Chengdu J-10 "Vigorous Dragon" fighter
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,415
- Reaction score
- 18,953
Maybe its just testing TVC nozzle for the J-20.
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,169
- Reaction score
- 1,138
kcran567 said:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,169
- Reaction score
- 1,138
kcran567 said:
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,298
- Reaction score
- 8,983
kcran567 said:
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 said:
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.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,415
- Reaction score
- 18,953
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).
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,298
- Reaction score
- 8,983
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
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.
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.
Interestingly , PLAN's su30mk2 is sometimes described as identical as plaaf's su30mkk except for added modes for anti ship missiles.
seruriermarshal
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 533
Purported to be J-10 crash in Zhanjiang, Guangdong province on October 18.
https://twitter.com/alert5/status/1053032479781642240
https://twitter.com/alert5/status/1053032479781642240
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 3,088
So, with J-10B test airframe going to appear at Zhuhai Airshow with WS-10 TVC variant, does it tell us anything about likelihood of said engine variant appearing in 1) PLAAF J-10B units? 2) Exported J-10s? or 3) Non-TVC variant of WS10 appearing in service with J10B anywhere?
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,415
- Reaction score
- 18,953
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,415
- Reaction score
- 18,953
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,169
- Reaction score
- 1,138
Last edited by a moderator:
iPhone6Minus
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 29 October 2019
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 45
By that time, J-10 was still planning to use WP-15A (Tumansky R-29) for the prototype.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 3,088
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,698
- Reaction score
- 3,192
Alert5's youtube put up this interesting video of J-10 pilots speaking in English during a dogfight
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfu-azKcj6w&feature=emb_title
shin_getter
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 June 2019
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 1,186
Pakistan J-10 purchase again being talked about
edit: wrong media source:
www.defenseworld.net
edit: wrong media source:
China Could Hand Over 36 J-10C Jets to Pakistan in 2021
Pakistan will reportedly receive 36 Chengdu J-10C multirole fighters from China by the end of this year. On Monday, House for Strategic & International Affairs (HSIA) posted on Twitter, “Pakistan is set to receive 36 J-10C semi-stealth, 4.5 gen advanced fighter Jets from China by the end of...
www.defenseworld.net
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
-
Shenyang FC-31 prototype to J-XY / J-35 naval fighter
- Started by Foxglove
- Replies: 712
-
Iran to get Chinese J-10 fighters in return for oil rights- Started by Triton
- Replies: 4
-
-
