tphuangWonder if the FC-1 and the J-10 will get it later.
I’m still looking for a more recent version of the J-10 cockpit. They mentionned on the magazine 民工科技 (Technology workers?) that J-10’s recent version’s cockpit is more F-22 styled than the more often seen 1 up and 3 down styled.
The entire part:
兵工科技这期增刊《歼十全集》厚厚的一本，全铜板纸印刷而且又歼10各个时期各个部位的精细照片，有旧的有新的，还采访了歼10试飞组5成员，以及和各国三代机之比较，非常值得十粉们收藏。
1、歼10改进型的座仓和F22的液晶显示器排列方式一样都是并列式的，而非传统三代机的一平三下！
The aforementionned J-10 cockpit info.
2、歼10因为飞控系统限制，飞不了“眼镜蛇机动”
J-10 uses FBW and can’t do this maneuver (cobra?)
3、歼10原型试飞机01号已经飞到了结构寿命极限，已经停飞。
J-10’s prototype 01 has been worn from flying and has stopped from flying
4、歼10试飞机总共7架，前五架一样，后两架是改进型的。
test flight planes total 7, first 5 are the same, last two are improved.
5、歼10的3个改型已经完成试飞或正在试飞。
3 modified versions of J-10 already finished testing or are being tested
6、歼10的最早型的首飞时间是1994年，改进前机身后于1996年再次首飞，后又重大改进才于1998年3月试飞，也是官方发布的首飞时间，就是那个“激动人心的时刻”
This is the most crazy point. It claims that J-10 first flied in 1994, after changing the front part of the plane, it first flied again in 1996 and then after another large modification, it flied in March of 1998. This is the officially declared first flight time.
7、歼10B型双座机主要用来空中指挥而非对地攻击，歼10A和B的对地攻击系统和武器系统是一样的。
J-10B twin seater is mainly used in future for aerial command (like a mini AWACS?), not for ground attack. 10A and B’s ground attack system and weapon are the same.
8、太行发动机比AF31FN要大，试飞组成员认为综合性能还是AF31FN好。
WS-10A is larger than AL-31FN. test pilot believe the capability of AL-31FN is better over all.
tphuangI only believe on logic not on believe.
so show me where PLAAF ordered replacement engines for Su-27SK/UBK untill this point. and it is already near 10 to 15 year service. each FM series has 3000 hr life thats why they say 30% decrease in life cycle cost due to differential between MTBO and replacement.
star49, you are still at it. You really think that China didn’t buy engine spares or have replacement provisions as part of those original su-27sk/ubk deals? The fact that they have to get 180 more engines on top of that should be quite alarming. I certainly don’t read about any of the foreign F-16 operators getting 180 replacement engines.
IAF $286m Saturn license is based on 3 sets of engines for 140 aircraft. approximately 2000 hr life for engine and 6000 for aircraft.
and when did AL-31FP become the same as AL-31F?
tphuangthey are not for upgrades. they are for new built J-11. upgrade for old Su-27SK will come this year.
lol, you really believe that, huh?
Pit’s service life numbers sound about right for the AL-31F engines.
tphuangMost aircraft are obsolete and retired by 8000 hrs.
more than a billion dollar is required to sustain 3200 F100 engine for USAF. some thing like $300,000 per engine per year. In 10 years u already reach the new AL-31 price.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/f100.htm
lol, in 6 years, you will need to buy a new AL-31. we got the su-30mkk in 2001 and we are already ordering 180 AL-31s to replace the old engines. They got the 3000 hour lifetime, but it’s funny that China never got an AL-31 that lasted close to that.
tphuangIn the febuary issue of the UK publication Warships IFR there is a report about the Ideas show in pakistan. The report contains a picture of the F-22P frigate in model form, it shows a vessel that looks like a reduced size chinese 051B frigate, fitted with the HHQ-7 system. If this is realy what pakistan is buying they are certainly not getting the best china has to offer, considering the vessels the PLAN has been inducting over the past 2+ years.
It’s suppose to just be modified from Jiangwei II, I believe that the construction has already started for it at HD shipyard. Which coincidentally is also building for the royal thai navy. As for why not getting more advanced, I think the issue was cost. They probably can’t afford something like 054A, even though 1 054A would provide better air defense than 4 F-22Ps combined.
I read on pakdef that they ordered 32 C-802A for the 4 F-22P and 64 FM-90N missiles. Also another 32 C-802 for Jalalat Class FAC.
tphuangIt has been reported that, according to Russian sources, China is working on a variant of the basic J-10, with 3D TVC (confirmed by the reports of purchases of the AL-31FM1 engine) and with a PESA radar (I do not know how likely this is as I do not know enough about the chinese radar industry to comment- certainly possible though). This version MIGHT have a DSI (technology seen on FC-1 04) instead of the current rather awkward looking intake arrangement. This variant may not be that far away from flying or even entering service based on the delivery schedule for the TVC engines.
There are also rumours of a twin engined version, these reports vary greatly from it just being a variant of the basic variant modified to take twin engines to it being a stealthy uber fighter. My opionion is that there is in fact two, one a basic version (intended to compete with the J-11B) and a proposed 5th gen aircraft with very little commonality with the current J-10 except for a basic design board configuration. Neither of these seem to have left the drawring board yet.
That TVC order news gets more and more confusing for me. It doesn’t appear like any J-10 got TV engines. The only conclusion I get is that the Russians were telling junk. I remember that they did mention on Chinese forum that the new engines had more thrust (132kN), but no TVC engine.
tphuangWhich still means squat. At Cope India, Su-30Ks locked F-15s and shot first, on occasion. Per your arguement, that would mean the Su-30Ks are the better aircraft. :rolleyes:
Fact is you have incredibly little information and a very limited sample set, but you are using it to draw wide ranging conclusions, because it makes you feel good about the J-10.
what do I have to gain by thinking J-10 is better than flankers. It’s something that plaaf decided, not me. I have incredibly little information and a very limited sample set? I’m not going to comment on Cope India, since that’s totally a different issue. I think China has reported as much about a confidential exercise as you can possibly report. But in this case, clearly J-10 was outnumbered in that scenario, so in a worse scenario. That should show you that they weren’t stacking up the odds against J-10 in this scenario.
Are you serious? You do realize that whenever a new unit is formed, the world over, the initial batches of aircraft have senior pilots deputed to evaluate and generate tactics. Your words above typify why you cant be taken seriously.
Did you read? IOC has been reached, this is no longer the initial batch anymore, they equipped 131st regiment already.
Please. This is getting ridiculous. If tomorrow, the IAF introduces a new series of serial numbers which place the LCA above the MKI, does it make the former better?
That’s plaaf numbering scheme, whether you like it or not. Just because IAF doesn’t use this kind of scheme, doesn’t mean plaaf cannot.
We have been over this many times before, the above is just your take on the matter, and is hardly conclusive.
hmm, it’s kind of strange don’t you think. Immediately after that exercise in 2004, they stopped J-11A production and didn’t make the expected follow up purchase for next batch of mkk.
There is no way to verify your specs or statements. You rely on webboards, on magazine articles, (many of which have been notoriously inaccurate), and the PLAAF has released next to no information on the aircrafts actual specs, and design aims.
CCTV is not good enough for you either, huh?
Sigh, you do realize that manoueverability varies according to different portions of the flight envelope, right?
yep, but these people have seen all those flight envelopes you talked about. I’m sure the plaaf flight demonstration officer have seen more than his share of mkk and J-10 flying. Maybe you can go to Chengdu and check it out?
In other words, all the usual generic stuff we have come to expect from you, and no actual details of the units or pilots involved, why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:
hmm, 131st regiment was flying J-6s before they got J-10. How senior do you think they are? The 3rd division where su-30mkk is in is plaaf’s top division. 18th division was at least flying J-7s and J-8s before su-30mkk. What does that tell you?
Right, thats “mission criteria”? At what heights, with what ROE, with what restrictions on each side? Face it, you dont have any of these details- all you have is just a few glib statements from PLADaily or some other PR showpiece, and then off you are to insist on the J-10s superiority.
As mentioned earlier, those “stated events” can easily be construed as PR. Without actual details of the ROE, I wouldnt touch them with a bargepole.
PR doesn’t make an event any less truthful. If something happened, it happened.
10:1 kill ratio is a pretty lopsided score no matter how you look at it. If you get detect first, lock on first and shoot first everytime, that’s pretty lopsided no matter how you look at it. Considering we already know about a scenario where su-30 outnumbered defending j-10s, plaaf clearly wasn’t trying to restrict su-30. One thing to consider, who benefits and looses from J-10 winning? CAC is the winner here and SAC is the looser because it produces J-11s. And SAC had always been the big brother in AVIC1 over CAC, but it got demoted due to the success of J-10 against flankers. You think SAC, which historically had more influence in pla would allow plaaf design an exercise where flankers are clearly marginalized and restricted?
You made an exceedingly juvenile claim of racism. Which only shows that you are unable to handle any criticism and retreat behind your ethnicity. If that was not yelling, I wonder what is.
I was very calm then, as I am now. But look, we can ask all the non-Indian and non-Chinese poster of this thread. I’m sure Scooter and SeaLordLawrence are tired of your antics.
But think about it this way. If I tell you “your source should not be used just because it’s Indian”. Would I be a racist? Why should China be any different?
Give me an actual PLAAF article, with a PLAAF pilot mentioning the nitty gritties of the J-10s performance. We have that for the LCA, we dont have anything like that for the J-10.
Heck, I bet you couldnt even give me the power of the TWT on the radar or the actual MTOW of the J-10, or anything like that.
Why should China release these info? To satisfy you? It releases whatever information that is relevant. The information is J-10 is the best fighter in China. Its actions like ordering exceedingly high number of J-10s and not buying any more Russian flankers follow that logic. It’s interesting that US DoD compared J-10 to the EuroCanards. Interesting that Pakistani gov’t chose J-10 ahead of Gripen and F-16. But you, for some reason because you don’t get a few number on paper, can’t give this plane any respect.
And you designed the plane, have secret data on it and will show us the actual performance figures, right?
I can easily proof why those numbers are incorrect. Just check the empty weight of J-8II and compare its size to J-10 and you will see that empty weight for J-10 is wrong. Just take a look at the thrust level for WS-10A and AL-31FN-M1, you will see that the thrust of engine is wrong too.
Compared to you, I’d probably win the Nobel prize. What are you, twelve?
Well, clearly you are not interested in find out more about J-10, but just bashing it. btw, I’m actually interested in reading more about LCA rather than bashing it. What does that say about you and me?
But hey, there is no point for me to post any longer in this thread, since I will just be repeating my point from now on. And you, just keep up your anti-J-10 spirit. Congradulations.
tphuangYou amuse me beyond words. Did the paper specify the exact ROE, the pilots in each aircraft, the mission criteria. :rolleyes:
FYI, in IAF service, the MiG-21 Bis (uh, huh- thats right!) has knocked off MiG-29s and Su-30 K’s. Instructors in Jaguars have bounced Mirage 2000’s.
Obviously, that proves the Bis is better than both types. And that the Jaguar is a better aircraft than the Mirage 2000. :rolleyes:
Actually, it had a description of the scenario. It said clearly that J-10 tracked, locked and shot mkk first. That should be part of ROE.
In your case, you are mentionning pilots that won sounded to have more experience on their older planes. In J-10’s case, it’s a new plane that just got IOC that year, so they were flown by pilots with not much experience on those planes (we are talking about less than a year).
As for J-10 better than su-30mkk, there are more evidence than this:
1. in plaaf’s numbering scheme of xxxxx, first and 4th digit are division number, 3rd and 5th digit is the number of the plane in the division. 2nd digit is the rank of that fighter regiment in the division. In 3rd division, where J-10 and su-30mkk are both present, J-10 gets 0 and su-30mkk gets 1, which indicate what plaaf thinks of the relative position. Similarly, J-11 gets the lead regiment position in 1st division where the 2nd regiment is J-8F. Similarly, su-30mkk gets the lead position in 18th division and JH-7A gets the 2nd position.
2. After that exercise, China stopped ordering su-30s and suspended J-11 contract with the Russians.
3. You can also check the J-10 specs I posted in the J-10 thread and compare that to the flight performance of flankers.
4. The flight demonstration instructor involved in that exercise said in an interview that J-10 was far more maneuverable than flankers. This is also corroborated by many other people that watched both planes fly.
Sure, details please. On the ROE, Pilot seniority, and mission criteria.
But you dont have those, do you.
Pilot Seniority – There are only so many su-30mkk regiments (one in 3rd, 28th, in plaaf and the participating J-10 regiment was most likely 131 regiment. In terms of training or reputation, the participating J-10 regiment wasn’t any higher than that of the su-30mkk regiments. Basically, J-10 pilots aren’t any better than the mkk ones. At the same time, the mkk pilots have flown mkk longer than J-10 pilots flown theirs.
Mission Criteria – many different scenarios. One of which is 2 J-10s intercepting 4 su-30mkk.
Gee wow, question the impeccable record of PRC’s data availability and control over primary data sources, and it makes us “racist”.
those weren’t data, those were stated events. Just because they don’t release data that often, that does not mean the stuff they release are not correct.
Get off it, grow up and kindly stop yelling “racism” whenever someone doesnt buy what you say.
I did not yell. You are the only person yelling in this thread.
so now, if I give you a Chinese article, you would treat it as equally valid as something written in English?
Now you were so sure that the J-10 has better TWR than the Tejas, it’s become “the information available is so undependable its hard to have a far [sic] debate”. But you were so sure that the J-10 has a better TWR than the Tejas, even with the undependable data. Now that the data shows something that you don’t believe, the data becomes “undependable”. LOL
Those numbers given on J-10 in this thread are definitely incorrect.
OTOH, you know next to nothing of the J-10, including when it was launched, and what programs it drew from
you are probably a little above Broncho, but still need a lot of learning.
tphuangThe J-10 undoutedly is a good aircraft and is quit on par to the early MiG-29s and Su-27s but by no means is a F-22 equivalent niether can be consider superior to the latest incarnations of MiG-29OVT, Su-30MKI or SU-35BM variants specially when these aircraft have improvements that get them in the level of the Eurofighter
Those three are at the level of typhoon according to who? The Russians? If Mig-29OVT is at the level of Rafale and also much much cheaper, then why would IAF even bother evaluating Rafale. It should just get Mig-29OVT.
There is absolutely no evidence that when Mig-29OVT or Su-35BM equips an air force, they will be better than J-10 of that time.
tphuangROTFLMAO, the usual wave of hands when asked for proof. Why dont you prove your talk, by walking the walk and come out with exact figures about your claims? Face it- you know next to nothing about the PLAAF apart from what they choose to release. The errors of judgement that can come from relying upon only these leaks and speculation, hardly needs to be remarked upon.
hmm, we have official PLA news report form December 30th 2006 saying that 2 J-10 took down 4 su-30mkks in mock fights without suffering loses in a military exercise in 2004. I don’t think anything gets more official than that. Another newspaper in China reported 10:1 kill ratio in general for that miitary exercise. It looks like Sealordlawrence is quite open minded and doesn’t assume that everything in Chinese is unreliable, maybe you should do the same. You don’t see any Chinese posters questioning every Indian source, do you? A little less racism would be good.
To Broncho, your knowledge of J-10 is really really embarrassing. Please, stay away from posting about things you know nothing about. It really is extremely childish.
tphuangYes it is hard to know and maybe you’ll never know. You can learn much about in PC flight simulators and with a certain knowledgebase you can learn more if you get some informations about an aircraft.
A MMI more sophicsticated than that of the Su-30MKK is not a large problem at all, as the aircraft is not much more advanced than the basic Flanker in most areas. We can’t judge about the JF-17s MMI at all neither we can do it for the J-10 as there’re not enough informations available.
So my thoughts in that direction are more esteminations with some known facts.
yeah, I agree. I do think that up to a certain point, MMI improvement probably start to make very minimal difference to the actual performance of the aircraft.
star49’s rantings are blatantly racially motivated. It is not uncommon for aircraft to enter service without a PGM A2G capability, both the Rafale and the Typhoon did and to an extent still are. We have seen video of the J-10 dropping domb bombs and models with targeting pods (which we know the chinese have) so there is a clear intention to add such a capability later. When one also looks at the other aircraft in the PLAAF inventory, Q-5 and JH-7A in paticular but also the new J-8 variants with A2G capability, it also becomes clear that there is no urgent requirement to give an A2G capability to the J-10.
I agree. The bombing video looks to be more for propoganda than anything else. It seems to me that although there are room and ways to make J-10s more multirole, China does not want to do that at the moment, because that might take away some of the effectiveness it has in air combat. For example, in the radar they chose, they seemed to be picking the one with minimal detection against land and sea targets in order to maximize range against air targets.
tphuangi got some J-11B picture for everyone interested.
tphuangI am not looking at proposals from airshows. show me certification of El-2034 with J-8? and Nope AVIC cannot afford development of foreign radar at that time by itself and let alone certification without signed export customer. and why would Iran buy this aircraft with russian radar? what is there in this obsolete junk.
just standing up for J-8 a little bit, J-8F at the present condition is a more dangerous fighter in A2A than su-27sk.
tphuangNot really but the head of Intel’s elite Architectures division in charge for developing new processors was a Chinese guy for a long time. He oversaw the development from 286 to Pentium III before he retired. Oh and both ATI and nVidia are founded by Chinese.
kind off topic, but if you go to ATI headquarter these days, they have so many chinese people working there that they have signs in Chinese as well as English.
tphuangDo you really believe that bull**** about Type-1473 ? I remember even 2-3 years ago chinese advertised it with “An assessment of potential multi-function fire-control radar systems for
the new stealth fighter is also under way, with candidates including Chinas
indigenous Type 1473 design. According to an industry source, this has a
search distance of 150km and can track up to 15 targets, attacking between
six and eight of them simultaneously. The design is currently undergoing
upgrade to allow for the integration of a phased-array antenna. “
So, planar array radar with 8 target attacked? The disinformation starts right there. I could have believe it about phased array, but planar… As such, any chinese claims about Type-1473 perfomance dont worth the papier they are written. Moreover, even IF chinese somehow managed to develop Type-1473 with PAR in the last 2 years, it will be still inferior to MKI (and MKK3) radar for obvious reasons like size and general constructing expertise. Please, bring some more believiable lie here.
well, when SD-10 was getting advertised in Zhuhai 2004, it said it was supported by a radar capable of 4 concurrent engagements with it. Note, this is an export version. So, the domestic version should do at least this good. Especially now that 1473 is no longer used, J-10 is already onto 149x series (along with J-8F and possibly J-11B), it should be able to do more concurrent engagements. Although in reality, J-10 doesn’t need to be able to lock onto more targets than that, since it normally only holds 4 PL-12 and 2 PL-8. As for this stuff about slotted array radar not being able to track 6-8, APG-66V2 can do it (you can check this up on f-16.net)
As for PAR, China seems to be skipping PESA radar and going straight to AESA radar like the Americans did for the same reason that the Americans skipped PESA radar. If you check AESA radar in China and Russia, China has more platforms using AESA radar.
Sign In
