tphuangit really depends on whether or not it’s mature, what’s the extra cost, what it’s service life is and how much additional weight it adds to the engine. It’s obviously better to have one than not have one.
tphuangmakes absolutely no sense for a country that should be going for a smaller, single engined fighter.
tphuangGorskhov is still a bargain thats why India is still interested in it. u have to take into account cost and time ove runs in Italain carrier and F-35 planes for next 15 years.
Russia tremendous wage growth and inflation. It is understandable that they will walk out of most the depreciating export contacts and concentrate more on stratgic high end stuff like floating nuclear reactors, ice breakers, SSBN, SSN, SSK and aircraft carrier.
Commerical ship building is low end industry like auto, textiles in 21st century etc. So even China can Supertankers but it will take long time for the to make a single decent carrier or SSBN/SSK/SSN at high production rate with some acceptable standards.
do you have any idea what their production rates are? We saw basically 3 new Yuans in the space of a couple of months. The first domestic Chinese carrier is just starting now, and from the requirements I read, it’s at a higher standard than Adm K class. The Russian shipbuilding rate is nowhere near that of China.
plus, the Russian ships quality was pretty low, that you will not see another order from China unless it is to pay off debts.
Look at 1200 workers. 1200workers*4 yearstime*$24000/year salary= $115M. just salary component comes of 1200 workers come to $115m for the ship. and add to that massive increase in Steel/copper/energy prices in past 4 years. this thing is a bargain.
what, that this is the best price the Russians can offer? That’s like saying LCS is a bargain, because that’s the best LM can do with inflation + changing ship requirements. If the Russians sign a contract and can’t forsee the possibly inflations, that’s their problems.
tphuangThe Subpar Hornet lost anyway. So what does it matter fanboylaurence?
And if the Hornet’s supposed “great” AESA would have made it India’s choice of aircraft to buy simply because the Indians wanted AESA radar, the Russians would have installed the AESA Zhuk on the MiG-29K. Since I’ve repeated myself at least 3 times now, I don’t want to have to repeat myself. So please STFU already and leave the thread.
right, because Zhuk-AE is already developed and tested, lol.
you are comparing a first generation AESA project that is no where near proven to a second generation AESA project that is been mass equipped.
Why don’t you go ask the Algerians how much they love those Mig-29s.
tphuangOf note, before continuing, J-9’s required empty weight was 6400 kg. And that’s the ancestor of J-10. In fact, you can get an idea of the requirements by looking at CAC’s earlier projects.
Wrong analogy: YF 17 was the ancestor of F 18 and this didn’t stop the f 18 to be 3 tons heavier.
pla’s requirement changed, but not that much.
JF-17 is 6320 kg and J-8II is 9230 kg. If you ever looked at their photos, you’d see J-10 is closer in size to JF-17 than J-8II. It’s in fact not much larger than JF-17. On top of that, it uses more modern material than both, far more composite. As for composites/titanium, you should first lower the weight of the aircraft by good design and that’s what J-10 has. It achieved all weight requirements by being designed well and with increased composite usage in the future, it will only help with the weight situation.
J10 has a better design than Grippen? Because with a heavier engine, the common sense tell us that the J 10 must weight a little more; also a heavier engine requires a heavier structure (remember the F 15 E vs. F 15 C?)
Yeah, but pictorial evidence tells us pretty convincingly. Maybe you should take a look at few photos of JF-17 and J-10 side by side first.
Is it J-10’s fault that F-16E and F-2 are such overweight designs?
Rather than using Chinese fighters JF-17 and J-8II as the basis of comparison, you pop up overweight fighters like F-2 and F-16E. The F 16E is heavier than the basic F 16 because it can carry 9 tons of weapons an fuel tanks, it has a engine of 145 kn (vs. 125 in J 10), while the F 2 has a larger wing than the basic f 16.
And your point is? You simply continue my point that it’s not worthwhile using those 2 as comparisons for J-10’s weight.
yet, J-10 has a far better safety record than flankers. Says something about the quality of its FBW. That the funniest nationalistic remark so far: it’s just normal that a plane just entering in service to have a better safety record than a plane that entered in operational sevices in mid ’80 and was that accumulated millions of hours flying
I’m talking about service in PLAAF in the last few years. I’m talking about J-10 not having crash the first few years in service, how many fighters can you say that about? No crash. Can Flanker say that in PLAAF? nope.
nope, all interviews conducted point to J-10 having visibly better maneuverability than flankers. let me guess — those pilots weren’t by any chance Chinese?
They can’t be partial, because they are Chinese? I frankly don’t feel like going through the entire argument on why they would be partial in this scenario. Go read through the past debates on this. Read it up.
I will give you data from the F-18, the F-18 LERXes increase the main wing`s lift by 50% a canard will increase the wing`s lift 20% or 30% because the canard produces a wake that reduces the wing`s main lift.
However it will increase the wing`s total lift at high AoA , this means that the canard and delta wing`s total lift is in fact less that the sum of their individual lifts due to drag.
Canard delta aircraft use the canards as pitch control mechanisms rather than as lift enhancers, the Su-27 has 40% at least of fuselage lift and a higher direct lift by its LERXes, having twin fins will make it a safer aircraft, the Cobra is a good example how the Su-27 moves the center of lift over the wing and makes its nose pitch down to recover after 120 degrees AoA in few seconds without any side slip yaw movements, this means the aircraft has excellent stability doing the cobra and it does not create any assymetric nose yaw movement to make it flat spin or stall.
I have heard too much about canarded aircraft but i have not seen them doing the Pugachev Cobra without thrust vectoring.
why would you ever waste time doing Cobra? By your admission, if F-22 doesn’t attempt it, that means su-27 is more maneuverable?
The F-16 and F-2 are not overweight aircraft but multirole fighters, for the J-10 to fly with three fuel tanks and missiles needs at least similar engine and aerodynamics to a latest F-16 variants, but it will be as good at them because contrary to common belief, the LERXed aircraft do not yield to canarded aircraft as many think, both aircrat have cons and pros and the J-10 also has compromises.
lol, if J-10 can only be as maneuverable as the latest F-16, it’s in trouble. In terms of maneuverability, it’s basically E/F < C/D < A/B.
TPHUANG
It´s called structural integrity. If that theory of yours was correct, the Typhoon with it´s 85% of non metalic composites would be weighting 8/9 tones, it´s not… And the Dassault Rafale should be way lighter than the Mirage F2, the F-16 should be lighter than the F-104, the Mirage 2000 should be lighter than the Mirage III, etc, etc, etc. I can find, literally, dozens of examples in which your comparison is just plain wrong, so leave the “sad” comments to yourself.
If the J-10, a fighter broadly similar in size to the Dassault RAFALE, is a 7 plus ton plane, we have two options, the Chinese industry just made a huge breakthrough in composite materials and aerospace design, and every 4º and 5º generation fighters from Russia, the USA and Europe are with weight problems, or, the J-10 can´t carry almost nothing under it´s wings. I have serious doubts that any of these are true.
And the JF-17 can cut almost a ton in clean weight in relation to the Mirage 2000, because they cut more than two tones of external ordnance in the design… And of course, that being “trés triste”, i could alway´s point out that the F5E TigerII, a plane who his almost of the same size of the JF17 and has a similar configuration his only a 4,4 ton fighter, despite being a design of the early “seventies” and theoreticaly being made of “heavier and weaker material a couple of generations behind” the JF17.
It´s IMPOSSIBLE that the J-10 his a 7 plus tonnes, that´s just wishfull thinking.
what, just because you think it looks like Rafale, it is Rafale’s size? Do you know anything about the structural strength of the latest J-8II?
To give you an idea, we have never seen J-10 carrying any more than the configurations I mentioned, which are also the configuration expected out of JF-17. PLA deliberately sacrificed range + payload in order to achieve lower weight + greater maneuverability. Frankly, stop your assumptions and go by other CAC projects. JF-17’s comparison to J-10 has greater validity than any of your comparisons.
Again, have a look at the picture of JF-17 and J-10 side by side and take a look at JF-17’s dimensions, you will know how small J-10 really is.
I’ve been saying all along, don’t use the requirements of other air force to compare that to J-10.
When running out of data to bolster your claim, you start guessing about size or try to undermine the credibility the data of the other side. The discussion here is not about +/- 100 kg, but about more than one ton.
The F-16 is smaller than the J-10.
It did start with 6400 kg EOW, 10070 kg clean with two AAMs and gun loaded, MTOW was 15 tons in the 70s.Today the same size F-16 is 9300 kg OEW for the single-seater and the double seater even higher, when the MTOW does reach around 23 tons.
By the way despite the gains in electronics and materials. But going into the details about that is behind this scope.
The scaled up F-2 close to the J-10 from the 90s is over 9,5 tons OEW, with 18,5 tons NTOW and ~22 tons MTOW. (span 11,13 m, length 15,52 m, height 4,96 m and wing 34,84 m²)
The F110 and the AL-31FN do not differ noticeable in weight:thrust ratio of 1:8.
Why are you comparing J-10 to F-16? Having you seen a picture of J-10 and F-16 side by side. How do you know which one is bigger than which?
Again, why compare F-2 to J-10? There is a reason JASDF is no longer ordering it.
tphuangOf note, before continuing, J-9’s required empty weight was 6400 kg. And that’s the ancestor of J-10. In fact, you can get an idea of the requirements by looking at CAC’s earlier projects.
The Chengdu J-10 is empty equipped is 9730 kg (see Chinese realistic engine-weight about that!) and the MTOW can reach 24650 kg.
The AL-31FN is 8100kp-12800kp.
I know where you got that figure from, but that’s wrong.
Most of the time the T:W ratio is well below unity like the Gripen or J-8F f.e.
J-8F is over 1 as I calculated in the other thread.
About the empty equipped weight the smaller F-16C/D Block 50 are good yardsticks. The Mach 2 claim with AAMs and three ETs is wishfull thinking to stay polite.
Believe what you must, that’s what they stated.
The Chinese are proud about their indigenous fighter, when the J-11 does still look too much a Flanker. So some details can be left aside for some while.
J-11 is a flanker, what else is it suppose to look like?
The J 10 weights only 7000 in your imagination?
The Grippen is 6800 and has a smaller angines that, OTOH, has one of the best TW ratio; the Chinese thing has a more powerfull engine (with a worst TW ratio compared with the f 404); the structure of J 10 must be stronger to carry the 1.7 t engine, and the chinese are far from being world champions at composites and titanium (both are the ones that lower weight)
JF-17 is 6320 kg and J-8II is 9230 kg. If you ever looked at their photos, you’d see J-10 is closer in size to JF-17 than J-8II. It’s in fact not much larger than JF-17. On top of that, it uses more modern material than both, far more composite. As for composites/titanium, you should first lower the weight of the aircraft by good design and that’s what J-10 has. It achieved all weight requirements by being designed well and with increased composite usage in the future, it will only help with the weight situation.
The J-8II is over 9820 kg empty equipped,
wing gross 42,2 m²
wing span 9,344 m
overall length with probe is 21,59 m
overall height is 5,41 m
each WP13AII is 1201 kg dryThe J-10 is 9730 kg empty equipped,
wing gross 45,5 m² without canards
wing span 11,30 m
length without probe is 16,57 m
overall height is 6 m
Why do you insist on using such old numbers when everyone who follows PLA will tell you that they are wrong?
Crobato
The J-8I doesn´t do 9g´s, and it´s six underwing pylon´s carry only a small fraction of the weight that something like a Viper or a J-10 can carry.
Cheers
J-8I uses heavier and weaker material than J-10. The materail used on J-10 is a couple of generations ahead of J-8I. This comparison is frankly just sad.
The much smaller F-16E is 9300 kg empty equipped.
The smaller but coming close F-2 with a high content of composites is 9527 kg empty equipped.So wishfull thinking aside, the J-10 is well over 9 tons empty equipped. Nothing wrong about that, as long it does fullfill the intended missions.
Of note. Like the F-16 the internal fuel-fraction has suffered and for most missions the ETs are in need.
is it J-10’s fault that F-16E and F-2 are such overweight designs?
Rather than using Chinese fighters JF-17 and J-8II as the basis of comparison, you pop up overweight fighters like F-2 and F-16E.
based upon simple visual inspection, the J-10 might have an S shaped inlet duct thus it is reducing RCS returns, however its very rounded nose radome produces less stable nose radome vortices, having a single fin makes it less controllable at high speed and high AoA than a twin finned aircraft like the Su-27.
yet, J-10 has a far better safety record than flankers. Says something about the quality of its FBW.
Empty weight is unimportant if the basic take off weight makes it a short ranged and lightly armed aircraft, carrying fuel tanks reduces any advantage it might have in reduccion of RCS returns since the Flanker does not carry any fuel tank.
lol, those extra fuel tank can never reduce the advantage against the unstealthy behemoth that is su-27. You speak as if you’ve never seen the plane.
The other factor is weaponry, while the Flanker always will carry more long range air to air missiles and the J-10 will require fuel tanks with less BVR air to air missiles, the Su-27 is in advantage.
If 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 can’t kill the opposing plane, it probably would be dead already.
In agility it is difficult to know which aircraft is the most agile since the Su-27 has LERXes, that at high speed also work as canards keeping the supersonic aerodynamic center of lift shift in a more moderate level and at high AOA do increase the wing lift, also the Su-27 has fuselage lift that in the case of the MiG-29 for example accounts for up to 40% of the total lift, a similar figure is for the Su-27, something that in the J-10 does not happen with is circular fuselage cross section specially considering that the total lift drag ratio in a canard delta wing configuration is higher due to the drag imposed by the canard upon the wing reducing the total lift.
While the wing tail configuration in the Su-27 allows higher sustained turn rates, the J-10 delta canard configuration allows higher instantaneous turn rates this suggests if there is any advantage in the turn radius most be very marginal and quit small between any of these two fighers, something that a good missile and HMS might fix quit easily.
nope, all interviews conducted point to J-10 having visibly better maneuverability than flankers.
One single word, IMPOSSIBLE.
That´s the weight of a Mirage 2000C and almost matches the Saab Gripen C. The two european fighter´s are WAY smaller.
mirage 2K
length 14.36 m
span 9.13 m
JF-17
length 14 m
span 9 m
yet, JF-17’s empty weight is over 1000 kg lower than that of Mirage 2K. You can find this from sinodefense, which takes this from CAC’s official published data. So, why are you using Mirage 2K to compare to J-10?
tphuangThat would be quite impressive, but if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know it is capable of that?
The J-10 will most likely have a lower RCS due to its smaller size but hanging stores on it as you probably know, will negate much of these advantages, especially with a big radar on the J-11 and J-11B
it’s more than that, it’s engine intake completely hides the blades, the intakes are not simple square boxes, the upper part curves and generally speaking, it seems less 90 degree angles + it also makes use of slightly composite. The stuff I mentioned were supposedly reported in Chinese media when J-10 was unveiled, but I have no video to corroborate it. But we do have articles stating that it broke PLAAF records in speed and such. And I remember looking through some of the supersonic performance requirements of J-9, the J-10 numbers look reasonable.
If true, thats pretty impressive stuff. Thats coming into the league of the F-22s or the Eurofighters supersonic performance. The EF consortium claim they can hit Mach 2 with 4 BVRAAMs, 2 SRAAMs and one external tank. The Typhoon however has a greater TWR, and its engines are optimised to operate in those conditions; perhaps the chinese claims are a bit far fetched? Do you have a link for the claim?
well, J-10 and EF both have advanced variable intakes, so that certainly helps. EF’s TWR is probably greater, but J-10’s TWR should be greater than 1. (as I mentioned in another thread, even J-8F is > 1).
Do the J-11s have an edge in low speed subsonic maneuverability?
not sure about low speed flight performance. This has been debated to death on Chinese bbs. Generally, the SAC people will say J-11 does better here, but others would say J-10 is better.
do some basic calculation for TWR in operational load.
i dont think J-10 will be lighter than F-16 as it looks bigger than F-16 with larger wing area and much dragier in front.
Single seat Flanker with 16.5 tons empty equpped and 6 ton fuel+ 2 ton air to air missiles gives better than 1:1 TWR.
Put same 2 ton missles+ 4 ton internal fuel+ 10 ton empty weight will give 16 tons of weight which gives much less than 1:1 TWR. and u want to add exteral tanks to add it. Performance will be degraded alot.
now suposse u want to upgrade engines to 13.5 ton class. than you are adding 1 ton extra to a single engine fighter with same weight but u are adding 2 tons of extra thrust to twin engine fighter for the same weight. The more powerful the engines become the greater the advantage for twin engine fighter. Twin engine figher simply has more capability and upgrade potential.
J-10 is suppose to be around 7000 to 8000 kg (closer to 7000) and according to an article, actually ended up 27 kg under the required weight. In a typical configuration, it carries 2 PL-8 + 2 PL-12 + 3 EFT or 2 PL-8 + 4 PL-12 + 1 EFT, so no where near the outrageous weight that you claim. It’s often believed to be around 11 to 12 tonne in A2A configuration.
tphuangI don’t know the capabilities of the avionics in the J-10 or its range (and I think most people only have educated guesses on it), or the J-11B..
but in general, the J-11/Flanker, due to its large range and speed.. has the ability to dictate the engagement over a smaller aircraft with less fuel. In the case with the MiG-29 at least, a Flanker can simply bingo fuel the enemy.
I’m not too sure, but I believe that was the situation in Eritrea-Ethiopian war where the MiG-29s were operating at the extent of their range when facing opposing Su-27s. The larger aircraft will also have the larger radar and more room for counter measures while its down side will be the larger RCS.
J-10 definitely has better supersonic performance than flankers. Consider this, it’s stated to be able to fly at mach 2.0 under A2A configuration of 3 fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8. Range limits amount of missions it can do and CAP time, but not if the combat itself.
Anyhow, the advantages of J-10 have been stated as better maneuverability (although flankers have edges in certain area). Depending whether you are in the J-10 or J-11 camp, you argue different things. The other advantage of J-10 is that it’s generally considered to be more stealthy than J-11 (aside from the smaller size). The advantages of J-11 is pretty obvious too – more space, larger radar and such.
Currently, J-11B supposedly has some newer toys like the new radar + new IRST and the holographic HUD. But we really don’t know how well SAC’s work in MMI and situation awareness compares to CAC. Who probably has far more experience in this. Of course, the upgraded J-10 is supposed to vastly improve the MMI and situation awareness + everything else.
tphuangWhat a stupid statement. What makes u think that? The U.S. Navy submarine force has set the standard in undersea warfare for at least half a century. How much experience do the Indian have in building subs? Do you know ho many years it took the americans to develop a sub with the sound level of the Ohio class?
how is that stupid? A question was asked and the answer was pretty obvious. Of course now, if that hurts your feelings, then I can’t help you with it. That’s why you need SSNs to protect your SSBNs.
tphuangBack in the days I counted that with all the deckpark taken under service, total of 32 MiG-29 would indeed be carried. That tough ment that no helicopters at all and that isen’t realistic. But dropping the planenumbers you can add helicopters depending how much you want them. But the main bulk of the Vikramanditya aircrew will be MiG-29Ks, becouse there isen’t no other planes to take over the aircrew other than Ka-28 and Ka-31.
Russians have bit different philosofy. Back in the soviet days they were used to fit all the planes to the hangar due the harsh waters of northern atlantic. This meant that the flight crew was as big as the hangar allowed. In Kuznetsov the small aircrew is partially due this factor couped with the unwise move to use only the bigger Su-33 which takes alot of space and the fact that there isen’t enough of the planes in the first place.
you’ve seen deployments where this class actually carried 30 Mig-29s? That’s shocking. I’m sure su-33 takes a lot more space, but it’s also a lot larger. And theoretically capable of supporting up to 50 fixed, rotary combined. But of course, it carries less than 1/2 of that in the two recent deployments.
tphuangBronco is spot on here. Very succint and accurate reply. Only a modified (read enlarged) Cavour type can match capability (30+ a/c complement). And that would cost a packet. The Gorky despite all the issues, is still a great deal. BTW, no JSF types for India yet. As far as crew costs go, india can surely afford lots of crew – thats one HUGE resource india does have at its disposal.
Regards,
USS.
only a fraction of those 30+ are going to be Mig-29s. Take a look at Kutznetsov, how many su-33s do you think it carries during deployments?
tphuangfrom where 8 T/W?. AL-31 has known weight of 1470KG. so it comes around 8.5. Even if u add more weight for single engine version fighter. it will still be around 8 at minimum. 117S is 10 to 1 class for twin engine fighter.
by soviet convention, it’s 1530 kg. By Chinese convention, it’s 1750 kg.
tphuangSome data at hand about that?
I don’t have the climb rate on J-8F. This is something I picked up.
But you can calculate its T/W ratio. It was stated as 0.94 for F-8IIM in standard configuration, which was using WP-13B, which has a thrust of 7 x 9.8 = 68.6 kN. And J-8F uses Kunlun, which has 76.53 kN. And the weight is comparable. So, it would be approximately 0.94 x 76.53 / 68.6 = 1.05
tphuangAn engine thrust-weight-ratio of 9:1 does seem ok. The 4000 hours TBO is still a promise to a given power-cycle.
using which calculation? AL-31F apparently has a 8 T/W ratio using the Russian calculation, but only 7.14 using the Chinese one. And 4000 hours remains to be seen, lol. My faith for Russian engine is pretty low.
tphuangActually J-8F in its current configuration with Kunlun 2 engines, a radar that is comparable in some ways to that of J-10 and PL-12, can actually do well against anything ROCAF has. Certainly, against ROCAF F-16 that are not equipped with AMRAAM, it will have be at an advantage. Even compared to su-27, it has better climb rate due to its much improved T/W ratio.
I don’t think they are producing that many new J-8Fs, but there is nothing wrong with upgrading existing J-8B/Ds to F standard.
Sign In
