*New J-10 Thread*

[challenge]

That article is already posted in this forum. And many people here and in other forums have noted incorrect information in the article.

to this date China have not release any technical information or detail about this aircraft.the article written by john Golan is as close as we can get.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

this is probably J-10 2 engine prototype-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

nterestingly, both LCA and J-10 are due to serve on indigenous Indian and Chinese aircraft carriers, both set to sail by 2010.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Being a lightweight multi-role fighter-bomber, the J-10 has great export potential. The aircraft will probably be more affordable than its European counterparts. China is believed to have taken a giant leap forward in fighter development, and produced a true fourth generation fighter. It will be a good option for countries in the region, such as Pakistan, that will have to find a suitable next generation aircraft to replace its current Chinese or Russian fighters and attack aircraft. Pakistan might even want to replace its fleet of F-16s with the Chinese F-10 (export aircraft will be designated F-10 - Fighter-10).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AssassinsMace]

to this date China have not release any technical information or detail about this aircraft.the article written by john Golan is as close as we can get.

So how does he know then? One thing many people are contending is the range of the J-10. Are you saying that the J-10 beats all equivalent fighters including the Lavi with all that heavy aluminum in it? As someone pointed out before, the article says China doesn't work with composites yet somehow Boeing, and soon Airbus, has China produce airplane sections with composite parts for them?

There's a book that's published that says China was the mastermind behind 9-11. Just because someone gets their words published somewhere, it doesn't mean it has validity. Ask the New York Times.

 

[challenge]

the topic is J-10 not 9.11.
most US aircraft uses high sophisticate machine tool to fabricate composite material,B-2 bomber,F-22 and future F-35 use robots to cut composite material.some of computerized machine tools are customized built just for this project.
the total investment by US aerospace company on specialized custom built machine tool for composite technology run into billion of dollar.in fact there's article on this subject published by aviation week in the early 80's.
one article about the the use composite material on JH-7A such as tail fin (super plastic),rudder,and some part of fuselage resulted the aircraft more than 500lbs lighter,according to the article it translated into extra range,manueverity do improve over the original variant.
the article mention of carbon to carbon,super plastic,boron fiber technology

 

[crobato]

article by John Golans still has many questionable things. Sorry I don't buy it, not at least not completely. There are segments that I think are worth consideration, and there are segments that I think are full of errors.

For example, SORRY but I don't think the J-10 has the payload figure of an Su-27SK.

SORRY I don't think the J-10 weighs more than a J-8II empty.

Every article you have to analyze and see for yourself if points are good or bad.

We have enough pictures of the J-10 in primer. For me, much of the body is still aluminum, but the tail section, the two lower ventral fins, the wing surfaces and control surfaces, and the canards might be composite.

 

[AssassinsMace]

the topic is J-10 not 9.11.
most US aircraft uses high sophisticate machine tool to fabricate composite material,B-2 bomber,F-22 and future F-35 use robots to cut composite material.some of computerized machine tools are customized built just for this project.
the total investment by US aerospace company on specialized custom built machine tool for composite technology run into billion of dollar.in fact there's article on this subject published by aviation week in the early 80's.
one article about the the use composite material on JH-7A such as tail fin (super plastic),rudder,and some part of fuselage resulted the aircraft more than 500lbs lighter,according to the article it translated into extra range,manueverity do improve over the original variant.
the article mention of carbon to carbon,super plastic,boron fiber technology

And just because someone writes an article it doesn't mean it has to be correct. Unless you do believe since there was a book published that says China was behind 9-11, it must be true. You still haven't explained how a heavy aluminum J-10 has a longer range than the light composite Lavi.

 

[eecsmaster]

as for Chinese inexperience with composites, I suggest that you read a bit into carbon microtube research in China.

 

[tphuang]

And just because someone writes an article it doesn't mean it has to be correct. Unless you do believe since there was a book published that says China was behind 9-11, it must be true. You still haven't explained how a heavy aluminum J-10 has a longer range than the light composite Lavi.

J-10 is not that much heavier than Lavi. By my estimation, it's only about 1000 kg heavier. And also, you have to remember it uses a more powerful engine. Although, Russian engines probably aren't as fuel efficient as American engines, so that's where the decrease in range might come in. As for increased range, I think one possible answer is with a larger fuel tank.

Just for reference, JF-17 has a combat radius of 1800 km with external fuel tanks. There is no reason why J-10 can't achieve long combat radius with or without external fuel tanks. Of course, you get different combat radius for different mission profiles, so one has to take that into consideration. A fully loaded su-27 probably doesn't have the combat radius of a lightly loaded J-10.

 

[challenge]

J-10 is not that much heavier than Lavi. By my estimation, it's only about 1000 kg heavier. And also, you have to remember it uses a more powerful engine. Although, Russian engines probably aren't as fuel efficient as American engines, so that's where the decrease in range might come in. As for increased range, I think one possible answer is with a larger fuel tank.

Just for reference, JF-17 has a combat radius of 1800 km with external fuel tanks. There is no reason why J-10 can't achieve long combat radius with or without external fuel tanks. Of course, you get different combat radius for different mission profiles, so one has to take that into consideration. A fully loaded su-27 probably doesn't have the combat radius of a lightly loaded J-10.

let us be realistic,for the last 15 years, China make tremendous effort to reduce the technological gap,there's been a lot of technological break through
on aerospace technology.such as ,radar,solfware ,engine...etc
the big question right now it to focus on the next 5 years.

 

[AssassinsMace]

J-10 is not that much heavier than Lavi. By my estimation, it's only about 1000 kg heavier. And also, you have to remember it uses a more powerful engine. Although, Russian engines probably aren't as fuel efficient as American engines, so that's where the decrease in range might come in. As for increased range, I think one possible answer is with a larger fuel tank.

Just for reference, JF-17 has a combat radius of 1800 km with external fuel tanks. There is no reason why J-10 can't achieve long combat radius with or without external fuel tanks. Of course, you get different combat radius for different mission profiles, so one has to take that into consideration. A fully loaded su-27 probably doesn't have the combat radius of a lightly loaded J-10.

Just playing by the bi-polar conclusions of the article in question. People like you know a lot more on the technical side than me but anyone can see the contradictions in the story published.