Review of Reported J-10 Specifications

Combat Aircraft’s follow-up article on the J-10 was previously mentioned in passing. Unfortunately, some of the issues that this article raised became lost in an acrimonious debate surrounding the degree of Israeli participation during the early development of the airplane.

I don’t believe that we have ever had a thorough review, however, regarding the projected weights and dimensions for the J-10, and how they might fit into the performance and role of the airplane. I would suggest that a more focused review should include the following topics:

We’ll try to leave the discussions on foreign content to those threads already devoted to the subject.

I will use the article in Combat Aircraft as a starting point. Anyone who hasn’t read it can find a duplicate on-line (make sure that you scroll to PART II of the article . . .):
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2252&page=2
Anyone who insists on an original copy will need to look at their local bookstore for the time being. Unfortunately, the publisher hasn’t gotten around to putting the relevant issue (Vol 7 No 9) in their on-line bookstore as of yet:
http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/cms.php?f=aviation_combat_aircraft_back.htm

The article provides a projection for the J-10’s dimensions and weights, based upon photographic analysis and various leaks to the Western press, in combination with the exercise of engineering design tools:

[INDENT]J-10 Provisional Specifications

Length ——————– 16.5 m
Height ——————— 6.0 m
Wing Span —————– 11.3 m
Canard Span —————- 5.3 m
Wheel Base —————– 4.8 m
Wheel Track —————- 3.0 m

Gross Wing Area ——– 45.5 m-sq
Canard Area ————- 4.7 m-sq

Empty Weight ————- 9730 kg
Max Internal Fuel ——– 4470 kg
Max External Fuel ——– 5650 kg
Max Bombload ————- 8000 kg
Max Take-Off Weight —– 24650 kg

Dry Thrust ————— 79.4 kN
Max Thrust ————– 125.5 kN

Max Combat Radius
– Hi-Lo-Hi ————— 1370 nm
– Lo-Lo-Lo —————- 710 nm[/INDENT]

The real bone of contention that I have heard, in connection with this article’s assessment, centers on whether the J-10 was developed following the lines of previous Soviet (and Chinese) fighters, or if it was truly China’s first attempt at a more multirole, fighter-bomber platform. The article in Combat Aircraft assumes the latter.

If we accept the contention that the J-10 was expected to be a multirole fighter (as most of the rumor mills seem to suggest), then the most appropriate aircraft for comparison in terms of size, geometry and performance, would likely be France’s Rafale C. Similar size, similar geometry – although obviously one design is single engine while the other relies on two.

The following is a comparison of the statistics provided by the article in Combat Aircraft, against the Rafale C statistics provided by Jane’s:

[INDENT]- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – J-10 – – – – – – – – – Rafale C
Length ——————– 16.5 m ——————- 15.3 m
Height ——————— 6.0 m ——————– 5.3 m
Wing Span —————– 11.3 m ——————- 10.8 m
Gross Wing Area ——– 45.5 m-sq —————- 45.7 m-sq
Empty Weight ————- 9730 kg —————— 9850 kg
Max Internal Fuel ——– 4470 kg —————— 4700 kg
Max T-O Weight ———- 24650 kg —————– 24500 kg[/INDENT]

Looking at the two aircraft strictly on a weight basis, I would have to conclude that the Combat Aircraft article is probably not too far from the mark, assuming that the J-10 really was intended for a multirole application. The length and height dimensions can’t be off by more than meter, and the weight values (including internal fuel weights), should be accurate to within 500 kg or better.

This would suggest that the quoted payload capacity for the J-10 would not be out of the realm of possibility – although it probably represents a maximum limit. Compared to the old-style, Soviet-era fighters, the J-10 would offer substantially more payload (and range) than any similarly sized alternative that the Russians might have had available. As the original article in Combat Aircraft concluded:

“This comparison goes to the heart of why the PLAAF likely elected to develop an all-new airplane to complement their Su-27 fleet, rather than seeking to purchase an off-the-shelf alternative such as the MiG-29S. Utilizing a similarly sized airframe, the J-10 could carry twice the payload, more than twice the distance as what its Russian counterpart had to offer.”

Certainly the article opens up interesting questions regarding China’s capabilities to prosecute a future war.

I open the floor for debate and comment . . .