Chengdu J-10 "Vigorous Dragon" fighter

[kaiserbill]

Forgive me Deino, but what exactly is a J-10C?
I haven't purchased your book (yet), but I sort of keep an eye on the J-10 programme.

I know the original A, the twin seater, and the B.

What does the C have that warrants a different model number?

No need to apologies (even if I would highly welcome if You would buy one !).

Anyway there are some reports about another J-10B-based development called J-10C since some time (esp. after an aircraft numbered '201' appeared). To admit I was always a bit skeptical about this "C" even if most bloggers say it is in fact a "B" but featuring an AESA instead of the PESA radar in the "B".

What makes me now quite sure is the new serial, since so far 101x = J-10A pre-serials, 102x = J-10S prototypes, 103x = J-10B prototypes, and now maybe 105x = J-10C prototype ... all what is missing is a 104x = maybe the J-10BS prototypes !!

What new avionics are added is so far unknown.

Hope this helps a bit,
Deino

Thanks for the explanation, Deino.


One other quick question....


Are there any indications of when the first batch of J-10's powered by the indigenous engine are likely to be on the scene?
I know it's a difficult one to answer, but surely this must be imminent?
One would also assume that if an avionics upgrade/change results in a different model number, then so would hardware changes like a new engine?

 

[Deino]

Thanks for the explanation, Deino.

One other quick question....

Are there any indications of when the first batch of J-10's powered by the indigenous engine are likely to be on the scene?
I know it's a difficult one to answer, but surely this must be imminent?
One would also assume that if an avionics upgrade/change results in a different model number, then so would hardware changes like a new engine?

To admit I don't know and if I had to bet what would be included in any serial J-10C I would have said an AESA and even more the WS-10B !
Now it seems to any unknown reason - even if there are many suggestions floating around - CAC and the PLAAF is quite happy with the AL-31FN and even more with the current series III. As such I really can't tell You anything in this regard, sorry.

Deino

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is an early artist drawing to J-10.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Beautiful J-10B/C pics via http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=7232.140

 

[Deino]

Beautiful J-10B/C pics via http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=7232.140

Yes and even more since finally the WS-10B - some say even the uprated WS-10G - is used ... seems as if the second batch of J-10Bs are now WS-10-powered similar to the Batch 02 J-11Bs.

Deino

 

[chuck4]

For some reason the vertical stabilizer of the J-10 looks oversized for the aircraft. One would think for a FBW aircraft the Chinese could have made the vertices tail smaller.

 

[Machdiamond]

FBW cannot put air back into the fuselage wake at high angle of attack. Just look at the M346.

 

[lastdingo]

http://china-defense.blogspot.de/2015/10/j-10s-down.html

 

[Sundog]

What's up with the unpainted canopy frame? Did they just get new canopies?

 

[Deino]

What's up with the unpainted canopy frame? Did they just get new canopies?

Sorry, I only wanted to quote Your post:

Not really new, but it seems as if these latest WS-10-powered aircraft all have that unpainted but gold-coated canopies.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

What was that Project 8810 ?, a real one ?.

http://alternathistory.org.ua/istrebitel-j-10-kitaiskii-drakon-s-rossiiskim-serdtsem

 

[hesham]

Hi,

please note the rear landing gear shape for earlier J-10 Prototype.

http://defence.pk/threads/combat-aircraft-projects-designs-index-in-2nd-post.75408/page-58

 

[sferrin]

FBW cannot put air back into the fuselage wake at high angle of attack. Just look at the M346.

Or the Tornado.

 

[Deino]

Hi,

please note the rear landing gear shape for earlier J-10 Prototype.

http://defence.pk/threads/combat-aircraft-projects-designs-index-in-2nd-post.75408/page-58

This is not a J-10, not even an early version, prototype, but simply a baaaaad PS made from a J-8B.

 

[hesham]

This is not a J-10, not even an early version, prototype, but simply a baaaaad PS made from a J-8B.

My dear Deino,

but they wrote on the picture 10 not 8.

 

[flanker]

And i can write 500, doesnt make it J-500.

It is so painfully obvious to be a horrible horrible PS i am not even sure why you are posting it.

 

[hesham]

And i can write 500, doesnt make it J-500.

It is so painfully obvious to be a horrible horrible PS i am not even sure why you are posting it.

If we look well to the first letter,it is very similar to letter "J" by Chinese language.

 

[Deino]

And i can write 500, doesnt make it J-500.

It is so painfully obvious to be a horrible horrible PS i am not even sure why you are posting it.

If we look well to the first letter,it is very similar to letter "J" by Chinese language.

You are correct, the letter means Jian and as such J-10, but that does not make this truely crappy PS based on a J-8 a true J-10 !

 

[Grey Havoc]

An 'official' photoshop from the early days of the program, perhaps?

 

[wuguanhui]

And i can write 500, doesnt make it J-500.

It is so painfully obvious to be a horrible horrible PS i am not even sure why you are posting it.

If we look well to the first letter,it is very similar to letter "J" by Chinese language.

Uh, what is that table for? It appears to be a bunch of random Chinese character and character components.

 

[Johnbr]

;D

 

[Deino]

Just a small update ... J-10B finally officially unveiled at the Zhuhai Airshow.

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubexMe_AGk

 

[shivering]

Much thanks for the video.

 

[Airplane]

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 (PaulMM)]

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'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deino]

Latest news ... a J-10B/C testbed fitted with a TVC-nozzle made its maiden flight on 25. December.

 

[Airplane]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.