*New J-10 Thread*

[wlchang]

it`s actually the norm to do so. You would not say that your equipment is inferior. That would be bad for morale and sales.

So you are implying that there is group effort involving possibly the top officials and the pilots to skew the results to make it looks good for the J-10?
Wouldn't it be bad for the morale of the pilots and ,if the news got leaked out, the designers, the engineers and others? Certainly not a smart thing to do.

There is always a possibility that some of the serial numbers are PSed. I remember a photo posted some time ago, in this thread I think, supposedly showing 2 J-10s climbing up. On looking closer,other than the serial nos., the 2 J-10 image are actually the same copy of each other. I am not sure if anyone else noticed it.

I tried to find it in this thread but I had to give up as it took quite some time to load up. - I got no broadband at the moment. The serial numbers was orange painted, 5 digits. I remember some of the posters discussing about what division and what regiment they belonged to - oblivious to the fact that it's PSed. I was not a member then and so did not respond.

 

[Skorzeny]

So you are implying that there is group effort involving possibly the top officials and the pilots to skew the results to make it looks good for the J-10?
Wouldn't it be bad for the morale of the pilots and ,if the news got leaked out, the designers, the engineers and others? Certainly not a smart thing to do.

What I`m saying is that you usually say your equipment is top notch. That goes for every country. Say you want to sell your J-10, the pride of chinese aviation industry, abroad. Then it would be foolish to let it be beaten by flankers. So, if it is inferior, which is a possibility, you either have to not match them against each other, which is like admitting defeat, or organize the exercise in a way that gives the J-10 an advantage.

If you think that it is outrageous for a top official to skew results to support programs they think are important and have sunk millions of dollar into, look at the patriot program. The army testified before congress after gulf war 1 and told that the patriot had a 98% intercept rate. When asked to clarify, they said "intercept meant that the missiles passed each other in the sky (not hit)" . Close to zero being the real hit percentage. (since it was in a congressional hearing, you can probably check it) (and to stop a derailing with everyone defending the patriot, a approximation of 1/10 of a second was used in the software. When improving the software, they changed the approximation in some, but not all places, giving a tracking problem for high speed target. )

So its not so unthinkable for the chinese to support "their own" J-10, before the "russian" J-11 (though with more chinese components)

 

[tphuang]

What I`m saying is that you usually say your equipment is top notch. That goes for every country. Say you want to sell your J-10, the pride of chinese aviation industry, abroad. Then it would be foolish to let it be beaten by flankers. So, if it is inferior, which is a possibility, you either have to not match them against each other, which is like admitting defeat, or organize the exercise in a way that gives the J-10 an advantage.

If you think that it is outrageous for a top official to skew results to support programs they think are important and have sunk millions of dollar into, look at the patriot program. The army testified before congress after gulf war 1 and told that the patriot had a 98% intercept rate. When asked to clarify, they said "intercept meant that the missiles passed each other in the sky (not hit)" . Close to zero being the real hit percentage. (since it was in a congressional hearing, you can probably check it) (and to stop a derailing with everyone defending the patriot, a approximation of 1/10 of a second was used in the software. When improving the software, they changed the approximation in some, but not all places, giving a tracking problem for high speed target. )

So its not so unthinkable for the chinese to support "their own" J-10, before the "russian" J-11 (though with more chinese components)

That's what we've been trying to tell you. They've put far more money into flankers than J-10. Before the exercises, they were planning to buy more su-30s. After the exercises, they stopped su-30 purchases and licensed production of J-11As right away. And you see the huge delay in the IOC of J-11B, because I personally think SAC had to raise the specs on the plane to achieve some level of parity with J-10.

 

[crobato]

There is always a possibility that some of the serial numbers are PSed. I remember a photo posted some time ago, in this thread I think, supposedly showing 2 J-10s climbing up. On looking closer,other than the serial nos., the 2 J-10 image are actually the same copy of each other. I am not sure if anyone else noticed it.

I tried to find it in this thread but I had to give up as it took quite some time to load up. - I got no broadband at the moment. The serial numbers was orange painted, 5 digits. I remember some of the posters discussing about what division and what regiment they belonged to - oblivious to the fact that it's PSed. I was not a member then and so did not respond.

No they're not PSed. Precision drills are quite common to the PLAAF, though they serve no tactical purpose but to instill flight discipline. I know what picture you are talking about. It also happens to be a picture taken by either Xinhua or Aviation Now, which is by the way, a branch of an international magazine. Both don't indulge in creative or additive PS, though Xinhua would occasionally remove serial numbers.

You don't observe the PLAAF long enough to know that censors often discourage or digitally remove the serial numbers off the planes. And that's for a purpose, to discourage people from knowing the ORBAT. If a regiment is cleared for declassification, then they may allow the showing of the serial numbers. But often, like what happened with J-10s before, serial number after serial number were often deleted from the pictures, fearful of retribution from the PLA. You can get a website shutdown and people jailed because of this.

However, if the first engine contract was only for 54 engine, how is it possible to convert the second regiment in the 44th before the 2nd engine contract was signed in August of 2005?

We cannot jump on a firm conclusion about a second regiment on the 44th yet. The problem is that between 2004 and 2006, the PLAAF reorganized its numbering system, which we have not completely figured out. Certain questoins remains.

Prototypes = 12
Preproduction models = 10
FTTC = 10+ (later augmeted by preproduction models)
44th Div = 28+
3rd Div = 26

That's like 86 planes. There are also a few planes that may have gone into the 1st and 2nd Divisions. One report says like 6 to 8 planes have gone to Suixi.

There are also a number of J-10s in the CFTC. From Google Earth, at least 5.

 

[FugitiveVisions]

Prototypes = 12
Preproduction models = 10
FTTC = 10+ (later augmeted by preproduction models)
44th Div = 28+
3rd Div = 26

That's like 86 planes. There are also a few planes that may have gone into the 1st and 2nd Divisions. One report says like 6 to 8 planes have gone to Suixi.

There are also a number of J-10s in the CFTC. From Google Earth, at least 5.

If we assume that the number 86 is roughly correct, then we would be looking at roughly 74 J10s equipped with Al-31 engines. And out of those 74, roughly 20 planes are known to have been built before the end of 2003. Then there is photographic evidence that the regiment in the 44th was assembled in the fall of 2004. Next we see a picture taken in Feb. of 2006 of a batch of 3rd division J10s about to be delivered. There's a huge gap between the inauguration of the 44th J10s and the delivery time of the 3rd division J10s. And during this gap of 9+ months, we are assuming that only 26 J10s were produced. If this is indeed the case, could this low production rate have been a result of the gap between the time that engines from the first order ran out and the time that the second order was signed?

This data also signals that there is really no good data yet to determine an around-the-ballpark data for the production rate for the J10s. Clearly there was low level production of prototypes before 2002, followed by semi-low production levels of FTTC planes (preproduction models) in 2002 and 2003. And there is no real good data on the pace of production after that due to a possible disruption caused by the lack of engines. What we can say for sure, though, is that the rates that have been thrown out there (2-3/month, possibly beginning in 2003) is not accurate, because not all the predicted planes have materialized.

 

[crobato]

There is quite a large gap between the delivery of engines. The first 54 engines began delivery in May of 2002 and ended in January 2004. That's nearly two years to deliver just 54 engines.

The second batch began its deliveries at around October of 2005 and ended in September of 2006. That's much better, with 100 engines delivered in nearly a year. Around January to February of 2006, photos of new J-10s have begun to float and which inevitably went to the 3rd Division.

The 44th Division regiment inaugurated in July 13, 2004. The 3rd Division regiment inaugurated sometime in December 2006. That is also quite a gap.

That's enough time to put a regiment within, but arguably we like to see more evidence to either prove or disprove anymore planes in the 44th Division other than those in the ranges of 5055x to 5075x. This means numbers ranging from 5015x to 5045x and from 5085x to 51x5x. Heck, I like to see even J-7s or whatsover in those number range because that can also disprove the numbers. Unfortunately, we don't see neither J-7s or J-10s in those number ranges as of yet.

I have a hypothesis that between the time the 44th Division J-10s was inaugurated and by the time the 3rd Division J-10s were inaugurated, a number of changes to the J-10s that could have taken place. These changes could have resulted in bringing existing J-10s back to the factory for an upgrade.

The upgrade can consist first of an upgrade on the radars. Early KANWA reported the radars to be Type 1473, which corresponds to KLJ-3 in NRIET clemanture. But Flight International reported the J-10 radars now as KLJ-7, which did appear in a brochure not too long ago. Given that the J-8F radars now have the Type 1492 PLA designation, as opposed to the earlier Type 1471 designation, the J-10 radars may now have the PLA designation of Type 149x, with x > 2, superdating the Type 1473. These changes may have something to do with matching the radar with the PL-12. Around 2004, the PL-12 entered IOC with the PLAAF. It may not be completely ready with the 44th Division then, and the radar may require some updates.

Another change, which is more visual, is the addition of a satellite uplink in the back. This may be for navigation purposes in connection with the Beidou. This system is also essential for satellite positioned bombing. If you see the old pics of J-10s while they were numbered 41x5x, they didn't have the uplink. But the J-10s that numbered 50x5x, all in the same division, now have them.

There may also be other changes and revisions that we don't know about but can only hypothesize.

I figured that after the J-10s in the 2nd and 1st Division gets inaugurated, there will be a pause again, as another new version of the J-10 gets readied. Again, there may more be more up to date avionics, and possibly an engine change, either to the WS-10A or the AL-31FNM1.

I suspect that in the 100 engines that came last, there are a number of 31FNM1 in the last batches that are intended for prototype development.

I also suspect that when a new batch of improvements come around, the older J-10s have to go back to the factory for their updates, as some of these may be too complicated for field technicians. This is going to keep the factory quite busy.

 

[FugitiveVisions]

crobato, I think that 54 in the first batch and 100 in the second batch makes numerical sense knowing that the Chinese are at a crossroad in terms of choosing which engine to go with next. It appears that Chinese military leaders have really taken "quality over quantity" to heart, because what we have seen over the past 3+ years since J10s certification is not production on massive scales (I doubt the existence of a second line based on the current number of J10s that have materialized and the number of engines that have been ordered). If we assume that this "wait and see" approach is true and also that the Chinese know pretty well in advance how many J10s they are going to pump out in a 2 year span, then I believe that the quantity and the timeframe of the engine orders reflect that.

Given the existence of upgrades and the time of the initial delivery of the second batch of engines, I think now that it is unlikely that there is more than one regiment of J10s in the 44th. Besides, when you look at the Su-27, the first batch went to the 3rd Division. The second batch went to the 2nd Division, the 3rd batch went to the 33rd and the first J-11s went to the first. Similar patterns here except that the 44th got them first due to proximity, then the 3rd, the 2nd and the 1st. No reason to form the first two regiments in the same division, especially when you know that the hardware is scarce.

 

[wlchang]

What I`m saying is that you usually say your equipment is top notch. That goes for every country. Say you want to sell your J-10, the pride of chinese aviation industry, abroad. Then it would be foolish to let it be beaten by flankers. So, if it is inferior, which is a possibility, you either have to not match them against each other, which is like admitting defeat, or organize the exercise in a way that gives the J-10 an advantage.

If you think that it is outrageous for a top official to skew results to support programs they think are important and have sunk millions of dollar into, look at the patriot program. The army testified before congress after gulf war 1 and told that the patriot had a 98% intercept rate. When asked to clarify, they said "intercept meant that the missiles passed each other in the sky (not hit)" . Close to zero being the real hit percentage. (since it was in a congressional hearing, you can probably check it) (and to stop a derailing with everyone defending the patriot, a approximation of 1/10 of a second was used in the software. When improving the software, they changed the approximation in some, but not all places, giving a tracking problem for high speed target. )

So its not so unthinkable for the chinese to support "their own" J-10, before the "russian" J-11 (though with more chinese components)

That's a completedly different scenario and inferences is at best "inferences". What I am trying to say is that (assuming that they even want to do it) too many personels are involved and it is not easy to put a tight lid on the scam. Furthermore, there are going to be future exercises. Are they going to keep on falsifying results? It is not at all a practical thing to do.

Okay, let us not get too off-topic.

No they're not PSed. Precision drills are quite common to the PLAAF, though they serve no tactical purpose but to instill flight discipline. I know what picture you are talking about. It also happens to be a picture taken by either Xinhua or Aviation Now, which is by the way, a branch of an international magazine. Both don't indulge in creative or additive PS, though Xinhua would occasionally remove serial numbers.

You don't observe the PLAAF long enough to know that censors often discourage or digitally remove the serial numbers off the planes. And that's for a purpose, to discourage people from knowing the ORBAT. If a regiment is cleared for declassification, then they may allow the showing of the serial numbers. But often, like what happened with J-10s before, serial number after serial number were often deleted from the pictures, fearful of retribution from the PLA. You can get a website shutdown and people jailed because of this.

The two J-10 images in that photo are exact copies of each other. The position of the pilot's helmet, the reflections, shadows - they are all an exact copy. What I mean is if you would compare it pixel by pixel, it would be the same. I was surprised nobody noticed it. The reason could be because it was quite a big photo - you have to do a page-up and a page-down in order to compare the two images. Too bad I can't find it.

 

[crobato]

I don't remember the photo you are saying. I remember one photo of two 3rd Division J-10s taking off, which has been featured lately, and both are quite similar to each other but not exact. Since one J-10 is a little too far off the distance behind and in the background of the foreground J-10, I can't say how you can see the helmet of the pilot. The serial number is on the foreground J-10. If two J-10s are taking off at the same angle, of course the shadows and lighting for both would be the same. If they are actually different then you have a great deal of more trouble explaining to that to the contrary.

crobato, I think that 54 in the first batch and 100 in the second batch makes numerical sense knowing that the Chinese are at a crossroad in terms of choosing which engine to go with next. It appears that Chinese military leaders have really taken "quality over quantity" to heart, because what we have seen over the past 3+ years since J10s certification is not production on massive scales (I doubt the existence of a second line based on the current number of J10s that have materialized and the number of engines that have been ordered). If we assume that this "wait and see" approach is true and also that the Chinese know pretty well in advance how many J10s they are going to pump out in a 2 year span, then I believe that the quantity and the timeframe of the engine orders reflect that.

The thing is they don't want to get stuck with a large inventory that turns obsolete quickly. It is like what they are doing in the PLAN. They don't do production in a massive scale, but on a limited one, try out one design to prove it, then move on to the next and the next.

Given the existence of upgrades and the time of the initial delivery of the second batch of engines, I think now that it is unlikely that there is more than one regiment of J10s in the 44th. Besides, when you look at the Su-27, the first batch went to the 3rd Division. The second batch went to the 2nd Division, the 3rd batch went to the 33rd and the first J-11s went to the first. Similar patterns here except that the 44th got them first due to proximity, then the 3rd, the 2nd and the 1st. No reason to form the first two regiments in the same division, especially when you know that the hardware is scarce.

Which is true. The is the basic argument why you don't have more than one regiment of one type (except for J-7 and J-8) in one division.

However, there is one example that debunks this and it happens to be a good one. The PLANAF 6th Division has both the original set of JH-7s (81x6x) in one regiment and the second set (82x6x) in another. The circumstances of both the PLANAF 6th Division and the PLAAF 44th are very similar. Both have the IOC of a new domestic fighter, and in the 6th Division's case, this was the first regiment to have the JH-7.

 

[wlchang]

I don't remember the photo you are saying. I remember one photo of two 3rd Division J-10s taking off, which has been featured lately, and both are quite similar to each other but not exact. Since one J-10 is a little too far off the distance behind and in the background of the foreground J-10, I can't say how you can see the helmet of the pilot. The serial number is on the foreground J-10. If two J-10s are taking off at the same angle, of course the shadows and lighting for both would be the same. If they are actually different then you have a great deal of more trouble explaining to that to the contrary.

The 3rd Division J-10s photo is not the one I am talking about as I was able to see the 2 pilots clearly. If I can remember correctly, the 2 J-10s did not overlapped at all - one at the top and the other at the bottom. I can understand it is difficult to judge from the shadows and reflections alone especially when they are flying at the same angle but I did look at other clues like the pilots and the paintwork. Another thing is there wasn't any sense of perspective in the photo and the background was just blue sky. If I am not wrong (can't be sure about this as I cannot remember the serial no.), they were said to belong to the 44th division - supposedly.