• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Chengdu J-10 Topic

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubexMe_AGk
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
A fine example of a totally irrelevant aircraft. Its about 20 years too late. How many did the chicoms field? Hopefully they will keep buying them while we procure the f35.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Airplane said:
A fine example of a totally irrelevant aircraft. Its about 20 years too late. How many did the chicoms field? Hopefully they will keep buying them while we procure the f35.
A fine example of a totally wrong post. The J-10 was a very necessary step for the Chinese aircraft industry. Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.

Also 'chicom' (a word I didn't know) is

1. Slang: Disparaging.. a contemptuous term used to refer to a Communist Chinese.

Please avoid disparaging terms. Be contemptuous of your rivals at your own peril.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
370
Reaction score
6
I've heard lots of inappropriate terms, but never considered ChiCom as one. I always thought it was a pretty good descriptor.

Regardless, I've always thought the J-10 was a pretty good stepping stone. Lots of countries are still buying "4th Gen" fighters. Not sure why that's a bad thing?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.
I think the open door to most US programs when it comes to security probably helped them as much when it comes to the J-20 (if not more) than prior experience building the J-10. J-10 experience might have helped them learn production techniques but the technology in the J-20 itself was almost certainly lifted from western (US) sources.
 

Blitzo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.
I think the open door to most US programs when it comes to security probably helped them as much when it comes to the J-20 (if not more) than prior experience building the J-10. J-10 experience might have helped them learn production techniques but the technology in the J-20 itself was almost certainly lifted from western (US) sources.
I think the biggest security flaw with US fifth generation projects was the willingness to allow their physical shape to be declassified and publicly broadcast and shared, not to mention all manner of public information about the kind of capabilities they were aiming for.

If ATF and JSF had been developed under as much secrecy as F-117 and B-2, I suspect the fifth generation projects by Russia and China wouldn't have progressed as quickly. Any espionage which may or may not have happened may have had a role but I suspect those were for learning methods to counter F-22 and F-35 rather than learning how to integrate features of those aircraft into their own.
 

latenlazy

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.
I think the open door to most US programs when it comes to security probably helped them as much when it comes to the J-20 (if not more) than prior experience building the J-10. J-10 experience might have helped them learn production techniques but the technology in the J-20 itself was almost certainly lifted from western (US) sources.
Given the timeline of the J-20's development and the dates of the security breaches, and given the state of computing when China was developing the J-20 compared to the state of computing when the US was developing the F-22, the degree to which the J-20 benefitted from espionage is probably grossly overstated. The science of stealth shaping is not secret special sauce. The physics is the same for everyone, and China, even in the 2000s, was not short of intellectual talent. If I had to peg one area where espionage might've helped, it would probably be materials, but even then, making use of a sample or a formula or even process documentation would require a fair share of independent work, and it's not unlikely they didn't already have their own understanding the material sciences involved to develop their own solutions. While specific applications of technical knowledge might be secret, the general technical knowledge that would allow for scientists and engineers to figure out solutions is not. Being cutting edge has always been much more a resource problem than an expertise problem, assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
latenlazy said:
assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
But with regards to stealth it isn't. Sure, there's stuff in open literature. Pretty sure it isn't the latest and greatest coming out of LM and NG. Hence the assist via espionage. Just look at the difference between the T-50 and J-20 in surface finishes, geometrical features, etc. The J-20 lifts a LOT from the F-22/35 whereas the T-50 is more like something one would expect from a country that had access to open literature but wasn't downloading F-22 and F-35 engineering data.
 

latenlazy

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
latenlazy said:
assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
But with regards to stealth it isn't. Sure, there's stuff in open literature. Pretty sure it isn't the latest and greatest coming out of LM and NG. Hence the assist via espionage. Just look at the difference between the T-50 and J-20 in surface finishes, geometrical features, etc. The J-20 lifts a LOT from the F-22/35 whereas the T-50 is more like something one would expect from a country that had access to open literature but wasn't downloading F-22 and F-35 engineering data.
As i said earlier, stealth isn't secret magic sauce. It's principles are well understood publicly, and applied to a lot of RF engineering outside of military applications. (RAM isn't just for stealth planes).

I think differences between J-20 and PAK-FA features and finishes have a lot more to do with project objectives, manufacturing choices, and stage of development than degree of espionage. The J-20's airframe is a finished product while the PAK-FA still doesn't have a model for production. Furthermore what surface materials you use will dictate what kinds of solutions you pursue. The PAK-FA's skin probably uses a lot more composites, which changes the approach you'd have to take to mitigate RCS.

On top of that, you're suggesting espionage is the reason the J-20's visual details look more like American solutions, but visual details by their nature covey accessible information without requiring espionage (as Blitzo noted). If casual forum members can take an educated stab at why certain details look the way they do, it won't be that hard for actual engineers and material scientists with working models to walk solutions backwards from visual observation, if that's even necessary.
 

Blitzo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
latenlazy said:
assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
But with regards to stealth it isn't. Sure, there's stuff in open literature. Pretty sure it isn't the latest and greatest coming out of LM and NG. Hence the assist via espionage. Just look at the difference between the T-50 and J-20 in surface finishes, geometrical features, etc. The J-20 lifts a LOT from the F-22/35 whereas the T-50 is more like something one would expect from a country that had access to open literature but wasn't downloading F-22 and F-35 engineering data.
I mean, the difference between T-50 and J-20 in the ways you describe could also just be the difference in requirements, funding, and dare I say it, technological competency?

Not to mention the design features you describe could also just be pointed in the right direction by a few high quality pictures of F-22 and F-35.


Using similar outward appearances and design to speculate about espionage is a bit silly, especially for stealth aircraft of this day and age. One just needs to look at all the F-22/F-35 clones in the world currently under development whether it's in Korea, Japan, Turkey, India, or China. The ones who execute it better will inevitably follow the standard bearers which are F-22 and F-35.
OTOH, if we one day attained some information about the kind of RAM that J-20 uses as being identical as the type which F-35 or F-22 has, or some part of J-20's software as being identical to F-35 or F-22, then that would be a much, much stronger case to argue from.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
Deino said:
Latest news ... a J-10B/C testbed fitted with a TVC-nozzle made its maiden flight on 25. December.
Good for the Chinese. It still won't out turn a missile shot from a -35.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
27
Good for the Chinese. It still won't out turn a missile shot from a -35.

What missile? At what range? From what aspect, relative altitude, relative speed?
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
277
Reaction score
8
Website
www.youtube.com
Arent TVC put on planes for other reasons? For fuel conservation (trimming with TVC, less drag overall), for short take off perfomance, for better handling at very slow speeds and for, if it ever comes to that, quicker nose turning in a knifefight one on one.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
27
There are a few such advantages. For example, on the Su-35 it is claimed that fully integrated TVC makes it possible to eliminate the Su-30's canard and hence recover the original max Mach number. STOL can be improved - which would be interesting if the PLA thought of dispersed operations.
 

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
263
Reaction score
15
totoro said:
Arent TVC put on planes for other reasons? For fuel conservation (trimming with TVC, less drag overall), for short take off perfomance, for better handling at very slow speeds and for, if it ever comes to that, quicker nose turning in a knifefight one on one.
Listening to a NASA test pilot in an interview, he said TVC was mainly to correct for other deficiencies in flight control that couldn't otherwise be resolved. I thought that sounded kind of dire, myself, but then again, if you could achieve your goals without introducing a system that required high hydraulic pressures and heat resistance on top of a whole new set of control laws, wouldn't you?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
42
TV helps rotate the nose up at low air speeds, to achieve higher alpha earlier in the take off roll, to shorten required field length. In doing so, they don't have to make a larger, hence more weight, drag, and cost, tail. They also use it for trim, which reduces drag in cruise and it can be used, obviously, for maneuver power at low speeds where the aerodynamic control surfaces lose their control power due to limited q. They also use it to optimize maneuvering at higher speeds as well. Also, a 2D nozzle, such as that used on the F-22, tends to offer better aerodynamic integration with the back of the aircraft and lower boat tail drag as a result. Of course, there is also the weight and cost penalty that is incurred when using a tv nozzle.

It's just another trade driven by the requirements.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
LowObservable said:
There are a few such advantages. For example, on the Su-35 it is claimed that fully integrated TVC makes it possible to eliminate the Su-30's canard and hence recover the original max Mach number. STOL can be improved - which would be interesting if the PLA thought of dispersed operations.
Maybe the J-10B will soon be doing maneuvers like the X-31. Maybe at some point they will eliminate the vertical tail on the J-10B.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Maybe its just testing TVC nozzle for the J-20.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
42
kcran567 said:
LowObservable said:
There are a few such advantages. For example, on the Su-35 it is claimed that fully integrated TVC makes it possible to eliminate the Su-30's canard and hence recover the original max Mach number. STOL can be improved - which would be interesting if the PLA thought of dispersed operations.
Maybe the J-10B will soon be doing maneuvers like the X-31. Maybe at some point they will eliminate the vertical tail on the J-10B.
That's highly unlikely, since a typical aircraft configuration is limited by tv alone in the g's it can pull due to limitations between the power required to maneuver and the power required to overcome the drag in combat; i.e., the more thrust you have to use for maneuvering, the less thrust you have to overcome drag. The X-31 didn't carry heavy weapons loads and most of it's incredible maneuvers were at air speeds so low that an A2A missile, especially an off bore sight missile, would easily knock it down while flying such maneuvers.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
277
Reaction score
8
Website
www.youtube.com
This is 2nd or 3rd ws10 variant that we've seen on J10? We had the original looking ws10 some years back. Was there ever the variant with the longer mid-section ring installed on j10? (as we saw on J11B)

Anyway, with these seemingly constant tries at a ws10 engine to be fitted on J10b, can one surmise that funding to actually have J10 with domestic engine is definitely there? Otherwise, why would they keep testing new variants on J10?

On a different note, if this alleged TVC variant does get put in mass use - would that constitute the first time a single engine fighter in service got a TVC engine?

Why haven't we seen other single engined planes with TVC? So far only twin engined planes were deemed as cost efficient to receive TVC. Why is that?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbrzrN20SM
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
Hey, not to offend anyone here but China is really making some good stuff these days. The J-10 will (has) left the F-16 in the dust (the avionics will be there shortly), the J-20 is going to be fantastic.

The West just will not keep up with Chinese production and cost. The Chinese already have more industry by far than the West and it will only gap further.

West will just not be able to compete. Too expensive and cant outsource forever, that is just not a good strategy long term because the West will have a huge uneducated labor force.

I think the Chinese churn out engineers 10:1 compared to the West.

That why the race is on to transfer tech to the Chinese. Just about every big company is trying to leave the US and other Western countries to try and get (give) into China.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
42
kcran567 said:
Hey, not to offend anyone here but China is really making some good stuff these days. The J-10 will (has) left the F-16 in the dust (the avionics will be there shortly), the J-20 is going to be fantastic.

The West just will not keep up with Chinese production and cost. The Chinese already have more industry by far than the West and it will only gap further.

West will just not be able to compete. Too expensive and cant outsource forever, that is just not a good strategy long term because the West will have a huge uneducated labor force.

I think the Chinese churn out engineers 10:1 compared to the West.

That why the race is on to transfer tech to the Chinese. Just about every big company is trying to leave the US and other Western countries to try and get (give) into China.
As an engineer who has had to work with Chinese companies, they have a long way to go in many areas. Having said that, I would expect their aerospace engineering to be in decent shape, since we trained many of them.

As for the J-10 leaving the F-16 in the dust, I haven't seen any evidence to back that up. Please post your references. However, I don't think the J-10 is a bad plane, nor would I expect it to be, since it is a quarter of a century newer than the F-16.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.

Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.

With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
kcran567 said:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.

Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.

With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
The F-16 could have had a diverterless inlet, 3D TVC, IRST, an AESA, and 36k thrust over a decade ago (probably closer to two decades ago). We could have done one better and put it all on an F-16XL. We decided not to.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
sferrin said:
kcran567 said:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.

Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.

With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
The F-16 could have had a diverterless inlet, 3D TVC, IRST, an AESA, and 36k thrust over a decade ago (probably closer to two decades ago). We could have done one better and put it all on an F-16XL. We decided not to.
My point exactly. Sure a couple f-16 one-off's had some of that installed over the last 30 years. But all those great items that were decided not to be put on the f-16 for political or whatever other reason, will end up on the j-10 at a much cheaper price and will be soon operational. The j-10b/c and future versions are really developing into what the f-16 should have developed into. Even then, because it's such a newer design it has more growth potential than the f-16 has. Too bad the f-16xl lost to the f-15e.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
kcran567 said:
sferrin said:
kcran567 said:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.

Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.

With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
The F-16 could have had a diverterless inlet, 3D TVC, IRST, an AESA, and 36k thrust over a decade ago (probably closer to two decades ago). We could have done one better and put it all on an F-16XL. We decided not to.
My point exactly. Sure a couple f-16 one-off's had some of that installed over the last 30 years. But all those great items that were decided not to be put on the f-16 will end up on the j-10 at a much cheaper price and will be operational.
We'd rather have F-35s than an uber F-16.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
I didn't really want to get into a lengthy discussion on the f-16, wanted to focus more on the j-10b and c, as being superior to the f-16. After all, lockheed is still selling the f-16 so they are not entirely done with it yet for the sake of the f-35. For that matter, I wonder how a future j-10 would compete with the f-35 and super hornet with similar avionics, aesa, engine upgrade, cft's, and some internal bays as an upgrade. Probably pretty well. That's not far fetched based on how far the j-10 has already developed.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
YJ-91, which is a Chinese clone of KH-31P, also developed into an active radar anti-ship version (not a copy of the KH-31A as China didn't buy it).
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
232
sferrin said:
Looks like it's got Russian Krypton missiles on it.
Hopefully not build by Lex Luthor (runs for cover)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
YJ-91, which is a Chinese clone of KH-31P, also developed into an active radar anti-ship version (not a copy of the KH-31A as China didn't buy it).
Aren't the -31a and -31P collectively known as "Krypton" in the NATO scheme? Apparently China bought 200 Kh-31P, and the YJ-91 is knockoff of that. (I know, it's Wiki. . .)

YJ-91 is the Chinese version of the Kh-31. YJ is short for Ying Ji (Yingji, 鹰击) meaning eagle strike. After purchasing 200 Kh-31Ps from Russia, China decided to develop its own version, because the original Kh-31 missile did not fully satisfy Chinese requirements. The resulting YJ-91 missile was developed by Hongdu Aviation Industry Corporation, the same manufacturer of the Silkworm missile. The experience gained from YJ-91 also helped the engine development of another supersonic missile indigenously developed in China, YJ-12, which is sometimes non-Chinese sources confuse it with YJ-91, as both share the same origin for their propulsion systems.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
277
Reaction score
8
Website
www.youtube.com
Actually,nowhere does it say A variant wasn't purchased. We only know of one purchase (out of possible several) and that one was for 200 P)

Interestingly , PLAN's su30mk2 is sometimes described as identical as plaaf's su30mkk except for added modes for anti ship missiles.
 
Top