if the PLANAF is thinking of putting an Su-33 like J-11 into the future Chinese carrier, that could have doused cold water on the J-10 plans.
beijingcar
New Member
"重点型号外形布局变化大，但又要保证主要结构交点和设备接口 不变，保证其他专业的延续性，今年两进安全级的改动保持最小”……“
This means to me at least that the shap of the J10 is going to change in a big way, which can only means stealth to me. That also meant that the canards have to go, because canards can be very reflective to radar, also it
said that the internal structural and connecting ports
stay the same. So I think it ruled out twin engine configuration.
"前机身专业协调量尤为突出，前机身是机 上设备主要安置部位，又是操纵全机的驾驶员的座舱所在位置，几乎与全机所有专业都有协调关系” 。 “请相关专业、厂里工艺人员先期介入，保证方案可行及优化，为最后冲刺节省时间”…… this sentence also indicating the front has a big design change, also it pointed to me that the canards are gone.
I would not be surprised if this new jet look somewhat like the F35 in the USAF.
This means to me at least that the shap of the J10 is going to change in a big way, which can only means stealth to me. That also meant that the canards have to go, because canards can be very reflective to radar, also it
said that the internal structural and connecting ports
stay the same. So I think it ruled out twin engine configuration.
"前机身专业协调量尤为突出，前机身是机 上设备主要安置部位，又是操纵全机的驾驶员的座舱所在位置，几乎与全机所有专业都有协调关系” 。 “请相关专业、厂里工艺人员先期介入，保证方案可行及优化，为最后冲刺节省时间”…… this sentence also indicating the front has a big design change, also it pointed to me that the canards are gone.
I would not be surprised if this new jet look somewhat like the F35 in the USAF.
Last edited:
AFAK, in the early 90s, 611 made multiple proposals (derived from J10) for a medium advanced fighter to compete with 601. But starting from mid-late 90s 601 has moved towards heavy weight class (similar to F22), while 611/CAC spent more time on J10.
In otherwords, although CAC/611 has gained a lot from their 3rd gen fighter J10, 601/SAC has gained substantial lead in 4th gen project R&D.
But 611/CAC is coming back on 4th gen R&D with heavy weight class proposals too, after the completion of J10. IMHO, it's too late for them. PLAAF is not that crazy to support 2 heavy weight 4th gen fighters. The best result for them is to grab some substantial shares of the contract whereas 601/SAC assume the project leader role. At the same time they need to improve the single engine J10 on the engine, radar and ultimately RCS reduction, to get continous funds.
Having said that, CAC/611 is a sturbon fighter. They have been fighting up hills battles since their establishment. The evidence is that they have been franatically working on different proposals and seeking supports (both domestic and foreign). And now, there is a real chance: PLAN likes a Rafael class twin engine fighter, so their early efforts on medium class J10 derived proposals and the later R&Ds all seem to match. But who's gonna pay for it at the moment?
So, the solution for them is to wrap everything under J10's name to fund all the R&Ds. If everything goes well, then PLAN will be able to get a formal national project contract (a different name than J10) for CAC so that it can be funded from the government's budget directly. Maybe, a very remote "maybe", PLAAF will join in as well sometime in the future.
Just my 2 cents.
In otherwords, although CAC/611 has gained a lot from their 3rd gen fighter J10, 601/SAC has gained substantial lead in 4th gen project R&D.
But 611/CAC is coming back on 4th gen R&D with heavy weight class proposals too, after the completion of J10. IMHO, it's too late for them. PLAAF is not that crazy to support 2 heavy weight 4th gen fighters. The best result for them is to grab some substantial shares of the contract whereas 601/SAC assume the project leader role. At the same time they need to improve the single engine J10 on the engine, radar and ultimately RCS reduction, to get continous funds.
Having said that, CAC/611 is a sturbon fighter. They have been fighting up hills battles since their establishment. The evidence is that they have been franatically working on different proposals and seeking supports (both domestic and foreign). And now, there is a real chance: PLAN likes a Rafael class twin engine fighter, so their early efforts on medium class J10 derived proposals and the later R&Ds all seem to match. But who's gonna pay for it at the moment?
So, the solution for them is to wrap everything under J10's name to fund all the R&Ds. If everything goes well, then PLAN will be able to get a formal national project contract (a different name than J10) for CAC so that it can be funded from the government's budget directly. Maybe, a very remote "maybe", PLAAF will join in as well sometime in the future.
Just my 2 cents.
mehdi
Junior Member
These days you have to be a strong person not to start going loko look at what we have now a so called twin engined J-10 with medium trust engines which will resemble the French Rafale ??? and also a heavily redesigned J-10 with a TVC engine which might be completely different than the original one , who know what it will look like. I feel personally that this is just too much speculation it would be better if we refrained from adding more comments until we can have some substantial proof what are the new developments for the J-10.
FugitiveVisions
Junior Member
The problem is, of course, that China just finished developing a twin engine fighter in J11B that is beginning to enter service. It's going to be really tough to convince PLA folks to finance another twin engine third-generation fighter when there are already have ones flying in the air.
If China needs a fighter with a strike role, there's the J11mod option, there's the JH-7A option, there's the J-10 and the H-6K. And they can always order stuff from Russia. There's no justification for another third-generation fighter, the battle has long been over.
Therefore the modifications on the J10 should be comparable to those on the FC-1, those that improve aerodynamics but do not dramatically alter the design and thus necessitating the need for more $$$ to finance. Improved avionics come to mind, as well as the installation of a domestic engine.
The assumption that just because Chengdu has been working on the J10 means that they are behind on the 4th generation fighter is flawed. So far J-10 is the only indigenous design of a third generation caliber, and that should be a huge plus for them. I mean what is 601's track record, that they were able to reproduce Su-27s and Mig-21s?
- Status