*New J-10 Thread*

[mehdi]

60 J-10s This is what I would do anyway Crobato your post does give us an inside in China's Strategy. From my point I see that to bounce back from the poor performance of the J-11, China will seek assistance from Russia.

As you noted if China coproduces the Su-33 some of the technolgy e.g. canards, electronics and also radar will go into the J-11B production but that may seriously delay its induction in PLAAF. That may force China to purchase Su-35 or Su-33 fighters. A serious drawback for Shenyang and for PLAAF as a whole.

 

[maglomanic]

I think its a shock for the PLAAF who has majorly invested---financially, infrastructurally, and politically---to a varied hi-lo mix. Its not in their plans to have the "lo" outperform the "hi". I believe it gravely damaged the PLAAF confidence on the Flanker type and with it, their long range modernization and development plans, e.g. Su-30MK3. And once that confidence is damaged, so does the confidence of the PLAAF in engagement against Western type fighters such as the F-16 and M2000.

I look at some of the figures tphuang posted such a 31 deg/sec turn rate instantaneous, and that's faster than the Su-27, right up to the Rafale/Typhoon scale.

I believe the fall out hasn't been fully contained yet, but I believe this may have caused a delay on the J-11B project by revising and raising its target goals.

So now the J-11B has to be pushed into being a bomber, surface weapons integration can cause more delays. If the J-11B has a more modest requirement of just A2A first, it should have been out by now. Modifications like adding canards to turn the plane into a more Su-35 configuration, might help on those turn rates. Anyway I expect the J-11 to get canards once they model the airframe to the Su-33 configuration, so the plane layout---Su-33/35 style with canards---is killing two birds with one stone.

I do think that Shenyang needs to get their J-11Bs up for a showdown with the J-10s, and then we can see the fallout from the results. Flying the J-11B would equalize any electronics and radar advantage. Given the same technology state, the larger radar on the J-11B can give a longer range advantage but that is offset by the J-11B's larger radar signature.

I'm a little concerned about the RWR on the J-11B. They better use something more advanced than an L015 Beryoza, the one on the J-10 seems more advanced and is mentioned to be a factor over its battles with the Su-27.

Where it hurts is this---the limited quota of WS-10A engines. If a plant makes 60 engines a year, what do you chose to build---60 J-10s or 30 J-11Bs out of it?

Think about the last question for a moment---that's the question that is going to befall on the PLAAF brass.

Crobato,
Excellent insight!
Few things however that seem to trouble me
If manuveability was such an issue the wakeup call should have been the time when Aggressor's commander whacked Flankers right and left with his J-7E. M2K has been a known enemy and it's excellant turn rate even known to forum amateurs like me .
Also, Why opt for cannards to improve manuverability than go for TVC nozzles? (two nozzles being more expensive and complicated than two cannards?)

 

[Scratch]

Is there any credible info on the J-10s combat radius ? I found indications ranging from 550km to 1100+km. So if the J-10 really outperforms the J-11 in A2A combat, J-11s only advantage would be it's longer range, (1600km combat radius?) and possibly radar range when outfitted with new AESA radar.
The J-11(B) development could/should then be directed towards a bomber / naval strike fighter plane with it's large payload. Whereas the J-10 can become an attacker later. Though this seems to be some years of now.

If there are problems to supply a sufficient number of engines, go with the J-10, you get more from there. In case J-10 is the better A2A fighter, it makes sense to establish a credible air superiority force first. Since even good attackers have a hard time when the enemy controlls the skys.
Furthermore it strengthens the domestic industry wich seems to have proven reliable in that case.

 

[IDonT]

If what everyone says about the J-10 vs the Flanker series is true, then the Flanker is really showing its age. Russia better get their next gen fighter up to speed or the J-10 will steal its market share. The FC-1 and the J-10 offers an attractive hi-lo mix package to countries seeking a low-cost alternative to western fighters or have no access to western fighters. This is a niche the the Russians traditional have.

 

[Pointblank]

If what everyone says about the J-10 vs the Flanker series is true, then the Flanker is really showing its age. Russia better get their next gen fighter up to speed or the J-10 will steal its market share. The FC-1 and the J-10 offers an attractive hi-lo mix package to countries seeking a low-cost alternative to western fighters or have no access to western fighters. This is a niche the the Russians traditional have.

The issue is with money and technical experience. Russian aircraft manufacturers don't have a lot of money to pay for major military projects for designing entirely new aircraft. Also, much of the expertise have also left the country heading West or to China, and lending their experience to other countries because of better pay.

 

[crobato]

Crobato,
Excellent insight!
Few things however that seem to trouble me
If manuveability was such an issue the wakeup call should have been the time when Aggressor's commander whacked Flankers right and left with his J-7E. M2K has been a known enemy and it's excellant turn rate even known to forum amateurs like me .
Also, Why opt for cannards to improve manuverability than go for TVC nozzles? (two nozzles being more expensive and complicated than two cannards?)

Well, the J-10 may go for TVC nozzles as well, so that will erase that advantage for the Flanker in the midterm run. Besides, going with the canards is there to help lift for carrier takeoffs and landings.

For the J-11, if they're serious with navalization, they should standardize on the Su-33 like airframe, and aerodynamically its almost the same as the Su-35 when it comes to aerodynamics, as both have canards. Its too expensive to come up with a new design just for carriers, so a navalized design has to be standardized even with the air force, a one size fits all scenario. So you're looking at an Su-33/35 type hybrid combinationv that I think is best for the future J-11.

The Flanker is very maneuverable, but its big size is the handicap, since WVR is after all, playing with the visual. The J-7E is a tiny small plane, hard to spot, easy to lose. There is no way you can correct the "size" of a plane. No amount of modifications will stop the Flanker from being big. This is not saying the J-7E will win all the time. The experience did parallel what the US Aggressors did with their small A-4s and F-5s against F-14s, F-4s and F-15s.

Size is what I think the Flanker's big disadvantage, literally. Easy to spot through radar, easy to eyeball. Canards and TVC won't fix that. But in the end, perhaps you may alleviate that with some training and tactics through some tough Aggressor schooling.

I always mentioned the J-10s playing Aggressors roles in the PLAAF in addition to J-7Es since the first J-10 regiment in the FTTC formed carrying M2000 like camouflage markings. The regiment's location make is convenient for wargaming and aggressor training against a whole bunch of Su-27 and J-11 regiments that include the FTTC Su-30MKK regiment, the 1st Division, the 3rd Division and the 19th Division. Then we also have reports that the 44th Division is also involved in wargaming and playing the part of blue flag aggressor, like in one recent instance, against the 19th Division.

 

[Chengdu J-10]

Russia nightmare has finally emerged. Russia has always worried that China one day will make an aircraft that is capable and cost effective then its own, and then sell it to the international markets. The fear has already began with the Su-27 being outperformed by the J-10. Since this is so the J-10 is more superior and cost effective solution to western fighters. China is beginning to produce capable fighters that can "steal" the Russia aviaton markets customers. In so Russia looses its customers and its financial crisis is once again present without or limited export rate in which it relies heavly on to keep its aviation industry afloat. Non-western nations reliance on Russia aviation imports is diminishing and China's exports to these countries is forever growing. The issue with Russia is that they only in these 20 years have only either been modifying or upgrading 70's fighter airframes. There hasn't been much of a revolutionary turn in the Russian aviation sector, and this can be seen in the becoming soon obsolete fighter designs taking its age now. (Sukhoi (Su-27/30/33) & Mikoyan (Mig-29 series)) While China is leaping generations with revolutionary designs, this is evident in the leap from J-8 to J-10. The appearance (aerodynamic wise not looks) tells all from the Cold War design of the obsolete J-8 leaping strate into the J-10 a 21st century sensation fighter which can challenge early 5th generation western fighters. The significant generation leap is huge and noticeable. Sort of like the US F-14->F-18. But China case they leaped over the F-14 and went strait into the F-18. Refering to Crobato: Great analysis. And to the 60 engine crisis. The PLAAF from a personal point of view should or would give majority of the engines to the J-10 since the PLAAF always go domestic in most scenario, and since the fighter is more superior then the J-11B gives it extra browny points. (Browny points=extra credit) In order for the J-11B to catch the spotlight again Shenyang needs to get the J-11 to a Su-37 level of superiority. Though this will be very expensive and time consuming. Personally I'm a J-10 positive so I would go J-10 all the way.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Russia will always have India. I just read some article that India is the biggest arms (imports) buyer in the world now. And I would suggest Russia's waffling over the FC-1 engine issue, now seemingly turning against Pakistan, is due to India making recent Russian arms deals.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Each fighter has its advantages and disadvantages and thus are complementary to each other; look at the USAF/Navy- they use both F-16 & F-18 types, and the Indians are going for Su-27/30, MiG-29K & light combat aircraft (LCA)! So IMHO regardless of which type scores in those mock dogfights China will field both, at least in the PLAAF. Besides, for the ground attack/Antiship roles the big size of the Su-30 may not be that important thanks to standoff ordinance it most likely will use.

Air-to-Surface Missile
up to six Kh-29/AS-14 Kedge, up to four Kh-31/AS-17 Krypton, up to two Kh-59

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tphuang]

I found this on Chinese forums.

1月7日，西南某军用机场，寒风瑟瑟。在阵阵滚雷般的轰鸣声中，成空航空兵某师新装备的一架架歼-10新型战机呼啸腾空，利剑般刺向天际， 开始了新年度首次飞行训练。

指挥塔台上，指挥员通过训练管理信息系统实时监控飞行员在空中的一举一动；飞行员一走下战机，就可通过飞行参数自动评分系统查询飞行航迹、攻击态势等飞行参数……“信息化条件下训练氛围浓，源于歼-10战机较高的信息化程度。”在机场塔台上指挥新年开飞的师长李勇介绍，自歼-10新型战机装备部队以来，师里围绕新战机的特点，把以飞行质量监控为主要内容的信息化条件下的军事训练作为提升战斗力的重点，开展科研攻关，研制开发了融合飞参数据自动管理、飞参自动判读、飞参成绩自动网上发布查询于一体的训练质量监控信息化系统，可实时查询每架次飞机的飞行数据，有效提高飞行训练质量。

apparently, this is the first exercise of J-10 this year. Not much said here, except that they are measuring the flight performance of each plane.

Also, a new picture of twin seated J-10. The number is 50756, looks like 44th division did a renumbering from 4xx5x to 5xx5x or maybe a new division altogether? Any thoughts, Chris?