*New J-10 Thread*

[LIGO]

Hey crobato, how reliable is this website (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) where you just quoted an article? On the same website there is this article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It talks about a stealthier version of J-10 that will be completed this year, with AESA radar but probably without thrust vectoring. Then it talks about a two-engined pseudo-4th generation fighter, as a by product of a carrier based fighter, that will enter service before F-35 does. (It then goes on to talk about a true 4th-generation fighter and so on...) Isn’t that too fast? Are these articles reliable?

 

[crobato]

wforum simply collects all the interesting stuff from the other forums. If you don't have the time to bother reading all the stuff in all the forums, wforum is a convenient way to get to the gist of it.

The articles are sometimes peoples's post in other forums, or someone's blog. There is quite a number of PLA observer bloggers in the mainland, and sometimes they're speculating, though not without a reasonable basis.

I don't know if there is a "stealthier" version of J-10, and "version" by all words can mean differently to people. If there is a stealthy version of the J-10, by my definition of version, it would be a brand new plane. You can reduce RCS possibly by changing the intake design, to let's say DSI, like in the F-16 DSI. Perhaps the use of additional composite and radar absorbent material. I don't know if such a project can be finished this year. I think AESA is the inevitable course of development, and its probably a waste of time and money to develop a PESA for the J-10. All the other stuff is just too advanced or too classified or both to talk about with reasonable accuracy.

 

[crobato]

do mean the first pic is prototype? but I have another pic below, it is J-10b, so I still don't understand.


[qimg]http://military.people.com.cn/mediafile/200612/31/F2006123115063400441.jpg[/qimg]

So yeah, that's still a prototype. If you see anything with 3 or 4 digits, its a prototype.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

This is from Russian

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I inserted translation.

Размах крыла, wingspan, м 8.78
Длина length, м 14.57
Высота height, м 4.78
Площадь крыла wing area, м2 33.05
Масса weight, кg
пустого самолета empty 9800
нормальная взлетная takeoff 18000
Топливо, fuel weight, liters
внутренние internal 2625
ПТБ external 4165
Тип двигателя engine type 1 ТРДДФ АЛ-31ФН
Тяга, trust kgs
нормальная normal 1 х 7600
форсажная high power 1 х 12500
Максимальная скорость , max speed км/h М=2.00
Крейсерская скорость , cruise км/h 1110
Практическая дальность, range км 2000
Практический потолок, м ceiling 18000
Макс. эксплуатационная перегрузка Max overburden 9g
Экипаж crew 1
Вооружение: armamments одна 1 23-мм пушка cannon.
Боевая нагрузка warload-7260 кg на on 11 узлах подвески hard points.
На семи узлах внешней подвески 7 hardpoints can be used for возможно размещение УР guided missiles класса «воздух-воздух» A2A PL-8, PL-10, PL-11, P-27 и Р-73, а также ракет класса «воздух-поверхность» also A2 surface/ground
ПКР YJ-8K, НАР, свободнопадающие бомбы и другое вооружение free fall bombs and other weapons.

How does it compare with other tables out there?

 

[wlchang]

Hey, I have found a pic in this thread that I think is PSed! Just try to match the 2 J-10s. The bottom J-10's serial no. seem disaligned but I wouldn't trust both the serial numbers.

 

[crobato]

Hey, I have found a pic in this thread that I think is PSed! Just try to match the 2 J-10s. The bottom J-10's serial no. seem disaligned but I wouldn't trust both the serial numbers.

You are wrong. The picture is not a PS. In fact, it was taken by a major publication, Aviation Now, who has a Chinese edition. This pic is from the Chinese edition of AN.

The top serial number is correct. The lower one is wrong (50509) and should have been 50559 but you can blame that on a painter who did a very stupid mistake.

Two planes flying in formation can produce a result exactly like this. However they are not exactly the same. The lower plane has a slightly different angle on the wing, so the leading edge of the slat is not exactly the same as the plane above. This difference, no matter how small, is difference enough to say that the two planes are not digital copies of each other, which would have required a perfect 100% match to prove.

 

[Deino]

You are wrong. The picture is not a PS. ....

But once agin the PL-8's are a PS !!

 

[crobato]

Are they? I'm not really sure, The PL-8s look like dummies. Anytime you see a red missile, its nothing more than a dummy, intended to give some weight in the wing and add its aerodynamic properties to the wing, which may be optimized for it.

 

[Deino]

Are they? I'm not really sure, The PL-8s look like dummies. Anytime you see a red missile, its nothing more than a dummy, intended to give some weight in the wing and add its aerodynamic properties to the wing, which may be optimized for it.

Agreed, but if You take a look at the size of the missile and esp. the point where the pylon should be attached ... should be on the out-wing pylon and not on the middle of the wing ! Here the one on the left seems to be attached over the PLAAF-star+bar-symbol !

 

[wlchang]

Okay, it would help us if we pay attention to the following points:


1. The position of the 2 missiles/pylons. The missile nearer to the foreground seem to be coming out way too in front. i.e. the front part of the missile is no more underneath the wing whereas the other missile (towards the background) is completely under the wing.
This would mean the missiles themselves are PSed.


2. Even if you consider the angle of view effect which make the missiles seem slightly out of place, the "effect" in the photo show the exact opposite! (see point no. 1 above). It would be easier to see if you have a model airplane to simulate).

3. The reflection of the leading edge of the slats look different because of point no. 1 above.

4. I did a cut & paste and found out that the angles of the slats in the two images are exactly the same.

5. The pilots' helmets. (It look exactly the same to me)

6. The digits of the serial numbers look distorted. Why are other parts of the image (like the star banner) are not distorted as much?

In addition, it won't be possible to compare pixels to pixels as the picture is probably manually photo-scanned and therefore they are bound to be different.

P.S. How do I post the picture so that it display right away instead of having it as attachment and to click on it?