*New J-10 Thread*

[challenge]

reaction from John Golan article about the J-10,remind me 5 blind men trying to described whay elephant look like.
the real question is not J-10 going to out performed the F-16C,the big significant of J-10 project was in fact the technological base,remember before the J-10 program, China do not even possess high technological base,everything has to built from the ground up,as one US commentator liken the J-10 project to Apollo mission.
the technology developed for the J-10 can become technological ladder fro future project like the F-X.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Ironic since John Golan has never seen or inspected a J-10 in person. I guess this is a case of the blind leading the blind.

If the J-10 outperforms equivalent fighters with lower tech means, what will China produce with high technolgy?

 

[challenge]

Ironic since John Golan has never seen or inspected a J-10 in person. I guess this is a case of the blind leading the blind.

If the J-10 outperforms equivalent fighters with lower tech means, what will China produce with high technolgy?

sine China refuse to provide technical data,J-10 will not even show up in this year Zhuhai air show.
For John golan have to rely on aerospace engineer,intelligent,comment from both the russian and israel technician to write the article.
there's been report from Chinese web site, that PLAAF is not fully satisfy with J-10,we may be looking at J-10D or E variant.

 

[crobato]

It does not sound like there is a lot of expertise in that article.

If you want to compare weights, the best way is to look for other Chinese air examples, because one Chinese plane is likely to be built on the same level of technology as another Chinese plane. Here you can take out national differences in construction.

Look at the FC-1. It is also made by Chengdu. It does not have a lot of composite. But it weighs only 6400kg empty. Do you think the J-10 is a lot bigger than it to justify 9750kg empty? And its not the engine, the RD-93 is only about 100-200kg lighter than AL-31FN at the most. In fact the FC-1 is slightly longer than the F-16.

Comparing the F-16 as a benchmark for weight is FLAWED. Maybe some people don't understand F-16 history. The original F-16As were coming at 7000kg empty. They were quite light, and up to this day, they are still regarded as the most agile and maneuverable variants.

But the planes were also pushed to the limits and used more strenously than the original designers expected. Many planes suffered cracks and other stress symptoms.

So the F-16C is beefed up considerably and in return, the empty weight went up to 8500kg for the PW engine version and 8800kg for the GE engine version. But the same time, the requirements now call for an exhaustive 8,000 flight hour life (some say 12,000 hours), at least before one major overhaul. Although the Russians have a different standard for "overhaul", a Russian plane is about 2000 flight hours (Su-27 as an example) before it commits to the Russian definition of overhaul.

I don't think the J-10 is overbuilt to the same extent as the F-16C. The airframe would probably exceed the Russian service pattern but won't meet the same stringent Western requirements. More like somewhere in between. The standards the Chinese set to themselves seems long enough to last for their purposes, such as we have seen with the J-8II examples. But the Chinese also don't involve in various global cop campaigns the US does, or forsee themselves in bombing genocidal dictators or terrorist harboring countries, so they don't have any reason for the overengineering.

 

[crobato]

Its not a matter of achievability, it's a matter of requirement. You can certainly overbuild things, and if you don't set your requirements properly, you end up with something that is either too costly or too heavy.

Why do you need 8000 or 12000 flight hours time requirement? Is China involved in campaigns like the US does? I don't think so. If China is satisfied with a 2000 or 4000 flight hour (I heard J-8IIs have the latter) requirement, there is no need for the J-10 to be built as robust as an F-16C. Hence it can be lighter, and the direct comparison with the F-16C is not warranted.

Weight = money. The more weight an aircrat has, the more expensive it is to make. More material is needed to start with, more time needed to assemble, etc,. It also affects performance.

So you need to set a balance and you have to put that in the specifications.

And as I said, use the FC-1 as a standard for your judgement. That thing weighs 6400kg empty. Now work on that.

 

[crobato]

Read my post above again. Is the J-10 expected to have 8000 to 12000 flight hour before overhauls? The F-16C requirement came about because the US foresses themselves fighting in small wars all over the world like Serbia. The Chinese don't have the same requirements.

Just because something has a higher payload does not mean its airframe has to built to last that long. I'm pretty sure the J-11 has a high priority in the PLAAF too, but it does 2000 flight hours before overhaul.

Sure, J-10 is technical masterpiece for the PLAAF. But PLA also has policy that that their stuff must be cheap to buy, fast to make and generally expendable.

 

[tphuang]

Hey Chris,

I think I read that K-8's airframe supposedly can endure 8000 hours and the L-15's airframe can endure 10000 hours. (In fact, that's one of the main advantages of L-15 over L-9, I read that L-9's flight hour is 3000 or something like that.) So, I won't be surprised if J-10 can endure something in that range.

 

[Twix101]

If you want to compare weights, the best way is to look for other Chinese air examples, because one Chinese plane is likely to be built on the same level of technology as another Chinese plane. Here you can take out national differences in construction.

Look at the FC-1. It is also made by Chengdu. It does not have a lot of composite. But it weighs only 6400kg empty. Do you think the J-10 is a lot bigger than it to justify 9750kg empty? And its not the engine, the RD-93 is only about 100-200kg lighter than AL-31FN at the most. In fact the FC-1 is slightly longer than the F-16.

I'm not sure that you have counted the auxiliary systems in the balance, they take a certain importance in this stage, the FC-1, for sure is not as much equiped as the J-10 is, for example, the avionics take more importance and the J-10 is more reinforced to support higher payload than the FC-1 plus the acceleration resistance. Another thing, if the J-10 is comparable with the F-16 I'm sure it will have nearly same weight.

I don't think the J-10 is overbuilt to the same extent as the F-16C. The airframe would probably exceed the Russian service pattern but won't meet the same stringent Western requirements. More like somewhere in between. The standards the Chinese set to themselves seems long enough to last for their purposes, such as we have seen with the J-8II examples. But the Chinese also don't involve in various global cop campaigns the US does, or forsee themselves in bombing genocidal dictators or terrorist harboring countries, so they don't have any reason for the overengineering.

The J-10 is one of the future masterpiece of the PLAAF and , for sure, they have strict requirements for this fighter plane. What else ? The First prototype was build a long time after the first F-16C prototype why do you think they will do something inferior ? Are you underestimating China's engineer ? I'm sure they want the best for their Air Force, as like as other aeronautical engineers around the world.

 

[coolieno99]

I can't see the Japanese being first with the AESA radar and putting it on a F-2, it's not even there best fighter. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the US already have about a 100 or so operational aircraft with the AESA radar? It would suprise me if this could be true wouldn't the Japanese air force put the AESA in the F-15Js instead of the F-2? I don't know about the naval warship but I'm sure somebody in this forum can help this poster with these two questions much better then I.

The AESA radar was made by Mitsubishi. It has about 800 Transmit/Receive modules. It was installed on the F-2 during the mid-1990's.

 

[crobato]

Hey Chris,

I think I read that K-8's airframe supposedly can endure 8000 hours and the L-15's airframe can endure 10000 hours. (In fact, that's one of the main advantages of L-15 over L-9, I read that L-9's flight hour is 3000 or something like that.) So, I won't be surprised if J-10 can endure something in that range.

That's pretty rigid.

As for the FC-1, just because the PLAAF has yet to adopt it does not mean the PAF has some tough requirements of their own. Or that the FC-1 may also be considering PLAAF requirements just in case, or the PLAAF has given their requirements during the course of the development. Certainly those requirements would be taken into consideration. I think the payload weight of the FC-1 is determined more by its engine power than the stress limitations of the airframe. The FC-1 isn't that small a plane, it looks to me its even slightly longer than an F-16A.

I think 9750kg empty is way too heavy when compared to the FC-1 at 6400kg. Payload differences, engine differences, even airframe life differences, will that make up a difference of over 3000kg?