fltgshdwEurofighter Typhoon
On the basis of both wing loading, and thrust loading, the Typhoon has the full package. Definitely at the top of my list from a pure agility point of view. The only machine that could consistently out-perform the Typhoon in a close engagement would be the F-22 (which also has thrust vectoring engines).
fltgshdwMultirole or Air-to-Air
And no, the J-10 should not weigh more than a J-8II which comes in at 9200kg empty, is longer, has bigger wings, got two engines, has the same size of nose, manufactured with less composites and exotic alloys.
I believe that our friend Crobato has indirectly hit upon precisely what the real issue is: whether the J-10 is truly a multirole aircraft, in the same pattern as a modern, Western fighter-bomber; or if it is primarily an air-to-air weapon with only a token air-to-ground capability.
The J-8 II is an excellent example of the latter category of aircraft. An interceptor in the old-style, Cold War sense of the word, it represents a fighter built for speed and acceleration with no meaningful air-to-ground payload capability.
Perhaps the easiest way to compare the two classes of warplane, is in terms of their empty weight as compared to their maximum take-off weight. (The following statistics were all drawn from Jane’s)
So the real debate is . . .
[INDENT]. . . whether the J-10 is a fighter in the style of the J-8 II (9820 kg empty weight, 17800 kg max t-o weight), or in the style of the Rafale C (9850 kg empty, 24500 kg max);
. . . whether the J-10 is a fighter in the mold of the MiG-29S (10900 kg empty, 19700 kg max), or in the mold of Japan’s F-2 (9530 kg empty, 22100 kg max).[/INDENT]
I believe that Crobato is ultimately arguing that the J-10 is more likely to be a lighter weight, shorter range airplane. Something with more air-to-air emphasis, and only token air-to-ground potential. This is a legitimate possibility.
My own tendency is to believe that the J-10 really is a multirole platform, just as the article implied. From the very earliest prototype photographs that were “leaked” to the West, the airplane has appeared with a fitting on the port side of its inlet, that could only make sense as a site for an all-weather navigation and targeting pod. Air-to-ground capability does not appear to have been an afterthought for the J-10. It appears to have been designed-in from day one.
fltgshdwRafale Weight Gains
9850kg is not the empty weight of Rafale C, rather Rafale M.
I agree that lower empty weight values were quoted for the Rafale, earlier in the development program. It appears, however, that the weight of the airplane has grown as new subsystems were added and as additional payload capabilities were incorporated. The following are the empty weight values quoted for the Rafale in the latest edition of Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft:
Empty Weight
[INDENT]Rafale C —————— 9850 kg
Rafale M —————– 10460 kg[/INDENT]
I also noticed that the official Dassault website remains cagey with regard to the precise number for the empty weight (“10 ton class”). Weight gain is a sad part of most development programs (compare F-16A to Block 50 F-15C).
fltgshdwDissimilar Air Combat
An interesting exercise in dissimilar air combat. The outcome would of course, depend first and foremost on pilot training. Setting that aside for a moment . . .
The J-10 has a massive wing area for an airplane of its size, resulting in a relatively low wing loading. Despite the fact that the J-10 would likely be encumbered by external fuel tanks and stores, its wing loading would easily be superior to that of Taiwan’s Ching-Kuo. In a pure turning engagement, the J-10 would have the upper hand.
On a thrust-to-weight basis, however, the fighters are more evenly matched. Which airplane had an advantage would depend largely on whether the J-10 had been outfitted for an air-to-air or air-to-ground mission. I would therefore expect neither fighter to have a clear advantage in acceleration.
This leaves the electronic element. If the J-10 was deployed with the SD-10 BVR missile, then its probably game over for the Ching-Kuo. Not that the Ching-Kuo might not have the countermeasures to tackle the SD-10 (it may or may not, hard to say), but once the Ching-Kuo was fully engaged with avoiding the BVR missile, the J-10 would simply slip into firing position for its PL-8s. At close range, the PL-8 will be superior to anything that Taiwan has today.
Overall, I’d have to give the upper hand to the J-10. A more even comparison would be between the J-10 and Taiwan’s early model F-16As. The F-16A has a wing loading similar to the Ching-Kuo, but a better thrust-to-weight ratio. This would give it an acceleration advantage over the J-10, providing a counter-balance to the J-10’s instantaneous turn rate.
fltgshdwA Few Things to Clear Up
. . .
The Lavi was cancelled because it was a failed project pure and simple. It depended on American technology and parts which the Americans weren’t giving.
. . .
There was no transfer which is why Israel is not being blasted in the US for its betrayal.
Just to clear up some of the misunderstandings that I see repeated:
The Lavi was originally priced out on the basis of a 300 aircraft purchase. Compared to the cost of retrofitting an F-16 to meet the same mission, developing the Lavi made economic sense.
After a series of defense cuts in the mid-1980s, the Israeli military concluded they could only pay for around half as many aircraft, or less, over the next decade. On the basis of such a small production run, the Lavi was no longer cost competitive with the F-16.
[*]Israel was blasted in the US for its participation in the J-10 program, as well as for supplying other military products for China. I remember it distinctly during the early 1990s. This was despite the fact that no US technology had been directly transferred.
The storm died down during the mid-1990s (it was hard for the Clinton Administration to oppose Israel selling AWACS to China when they didn’t voice similar protests in Britain), but picked up again during the latter 1990s. Most recently, Israel had to renege on previous agreements to supply spare parts for the Harpy drones that were already supplied to China, due to US pressure.
There is no shame in acknowledging that China took advantage of a variety of foreign influences in developing the J-10. The Israelis had engineers who no longer had a warplane of their own to develop. China had a project that needed assistance.
The real question is – what will China do now, with the experience that it has gained?
fltgshdw40% is a lot. And if that covers the FBW, that’s more than one vital aspect of the plane.
I never knew a single case where the US gave the software code of an FBW system to anyone, not even an ally.
You think the US is so gullible and don’t keep aces in the hole to keep its satellites in toe?
The US did not need to provide the Israelis with the fly-by-wire software for the Lavi. The computers were produced in America, but the software was developed in Israel.
I’ve read the technical reports connected with this. The Israeli experience with the Lavi FBW software was later used to develop a patch for the FBW software used the F-16’s deployed by Israel, that enhances their available envelope.
fltgshdwOne Out of Many Paper Airplanes
Just something to add ! Is this “J-12” only another thing of misunderstanding / mistranslation like the often refered delta- and VG-designs based on the MiG-23 which finally came out as the J-9 and Q-6, or were there actual some considerations for a “clean sheet” with developed with US assistance ???
I repeat that question as it’s the second time this week this “clean sheet”-design is mentioned as a J-12 !
Thanks in advance, Deino :confused:
The information that I have is limited. However, this was clearly not intended to be a MiG-23 based airplane.
However, it was never made clear as to which development house (Chengdu? Shenyang? Xian?) would be involved. Nor were details provided concerning size and weight (although it appears to have been intended as a single-engine fighter).
From the details that I have seen, this was apparently another one of the many “concept” aircraft that was never funded beyond the paper airplane stage.
fltgshdwSample Engine Stats
I had to draw on a number of sources, to find reliable information for each of the engines.
The following are the basic statistics for the three turbofan engines. All specifications are quoted at Sea Level Static (SLS) conditions.
Fan / Compressor Stages:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 3 / 10
F404-GE-400 ————————- 3 / 7
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 3 / 3 / 6
[/INDENT]
High / Low Pressure Turbine Stages:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 2 / 1
F404-GE-400 ————————- 1 / 1
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 1 / 1 / 2
[/INDENT]
Bypass Ratio (BPR) at SLS Conditions:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 0.33 *
F404-GE-400 ————————- 0.34
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 1.10
[/INDENT]
Overall Pressure Ratio (OPR):
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 26.8
F404-GE-400 ————————- 24.0
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 23.5
[/INDENT]
Length:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 4110 mm (161.8 in)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 4034 mm (158.8 in)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 3607 mm (142.0 in)
[/INDENT]
Max Overall Diameter:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 1021 mm (40.2 in)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 709 mm (27.9 in)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 870 mm (34.3 in)
[/INDENT]
Dry Weight:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 1290 kg (2850 lb)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 990 kg (2180 lb)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 976 kg (2151 lb)
[/INDENT]
Maximum Thrust, SLS:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 91.7 kN (20620 lb)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 71.2 kN (16010 lb)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 73.0 kN (16400 lb)
[/INDENT]
Intermediate (Dry) Thrust, SLS
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 60.3 kN (13550 lb)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 47.2 kN (10610 lb)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 40.5 kN (9100 lb)
[/INDENT]
Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC)
at Maximum Thrust, SLS:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 52.7 mg/Ns (1.860 lb/h/lb)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 52.4 mg/Ns (1.850 lb/h/lb)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— N/A
[/INDENT]
Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC)
at Intermediate Thrust, SLS:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 22.7 mg/Ns (0.800 lb/h/lb)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 23.0 mg/Ns (0.813 lb/h/lb)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 18.4 mg/Ns (0.649 lb/h/lb)
[/INDENT]
Air Flow at Maximum Thrust, SLS:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 80.7 kg/s (178 lb/s)
F404-GE-400 ————————- 64.2 kg/s (142 lb/s)
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 70.0 kg/s (154 lb/s)
[/INDENT]
Maximum Burner Temperature:
[INDENT]PW1120 —————————— 1407 C (2565 F) **
F404-GE-400 ————————- N/A
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 1317 C (2400 F)
[/INDENT]
* Estimated, assuming that the core air flow is equivalent to the F100-220
** Assumes that the max burner temperature is consistent with the F100-220
The F404-GE-400 was the engine version approved for US Navy operation during the early 1980s. A higher thrust version, the RM12 was later developed for Sweden’s Gripen fighter – rated at 80.0 kN (18100 lb).
The RB199-34R Mk104 was the version used in the Tornado Air Defence Variant.
This data was compiled from the following sources:
[INDENT]
Jane’s Aero Engines, 11th Edition, ed. by Bill Gunston (Surrey, England, Jane’s Information Group, 2001).
James St. Peter, The History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development in the United States (Atlanta, Georgia, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999).
Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1988-89, ed. by John WR Taylor (Surrey, England, Jane’s Information Group, 1988).
[/INDENT]
Another way to interpret the data would be to compare the engines on the basis of either thrust-to-weight ratio. I have added data for the WP-13A II (which powers the J-8 II interceptor), as a point of comparison:
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio, Maximum Power, SLS:
[INDENT]WP-13A II —————————- 5.59
PW1120 —————————— 7.24
F404-GE-400 ————————- 7.34
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 7.62[/INDENT]
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio, Intermediate Power, SLS:
[INDENT]WP-13A II —————————- 3.62
PW1120 —————————— 4.75
F404-GE-400 ————————- 4.87
RB199-34R Mk104 ——————— 4.23[/INDENT]
In essence, you should gather the following from all of this,
[*]Compared to the most advanced, Chinese-developed turbofan available at the time, all three of the Western candidate engines was clearly a generation ahead. Thrust-to-weight ratios were significantly greater, and fuel consumption was also lower.
[*]The RB199 was the only three-spool engine in the mix. Its higher bypass ratio did translate into markedly better fuel consumption at dry (non-afterburning), subsonic conditions. However, it also hurt fuel consumption in an afterburning mode.
The relatively high parts count, and three spool arrangement contributed to the somewhat spotty maintenance record for this engine. Its successor, the Eurojet EJ200, would adopt a more conventional two-spool arrangement, and corrected many of the maintenance problems that had plagued its predecessor.
Hope this helps.
fltgshdwSome Background and Statistics
Back in the early 1980s, there was a period of time when the US was considering the sale of jet engines to China. The three Western engines that were usually mentioned as contendors were the PW1120, the F404, and Europe’s RB199.
These three were often mentioned as contendors, I might add, for a variety of lightweight fighter competitions at the time, including the Gripen, the Lavi, India’s LCA, and Yugoslavia’s Novi Avion. At one point, China was reportedly contemplating a new “clean sheet” design, based around one of these three engines, sometimes referred to as the “F-12” in the Western press.
The PW1120 was a derivative of the F100-220, sharing the same core, but with a smaller, less complex low spool. It was intended to be lower in thrust, but easier to maintain than the F100, and was eventually selected to power Israel’s abortive Lavi fighter project.
The F404, which also powered the F-18A/B and C/D models, was selected to power Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen, and more recently, India’s initial batch of Tejas fighters.
The RB199, of course, powers the Panavia Tornado. No other customers were ever secured.
Although I hadn’t seen mention of a PW1212, I would point out that the J-52 was most closely related to the early JT8 turbojet, not to the JT8D turbofan. The J-52 (a non-afterburning turbojet) powered both the A-4 Skyhawk and the A-6 Intruder.
As we both know, the US backed away from selling China a modern turbofan engine – and essentially barred the UK from doing the same. My suspicion would be that the PW1212 and PW1216 were proposed as alternatives, after a more modern turbofan engine was ruled out. Neither of these alternatives, however, would have meaningfully altered China’s access to modern engine technologies.
This post has already run a little long. I’ll add some specifications in a follow-on email, in case you couldn’t find them elsewhere.
fltgshdwLavi Connection
Look again, it somehow looks more like Typhoon clone in some angles. There are quite design elements in the J-10 that are not in the Lavi but are in the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon that are in the J-10.
I could give a variety of reasons why the J-10 clearly draws more heavily on Israel’s Lavi experience, than on the Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen.
I don’t have to assume, however: According to Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, there was a period of time during the 1990s when Russian visitors to the Chengdu aircraft factory reported seeing signs all over the facility, posted in Hebrew. Israel engineers clearly played a significant role in the J-10’s development.
This does NOT make the J-10 a Lavi clone. The J-10 is significantly larger, and was sized to meet China’s requirements rather than Israel’s. The relationship between the two airplanes, however, is real.
fltgshdwAmericans Offer AESA Radar for Indian F-16s
I came across the article below, which appears to indicate that the American vendors are gradually increasing the sophistication of their sales pitches for India’s next fighter purchase.
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/30radar.htm
This is the first time that I had seen an acknowledgement that the Americans are willing to sell an AESA radar in the F-16 variant offered to India. Only the United Arab Emirates currently deploys this capability on the F-16, and Pakistan does not appear to have been made a similar offer.
Should be a good marketing spectacle in the months ahead.
fltgshdwF-22 Exports
I doubt anyone will buy the F22 before the line is closed. It would be very cost prohibitive, with a small buy of modified airplanes. It would make much more economic sense, to purchase the F35.
I agree that the F-35 makes much more sense for a customer like Australia: greater range and greater payload. Australia needs a long-legged strike capability, and although the F-35 is unlikely to match the F-111 in terms of the deep strike mission, it is as close as they are going to get in a stealth platform.
That being said, the USAF is currently doing everything in its power to extend the F-22 production line, to give them the option of buying additional fighters beyond the 183th example currently planned. That was why they lobbied (successfully) to restructure F-22 procurement into a multi-year plan that stretched-out production. That is also why, this past week, the US Congress voted to lift the legal restrictions on export of the F-22.
Although the Raptor doesn’t fit Australia’s needs, it just might find a home in Japan (which recently set about assessing their next air superiority fighter requirements). Even stripped down, the Raptor would remain the most formidable air-to-air opponent in the skies.
fltgshdwLockheed Martin Trying to Stay in the Game
Lockheed may offer India Israeli version of F-16.
I suggest that the question we should be asking is why Lockheed Martin was specifically offering an F-16 variant based on the F-16I, rather than labelling it as a Block 52 (on which the F-16I was based) or a Block 60 offering.
Apparently, Lockheed saw some advantage to proposing an F-16 fitted with at least some Israeli avionics. Such an airplane would be able to more easily accept Israeli-made weapons (air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles), something which apparently is very much of interest to India.
This also says something about the Block 60 F-16. Other than its radar and higher-thrust (although unproven) engine, I have yet to see a definitive comparison to show how the Block 60 model is in any way superior to the Block 52. Either Lockheed couldn’t obtain export licensing to offer the Block 60 model to India, or else they genuinely believed that an F-16I would be genuinely more attractive.
fltgshdwVariety of Reasons for UK to Buy Both
If the JSF is goint to be superior to the Eurofighter in BVR, I’m wondering what’s the point of buying Eurofighters as air superiority fighters and JSFs as strike fighters. The RAF is doing this.
Looking back at the original post, I think that there are a range of reasons that have already been mentioned for why the RAF is buying both the Typhoon and JSF, including:
I would like to add another reason:
While JSF certainly could perform in an intercept role, the Typhoon has a clear advantage at close range (lower Typhoon wing loading will translate into a tighter turn radius). The two airplanes therefore offer each other mutual cover, each making up for where the other airplane is weakest. Employed in combination, they are difficult to beat.
fltgshdwI have read that supposedly India is seriously considering a MiG proposal for a 5th-gen fighter as an alternative to the Su T-50. It is a smaller/lighter design that better fits India’s needs.
I have seen similar reports that India is disappointed with the proposed T-50 (supposedly a mammoth airplane), and has urged Sukhoi to consider sizing the airframe down.
The ability of MiG to remain a competitor for new airplane development (beyond the current line of MiG-29 derivatives) is highly doubtful, however. All indications appear to point to a state-enforced merger between Sukhoi and MiG that would leave MiG as the junior partner. The Russian government doesn’t appear to have the finances available to support two new fighter designs over the next decade, and has selected the Sukhoi alternative as better meeting Russian (although not Indian) air force needs.
Sign In
