New J-10 thread II

[adeptitus]

Found this old pic, might be of interest to the discussion.

 

[challenge]

歼十舰载型试飞成功，中国航母指日可待世界论坛网
美国中央情报局透露，歼十舰载型已于昨日（12月18日）试飞成功。这意味着中国航母将成为事实。中国于1986年1月批准歼10立项研制。 1998年3月23日，歼10首飞。2006年12月29日，中国首次公布歼10。早在2001年，中国就着手研制歼10舰载型，经过7年的攻关，歼10 舰载型终于升空了。从研发的速度上看，中国速度比较慢，研制歼10用了12年，研制歼10舰载型竟然用了7年之久。这说明中国的舰载机技术几乎是从零开始。世界论坛网

中情局对歼10舰载型的性能参数估计为：机长14.57米，翼展8.78米，机高：5.3米，后掠角50-52度，翼面积38平方米，垂尾面积8.4平方米，推力152千牛顿。世界论坛网 起降滑跑距离：小于50米世界论坛网 高空的最大速度：2.0马赫世界论坛网

低空最大速度：1.2马赫（1473公里/小时）世界论坛网

最大升限：18000米世界论坛网 作战半径：1300公里世界论坛网 最大航程：3000公里世界论坛网 最大起飞重量：18270公斤，载弹量6000公斤，推重比大于1.1。世界论坛网
外挂11个（机身下5个，每侧翼下3个），外挂副油箱最大4100升（1500×2、1100×1）世界论坛网

这些数据表明，歼10舰载型几乎与歼10配套型完全相同，只是推力由122千牛增加到152千牛，滑跑距离缩短到50米以内而已。与歼10一样，歼10舰载型除维持正常平飞外，还有足够的推力来满足执行各种机动动作的需要，使水平加速、爬升、盘旋等性能均有较大提升，甚至可以在空中格斗状态下毫不费力地垂直向上爬升。

 

[Pointblank]

Most of the rigors is in the landings not launches. On the second sentence, the carriers that carry them do plan to go to the sea quite often, and whether they didn't actually do so, does not play a part in the parameters of the aircraft design. So are you suggesting that the MiG-29K and Su-33K are designed only for light duty? That's ridiculous.

The Typhoon had plans to be navalized. The Rafale gaining half a ton isn't that much, and should be acceptable. Extra weight can be compensated with an increase in engine power and lift area. The fact remains that a land based aircraft can be made into a carrier aircraft, or that both services can take part of a common design that will produce for both.

A lot of what happened in the sixties and seventies had more to do with inter service rivalry and the entire core of the JSF is to erase that historical legacy. I won't put a spin on it. There is no justification for an entirely separate aircraft design for either the Navy and the Air Force.



For the most part, this same design exists for the YF-17, LERXs, wing design and all. For the most part, naval design wasn't part of it originally. The F-16 also has LERX.



So you have an exercise where the rules are set in favor for the close quarter fighters? What if the rules are different or set more naturally like the way fighters would actually fight? Do you know that an aircraft that can climb faster, accelerate faster, flies at a higher altitude has major advantages in BVR combat? F-15s have gotten trashed in exercises with MiG-21s (like Cope) and even to Jaguars like in the UK, often because they're forced into a rule set that is not advantageous to that aircraft's mission design. The F-14 suffers from its own problem, low TWR means its not an ideal fighter to play out Boyd's EM theories; the sweep wing and its position tends to telegraph the aircraft's energy and speed state; and not the least, the roll rate isn't very good.

Low wing loading isn't exclusively naval requirement. Its universal. Its what everyone wants. The Air Force does not set a high wing loading into its aircraft as a requirement, and just about everyone else too. The F-22, Typhoon and Rafale also has low wing loading.

1. The Typhoon was never ever navalized; the idea was dropped early in the development stage, and was resurrected as an idea as part of the CVF project. Thankfully, it was never pursued.

2. If you increase engine power, you also increase fuel consumption. If you increase fuel consumption, you decrease range, or in order to make up for lost range, you loose ordinance through external tanks, or you increase the size of the aircraft, which would require more engine power and would be less manueverable... its a vicious cycle. Remember that carrier aircraft are subject to limits on size to maximize the deck space. On the Rafale, half a metric ton lost is half a metric ton of fuel or ordinance that cannot be carried. On a fighter that weights 10 tons, it means it is clearly not as capable as the land-based variant.

3. That legacy of a separate design lineage is proven in history; historically, navalized versions of land-based aircraft tended to be less than suitable for naval operations. I pointed to the Seafire as an example. The F-35 is suffering from the various stresses being pulled on it; the naval version is both bigger and heavier than the air force version, and is not as suitable as a fighter designed from the ground up as a naval fighter.

4. The F/A-18's LERX's are extremely pronounced, and combined with the flaps and slats, it is one the of easiest and most docile fighters to land. It does not have the possible problem of tail strikes while landing like the F-16 does. It can be pointed out that the F/A-18 does have extraordinary handling at high angles of attack of over 60 degrees, while the F-16 is software limited to 25 degrees due to a lack of directional stability.

5. The exercise demonstrated that despite the size, if a F-14 did had to go against a F-15 in a close in battle, it would most likely come out on top in a close range battle. In the beyond visual range battle, the F-14 will still reign supreme due to the powerful AWG-9 radar; the AWG-9 radar is able to track up to 24 airborne targets, display 18 of them on the cockpit displays, and launch against 6 of them at the same time at ranges exceeding 160 km. The F-15's APG-63/70 radar is capable of detecting out to the same range, but is only capable of engaging out to 90km, and only able to engage one target at a time with the AIM-7 Sparrow missile; it only later on with the introduction of the AIM-120 did the Eagle gain the ability to engage multiple targets.

As I said before;

The F-14 was better in the low-speed range, able to turn tighter, and able to pull overall much higher alphas. From what I remember at least that F-14 fitted with exciter vanes during tests (never in operational service) and the F-14D could with it's F-110's pull Pugachev-Cobras and the like. At high KEAS and Mach numbers the F-14 also had an advantage in terms of maneuverability as well to it's higher swept swing-wings. To the best of my knowledge, all F-14 variants had lighter wing-loading than the F-15 (especially when you count the pancake, which adds 443 square feet of extra wing-area, which when added to the wing's 565 square-foot area effectively increase the total wing area to 1,008 square feet) however the F-14A's thrust to weight ratio was substantially lower.

The F-15 was better at transonic speed, and intermediate airspeeds, and was better at sustaining high-G turns, though the F-14 was better at instantaneous G's, at least at some speeds. The plane had a higher thrust-to-weight ratio (this advantage diminished with the F-14B and D models), a superior climb-rate, and what appears to be a better rate of roll. It also has a higher top-speed than the F-14A. There might be a small area of the upper high-speed range where the F-15's maneuverability begins to rival or exceed that of the F-14 (this is a speculation due to the wing-body fairing set-up -- however, if true, the F-14 is generally better at supersonic speed). The swing wings gave the F-14 both superb low speed characteristics and excellent high speed characteristics.

Remember, we are talking about a significantly bigger aircraft here; the F-14 is a two seater aircraft designed to carry 6 of the largest US air to air missile in history. It also came out earlier than the F-15; the F-14 was already flying before the F-15 even hit the drawing boards.

 

[crobato]

4. The F/A-18's LERX's are extremely pronounced, and combined with the flaps and slats, it is one the of easiest and most docile fighters to land. It does not have the possible problem of tail strikes while landing like the F-16 does. It can be pointed out that the F/A-18 does have extraordinary handling at high angles of attack of over 60 degrees, while the F-16 is software limited to 25 degrees due to a lack of directional stability.

That's a serious misconception. The YF-17 already had those LERX from the start and it was there not deliberately intended for naval use. LERX has absolutely nothing to do with the low speed take off and landing characteristics. The Hornet's high AoA directional stability isn't just because of the LERX but because it has twin rudders to give double the control area.

The Hornet itself had some problems due to the LERX because the vortices created by the LERX had a tendency to delaminate and burst into turbulence, creating vibrations and instability. One phenomenon was shorting the rudder's structural life.

The Hornet's sweet low speed handling abilities is due to those wings, with its straight spans and lack of sweep. However, these wings become increasing detrimental as you reach the high subsonic, transonic to supersonic speed regimes.

The Hornet itself is based from a land based aircraft. Saying the F-18 Hornet is a different aircraft from the YF-17 is no different from the current F-22 is to the YF-22, or the Su-27 is to the T-10 prototypes.

5. The exercise demonstrated that despite the size, if a F-14 did had to go against a F-15 in a close in battle, it would most likely come out on top in a close range battle. In the beyond visual range battle, the F-14 will still reign supreme due to the powerful AWG-9 radar; the AWG-9 radar is able to track up to 24 airborne targets, display 18 of them on the cockpit displays, and launch against 6 of them at the same time at ranges exceeding 160 km. The F-15's APG-63/70 radar is capable of detecting out to the same range, but is only capable of engaging out to 90km, and only able to engage one target at a time with the AIM-7 Sparrow missile; it only later on with the introduction of the AIM-120 did the Eagle gain the ability to engage multiple targets.

Do you realize that because of the size of the AIM-54, its not fully suited to engage smaller and more maneuverable targets? That's why the AMRAAM and all the other BVRAAMs (R-77, PL-12, MICA) are all within a certain sweet spot of a weight and size range?

The TWR advantage the F-15 has over the F-14 is truly pronounced---the F-14 is well under the 1:1, while the F-15 on half to quarter tanks can exceed 1.20. The F-15 is the superior Boyd energy fighter. ACM is basically about energy management.

And no I don't think the F-14 can pull Cobras, which require a very high amount of AoA. Gloves and vanes are not completely LERX like and vortice creation and management is a very deliberate science, not something fortuitous---they can bite big if not properly made and handled.

3. That legacy of a separate design lineage is proven in history; historically, navalized versions of land-based aircraft tended to be less than suitable for naval operations. I pointed to the Seafire as an example. The F-35 is suffering from the various stresses being pulled on it; the naval version is both bigger and heavier than the air force version, and is not as suitable as a fighter designed from the ground up as a naval fighter.

That's a misconception. Naval planes even with dedicated designs, turn out to be bigger and heavier than purely land based ones. Imagine if the YF-17 is allowed to have a separate Air Force version of its own. It would surely be smaller and lighter than the F-18.

 

[tphuang]

there is this post on Chinese bbs that seems to talk about AESA fighter radar development of the 38th institute (it actually refers to it as new radar, but seems to be talking about AESA from the next generation part and another article)

摘自“2008中国十大航空风云人物入围人员介绍”


章传芳，回族，中国九三学社第十二届中央委员会委员，政协江苏无锡市第十二届委员会委员，无锡市“科技创新十大女杰”、无锡市“三八”红旗手。
章传芳长期从事航空机载雷达研究工作，在机载雷达天线技术、微波技术和新一代战斗机雷达系统技术方面具有较深的造诣。作为知识型与管理型的复合型女性人才，为雷电院承担的国家重点工程任务的全面完成做出了突出贡献。
章传芳主持开发的脉冲多普勒雷达平板缝阵天线，已批量装备我军多种现役主战飞机。她主持开发研制的国家863计划关键技术研究项目“高分辨率合成孔径雷达样机”的天馈系统，获国家科技进步一等奖。她主持研制的具有完全自主知识产权的新一代机载火控雷达，于2007年8月首飞成功，在2008年4月完成了验证试飞，填补了国内空白，极大缩小了我国机载雷达技术与国际先进水平的距离，为我国机载雷达事业的发展树立了一个新的里程碑。

it seems to say that initial flight was in August of 2007 and all the tests were completed by April of this year. Again, whether or not this means they can mass produce the radar at an affordable cost is a different question.

 

[challenge]

not sure, But I recall few weeks ago,article appear in wmf, about new variant KLJ radar for J-11B,compare with older radar,this radar is much more lighter,and offer same performance.
unfortunate,there's no mention of AESA,more likely improve version,said same like APG-63 involve into APG-71.

 

[aaoz45]

AESA?

 

[Totoro]

That image could be of anything, though i'm sure some people will claim the shaping of the plate proves it goes into a plane's nose and the yellow and blue tubes (?) are for cooling, which an aes array needs.

 

[SteelBird]

I don't even think that this is a radar. Look! it's so big and looks heavy, it can't pit into an aircraft's nose, and the light yellow piece under the blue and yellow tube doesn't look like an antenna either.

 

[crobato]

That's definitely a radar, but it does not seem to be an AESA. The stuff on the front plate is similar to the stuff also seen in the front plate of the KLJ-1 aka Type 1471 radar. I believe the rest of the antenna is a slotted array. The yellow and blue things can be just stuff feeding power to the emitter and the gimballing mechanism.

Before the end of this year this thread will be archived and I will start a new J-10 thread. This thread is a bit long.