After studying a rash of J-10 articles from November to December, a somewhat clearer but still contradictory image of the J-10 has emerged. One thing that is clearer now is that the 9,750kg empty weight/4,800 payload/4,500kg fuel quoted in some websites is probably bogus and sounds more like that of a J-8II.
1. According to one article, the J-10 is slightly lighter than an F-16 due to a higher percentage of composite construction. But which F-16? Is it the F-16C, which is at least 8,500kg empty? Or the earlier F-16A, which the Chinese allegedly said to have access from the Pakistanis. The F-16A is about 7,000kg empty. Note that the Lavi is around 7,000kg, and this is weight figure also quoted by J-10 in a number of websites (e.g. aerospace.org). So the weight figure is still murky, which mean anything from 7,000kg to 8,300kg. Another article from sina.com suggests a TWR ratio of at least 1.10.
2. The AL-31FN still gives the only clear spec we have of the J-10, which is its engine thrust (12,500kg max). The -FN variant appears to be slightly smaller and lighter than the standard -F variant by about 40kg (AL-31F at 1570kg). This makes the FN (1540kg) about only 170kg heavier than the much weaker PW1120 engine (1370) used in the Lavi, and lighter than the GE F110 engine used in the Block 30/40/50 F-16 (1600kg at least). The AL-31F engine is about one meter longer but 6 inches narrower in diameter than said GE engines. This means that despite the more powerful engine, the weight penalty over the Lavi weight would still be minimal.
The use of SU-27 style variable intake is another advantage over the fixed intakes used in the Lavi or F-16, enabling a wider range of optimzation in different altitudes, speeds and angles of attack.
It should be noted that the AL-31FN in the production spec planes appear to be slightly shorter than the ones in the prototypes.
3. Two articles suggest a combat radius of 1000km. Roughly average by Chinese standards actually—SU-27SK and SU-30MKK has a combat radius of 1500km, while the JH-7 has about 1350km. The J-8II has a combat radius of 800km and so does the Q-5 with external fuel tanks.
4. Most recent article suggests a payload of 7 tons. This is close to John Pike’s fas.org report of about 6,880kg.
5. Contradiction on the Type 1473 radar. This confirmed to me that the J-8C (Type 1471 radar) served as the basis for the J-10’s radar, and not the JH-7A with the JL-10A/JL-15 radar or the J-8II02/D with the KLJ-1 radar. (I wrote this on ACIG months before). Hui Tong associated the 1471 radar on the J-8C with the ELTA M 2034, and the 1473 radar could be the ELTA M 2035, ironically the same radar planned for the Lavi.
But the specs given out seem much more powerful, suggesting improvements may have been made, or that the 2035 may only have been used a template model if ever at all. The data is still similar to those provided for the JL-10A and the Russian Zhemchug radar. The data here is still similar to what I speculated months ago in ACIG—and still sounds very F-16ish to me.
Maximum Search Distance: 160km
(note that GD-53/APG-67 radar on the F-CK1 is about 147km; N001 on SU-27 is probably 240km.) This is maximum search distance only, with no RCS for reference. This is not detection range.)
Maximum Look up detection range: 100km
(very similar to the N001 on SU-27; better than Zhemchug at 80km). ELTA M 2032 reports 55nm (around 80km as well.)
Maximum Look down detection range: 80km
(this is very good for look down, better than N001 or Zhemchug). ELTA M 2034 reports about 45nm.
Range in pursuit mode: 45km
(roughly like N001).
Number of targets tracked. One source says 16 to 20, another 24. In comparison, Zhemchug does 20.
Number of targets simultaneously engaged (this means tracked with engagement data. One source says 6-8, another 4. Elta 2032 and Zhemchug does 4.
Thus like 16-20:6-8 vs. 24:4
Some articles suggest this is phased array radar, at least not at the moment, although personally I don’t think so. I do think it has a remarkably high computing power and memory to allow such a large numbers of targets to be tracked and engaged. Using the MIPS based indigenous Godson RISC processors?
Zhemchug radar diameter quoted for J-10 is about 680cm. I believe that is also the antenna size for Type 1473. In comparison, Sokol for SU-35 and Zhuk MS for SU-30MKK is about 980cm.
The radar supports open bus architecture through mil std. 1553 and probably 1786 standard as well.
6. Armament.
PL-8s are standard close in armament. Like F-16s having Sidewinders on the wingtips to optimize aerodynamics, the J-10 is optimized with two PL-8s near the wingtips to act as wing fences to improve its aerodynamics. This is why even fresh factory planes are still fitted with PL-8 mockups.
PL-11s are the only other weapon seen with the J-10, with PL-12/SD-10 still in the works. Jane’s mentioned the PL-9C as well.
Latest articles suggest the R-73, Kh-31 series, the R-27 series are also supported, as well as the Chinese YJ series (C series ASMs and the Chinese licensed Kh-31 series). There is no confirmation yet on R-77 support but apparently, the PLAAF is still testing and accessing the R-77s on other aircraft like the SU-30MKK.
Unlike the F-16 or Lavi where the gun is at the upper wing root, the J-10 has its gun below the engine intake.
7. Avionics
The Chinese aviation industry has displayed bits and pieces of equipment such as HUDs, monochromatic and color LCD MFDs in three Zhuhais. The equipment appears very Western looking. There is some question in my mind the 3 MFD cockpit diagrams posted in websites such as Hui Tong’s may be authentic, as they look very Lavi-ish to me. But for me, the best clue what the J-10 HUD and MFDs might look like is to see the J-8C cockpit also in Hui Tong’s site.
8. Aerodynamics
While the sideway configuration is rougly like that of the Lavi, the aircraft’s upper view planform resembles much closer to a Gripen. I would be surprised if both the Swedes and the Chinese arrived to the same optimal configuration through computer and wind tunnel based simulations. The J-10 probably leans more for low speed maneuverability while the Lavi is more for low altitude strike.
FBW system is four axis quadruplex digital.
Late model prototypes and production models appear to have a taller, narrower tail rudder.
9. TVC
Russians are still holding hope that a TVC engined AL-31FN would be bought by the Chinese for the J-10. However, the TVC WS-10A engine appeared to have its first flight on J-11s this year. It is possible that all 300 AL-31FN contracted may not be entirely non TVC, and somewhere along the batch, there will be a midshift to the TVC version prior to adopting the TVC WS-10A.
While the canards and four axis FBW would already guarantee more than sufficient maneuverability to the J-10 (boasted to be better than the SU-27SK), the addition of the TVC isn’t just trying to push that maneuverability further, but also for other aspects such as shortening the take off run and improving low speed and post stall maneuvering.
10. Future variants
I said before speculation on twin engine J-10 may be bogus and impractical. Future variants may be more like this:
J-10B? Twin seat with Zhemchug radar for more sophisticated Russian ASMs like Kh-59ME. Equivalent to SU-30MKK for strike purpose. Probably with TVC AL-31FN.
J-10C? Probably with JL-15 FCR and WS-10A TVC engine (all domestic content).
Sign In
December 14, 2002 at 3:14 am