crobatoAVIC-2 is J-11 and AVIC-1 is J-10 is that correct.
this feature section of Flight. it is i think more carefully edited than news section.
Nope. Both J-11 and J-10 should be AVIC1.
crobato. . . 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).
Neither any of these actually.
J-10 is partly modeled after the F-16, and I mean closer to the F-16A. The J-10/J-11 combination is PLAAF’s hi lo counterpart to the USAF F-16/F-15 combination.
The lessening of the wing sweep compared to that of the Lavi’s is meant for better maneuverability at lower speeds, while increasing wing sweep would have made the plane less maneuverable but more stable and better ride at low altitudes, which is what you need for a striker.
The variable inlet and the lowering of the canopy in the J-10 to reduce drag (F-16’s bubble canopy gives high drag at high subsonic to supersonic speeds) strongly suggests that the J-10 still has a high speed interceptor and air defense role.
If China wanted a MiG-29/Rafale type fighter in the first place, they would have made the J-10 out of two RD-93s rather than a single AL-31FN. Won’t be a problem with Chengdu and engine availability with the RD-93.
crobatoEven the FC-1 is, despite it lacks a FBW so far to best use from that.
FC-1 does have an FBW.
FBW fighter have an advantage, when all secrets of their related airflows may have found its way into the flight-control-software. It is the computer, which generates the optimum settings for lift, drag and related thrust in need for that very fighter, which no pilot can come close in an ordinary fighter. All things, like weaponary will change airflow= drag and weight= drag, when added.
That is not the reason why FBW is regarded being more maneuverable. By the same token an Airbus with FBW would be more maneuverable than a WWII Spitfire. Actually the most maneuverable planes in the world are still your small, prop driven private planes with a totally manual stick. FBW should not be taken as a magic stick for maneuverbility as so many think of it here.
FBW works two ways. It is there to control aircraft with high negative stability (unstable at pitch, tendency to pitch up). Aircraft with the CG that that tends towards the back are more maneuverable than planes with a positive stability (tendency to pitch down) and CG towards the front. But the catch is that negative unstable planes are also very difficult to control and fly, hence the FBW. The FBW is not the maneuverability control factor here but is actually a management system to control what is inherently a very difficult plane to fly.
The second factor where FBW plays is that FBW can control the AoA of the plane independent of the stick forces. Thus you can pull the stick all the way back, and the FBW does not let the plane fly past the AoA limits. At high AoA, planes will face increase drag, loss of lift, loss of speed, all of which makes it vulnerable in a close fight. Thus FBW keeps the plane flying at the optimum AoA, and prevents it from flying past that point. FBW also prevents the pilot from stalling the plane, or pushing it beyond the boundaries.
crobatoI 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.
Generally all PLAAF fighters have a bombing capability. That is a requisite of the PLA hierarchy. Even J-8IIs, J-7s can bomb, and if FC-1s will be approved for PLAAF, it must bomb too. And every PLAAF fighter must also be capable of being the obligatory and favorite Flying MLRS.
But on the ability to hold a laser targeting pod, which is no brainer since Q-5s have laser targeters in the nose, PGM requirement is not going much beyond that.
Unlike US and Western doctrine, it appears quite clear from the examples throughout the PLAAF, that they essentially by doctrine, do not allow and enpower single pilots to use standoff, AGM and AshM missiles. This may have something to do with workload, but I believe that the weapons officer also doubles as the political officer. This is probably on the fear some pilot might go rogue and use the missiles on the government instead.
Thus all strike and multirole aircraft that use self propelled PGMs (LGBs are not self propelled but gravity pulled) are all twin seaters at least, MKKs, JH-7s. The testing of the twin seater Q-5 is also suggestive that the Q-5 is headed for more stuff than gravity LGBs.
[i]
If the PLAAF wants a serious strike plane, it would come with twin seats as a start.[/i]
In addition, the radar chosen by the PLAAF for the J-10 lacks multirole PGM capability (KLJ-3/KLJ-7), even though another contending radar with true multirole capabilities (JL-10A) is offered and even accepted by the PLAAF for the JH-7A.
J-10 regiments were converted from J-7/J-7E regiments rather from Q-5 groups. This means the pilots are dogfight specialists rather than attack specialists.
Another case:
You do note that although the Su-27SKM package upgrade was offered to the PLAAF, it was not accepted. Only an upgrade that allows R-77 to be used, but not PGMs, were accepted for the single seater J-11s.
FAIR USE NOTICE.
JANE’S DEFENCE WEEKLY – OCTOBER 08, 2003
——————————————————————————–
Chinese Su-27 upgrade funds Russian project
Robert Hewson Editor Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons
Moscow and Beijing
Russia’s Su-27SM fighter upgrade is being boosted by a parallel project to modify China’s Su-27s to such an extent that Beijing could be underwriting the entire Russian effort, Jane’s Defence Weekly sources indicate.
Developed by Sukhoi and the Technocomplex group of Russian avionics companies, the SM programme will give the 1980s-vintage Su-27 air-superiority fighter a combat capability roughly equivalent to that of the multirole Su-30MK. While it has made halting progress to date, Russia’s air force has identified the Su-27SM as its number one acquisition priority and is expected to give the programme the go-ahead before the end of 2003. However, Technocomplex has confirmed that around 100 upgrade kits have already been delivered to China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) for use with its Su-27SKs and licence-built Shenyang J-11s.
The Su-27SM was displayed at Moscow’s MAKS 2003 air show last August. The advanced cockpit features three colour multifunction displays (MFDs), plus improved radar, enhanced navigation and computer fits (the design is the first to integrate a MIL-STD 1553B databus with a Russian combat aircraft), an open-architecture system and an expanded weapons capability. Deliveries of up to 15 aircraft had been anticipated this year, but no more than three or four are now expected, due to difficulties in tying together the various funding streams behind the programme. This indicates that the project is relying on more than Russian State support for its success, and it has become evident that China is playing a central role in making the entire project a reality.
There are two Su-27SM demonstrator aircraft in Russia, yet on several occasions Sukhoi has referred to these as Su-27SKs – a designation previously associated only with those aircraft delivered to the PLAAF since 1992. By 1996, 36 KnAAPO-built Su-27SK fighters and 14 Su-27UBK trainers (from IAPO’s line) had been acquired. The same year, Russia and China signed a deal that will see as many as 200 Su-27s built by Shenyang under the local designation J-11. It is believed that more than 100 J-11s have been delivered so far.
There have been consistent reports that China was developing a multirole upgrade for its Su-27s, which would allow them to better complement its more advanced Su-30MKK force. Until now, the scope of that upgrade programme had not been revealed. However, speaking to JDW at September’s Aviation Expo/China 2003 show in Beijing, a Technocomplex spokesman described the Chinese Su-27 upgrade market as “huge”, and said that his company had delivered “about 100 upgrade packages over the last two years”. The Chinese upgrade draws on the same components as Russia’s Su-27SM programme, apart from its use of just two MFDs in the cockpit, as in the Su-30MKK. Technocomplex is upgrading both single-seat and two-seat Su-27s for the PLAAF.
The scope of this upgrade work is another example of the integrated thinking that surrounds China’s future fighter programmes, and the J-11 in particular. Having mastered basic airframe assembly, China now controls an upgrade package that will also allow it to integrate weapons and systems now under development.
Russian industry sources have also disclosed that China’s engine makers are close to mastering the complex skills needed to build the Su-27’s AL-31 powerplant – something that most observers had thought would be held under tight Russian control. If this proves to be the case, then China will have used the Su-27SK/J-11 project to establish a total systems capability for advanced combat aircraft in little more than 10 years.
China’s Defense Minister Gets Acquainted with New Sukhoy Company Developments
China’s minister of defense, General-Colonel Tsao Ganchuan [phonetic] during an official visit to the Russian Federation has gotten acquainted with the Sukhoy Aviation Holding Company’s new developments and with proposals for upgrade of the Su-27SK fighters that are in service into the Su-27SKM variant.
“On Monday, members of the Chinese military delegation headed by the minister of defense visited the flying base of the Sukhoy Aviation Holding Company in the Moscow suburb of Zhukovskiy. They demonstrated the new Su family of fighters to the guests from the PRC at the Gromov flight research institute airfield, and also proposals for upgrade of the combat airplanes in service,” a source in the Russian military department reported to Interfax on Monday.
Source: 22.12.03, Interfax
MOSCOW. Dec 22 (Interfax-AVN) – Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan was shown Sukhoy’s new makes and upgrade offers as part of his official visit to Russia, a competent source in the Russian Defense Ministry told Interfax-Military News Agency.
“On Monday the Chinese delegation headed by the defense minister visited Sukhoi’s airbase in Zhukovsky near Moscow. At the airfield of the Gromov Flight Test Research Institute they were shown Sukhoi’s new makes and upgrade offers,” the source said.
“The emphasis of the demonstration was on the upgrade of the SU-27SK Flanker jets into the SU-27SKM version, which Russia offers to China and other countries operating the aircraft,” the source also said. According to the source, the aircraft was also demonstrated in flight, piloted by test pilot of the Sukhoy Design Bureau Yevgeny Frolov.
The source added that Chinese Air Force operates about 200 SU-27SKs. According to him, the upgrade will imply longer service life, all-weather day/night capability, and wider range of weapons. There are several option packages, he said. One basic option package upgrades the fighting performance, while the other emphasizes multifunction capabilities. It will be economically reasonable to apply these packages to different parts of an operational fleet to get a diversified force. The SU-27’s new weapons will be the air-to-surface Kh-31P Krypton, Kh-31A Krypton, Kh-29T(TE) Kedge missiles and the KAB- 500KR, KAB-1500KR guided aerial bombs.
Arrangements for non-Russian dumb munitions are also optional. The SU-27SKM will also have a satellite navigation system with new operational modes, more precise navigation and guidance. An air refueling capability is also offered to extend the operational range. Ample upgrade opportunities for the upgrade of the SU-30MKKs were also offered, the source said. According to the source, the Chinese delegation will depart home on Monday night.
JANE’S DEFENCE WEEKLY – NOVEMBER 17, 2004
——————————————————————————–
China’s Su-27s may fall short in capability
Robert Hewson Editor Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons
Zhuhai, China
The Russian-supplied upgrade for China’s licence-built fleet of Sukhoi Su-27SK single-seat fighter aircraft, produced by Shenyang as the J-11, is not as advanced or far-reaching as once believed, sources have told JDW.
Earlier reports suggested China was close to fielding upgraded Su-27SKs that delivered a level of multirole capability approaching that of People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) Su-30MKK aircraft.
To date only a limited new air-to-air capability has been added to the upgraded aircraft and China has not made meaningful steps towards producing an ‘indigenised’ Su-27 fitted with Chinese-built engines, weapons, radar or avionics. Furthermore, Russian industry sources have said that China is moving to halt J-11 production on the grounds that the design is out-dated and lacking in overall capability.
Upgrade work for China’s J-11s began earlier this year under the leadership of Russia’s Technocomplex group. Currently, “several 10s of aircraft” have been refitted under this programme, sources said. The main feature of this upgrade is centred around changes to the aircraft’s Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP) N-001 radar, that add the ability to fire the Vympel RVV-AE (Nato: AA-12 ‘Adder’) active-radar air-to-air missile (AAM). The improved N-001VE can control a simultaneous engagement with two RVV-AE missiles.
The improved radar is not being built into aircraft on the production line. Instead, each J-11 produced by Shenyang has its radar shipped to Russia for upgrade by NIIP before being reinstalled by Chinese technicians. NIIP has offered several growth options for PLAAF J-11s including a further improved radar and the ability to launch the Kh-31 air-to-surface missile. None of these options have yet been taken up and the company says little interest has been expressed in acquiring a multirole J-11.
Neither are the upgraded J-11s compatible with China’s own active-radar AAM, the PL-12 (SD-10).
According to NIIP, China has not asked for PL-12 integration and the company has been given no technical information on the missile’s operating modes whatsoever. It has long been thought that PL-12 capability was a cornerstone of China’s J-11 upgrade plans.
China is also understood to be developing its own advanced fire-control radars, perhaps to pair with the PL-12.
NIIP sources told JDW that, in their experience, local progress in radar development has been slow and China’s capabilities still lag about 15 years behind the leading edge of radar technology.
China remains wholly reliant on Russia to supply the AL-31 engines that power both the J-11 and the Chengdu J-10 advanced fighter. JDW understands that supplier FSUE Salut is currently negotiating to provide a batch of 300 AL-31FN turbofans to support J-10 production.
crobatoThe link was posted before! Before you claim one, you have to send yours about Jane’s, just to stay polite. For good behavior there is no link!
I found that again in the meanwhile!
Yes but it is very old, year 2000. As such it is subject to future revision.
Take a note of this for future argument—the plans for J-10 with TVC goes back before 2000.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
First batch of AL-31FN engines delivered to China
Nikolai Novichkov JDW Correspondent
Moscow
The first batch of Russian AL-31FN vectored-thrust engines has been delivered to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force for its J-10 fighter aircraft, an industry source has told JDW.
The second batch of engines will be delivered before the end of 2005 while the entire contract for the supply of 100 AL-31FN engines is due to be fulfilled in the third quarter of 2006.
In July Rosoboronexport signed a contract for the supply to China of 100 AL-31FN aircraft engines manufactured by Moscow-based machine-building enterprise (MMPP) Salyut. This contract is one of Russia’s biggest deals for the supply of military aircraft engines and experts estimate it to be worth USD300 million.
The contract with China placed MMPP Salyut among the leaders of Russia’s defence companies and turned it into one of the major operators in the spare parts export market.
In 2004, the export of spare parts and provision of maintenance earned Salyut USD38 million. Experts believe that in 2005-06 the enterprise’s earnings may exceed those of 2004 due to follow-on contracts. According to the industry source, China is now willing to acquire a large batch of upgraded AL-31F aircraft engines for Su-27SK and Su-30MKK multirole fighters already in service with the country’s air force.
The value of this contract varies between USD1.2 billion and USD1.4 billion over six years.
Salyut’s products have also interested India’s Ministry of Defence, which is negotiating supplies of upgraded AL-31F engines.
In an interview given to the ARMS-TASS Agency at the Aero India-2005 show in Bangalore, Yuri Yeliseyev, Salyut director general, said that an engine based on the AL-31F was being proposed for India’s MiG-27 fighter aircraft.
“The old R-13B300 engines that are being removed could be used as 20 MW power supply units. The Indian side found the proposal quite interesting and intensive talks are now under way on the subject,” Yeliseyev said.
Yeliseyev estimated this market during the 2010-12 period at more than USD600 million.
MMPP Salyut’s performance on the foreign market made it one of four Russian defence companies whose licences for the independent sale of spare parts and provision of maintenance was extended by the Russian government on 14 October.
Some excerpts from the Jan 11, 2006 JDW article on the matter.
“Super J-10 Fighter”
Will feature- Passive PAR, TVC, Strengthened Airframe, Russian help.
The J-10 was originally designed to use the Zhemchug, a mechanically scanned slotted array by Phazotron, but some critical components were made impossible to copy.
The other Bureau, Tikhomirov, recently resumed a working relationship with the PLAAF, after having submitted an early prototype of their Pero in the late 90s but with no followup by the Chinese. They are now submitting a derivative of the Pero (is this the Panda?). The Pero was originally designed for use on the Su-30KN.
Recall the recent large order for engines in late 2005. Most observers assumed it was for more of the AL-31FN, but this is not so. It was for a new engine, the AL-31FN-M1. The M1 features an enlarged fan with inlet diameter of 924 mm instead of 902 mm, which improved thrust from 122.6kN to 132.4 kN. Also features a swivel nozzle developed by Salyut in conjunction with Zavod imeni Klimova. Similar to the KliVT used on the RD-33OVT of the Mig-29OVT- it’s improved over the IAF’s Su-30MKI in that it deflects in BOTH pitch and yaw, rather than pitch only.
Expected to have a MTBF of 1000 hours, the requirement set by the PLAAF (which perhaps will also be the MTB of the WS-10A, if and when it enters service), and a lifetime of 2000 hours. Future upgrades include the M2 and M3, with the M3 having a new cooling system, combustor, and LP compressor that boost thrust to 142.2 kN, and give it a longer
This one is a 2004 article.
MOSCOW. Jan 6 (Interfax-AVN) – The Moscow-based Salyut Engineering Production Enterprise will have completed deliveries of AL-31FN aircraft engines to China by late January, a source in the Russian defense industry told Interfax-Military News Agency on Tuesday. “Under the contract, Salyut is to deliver a batch of 54 AL- 31FN engines to be fitted on the SU-27 Flanker fighters to China over a period of two years. Chinese experts visited Moscow in December to accept the last batch of aircraft power plants. All engines are expected to be delivered to China by late January,” the source said. According to him, China does not intend to procure the AL- 31FN production license. “China has bought the license to overhaul AL-31F engines, mounted on SU-27SK Flanker and SU-30MKK Flanker aircraft, but overhaul of all AL-31FN engines is to be carried out in Russia,” the source said. According to unofficial sources, the AL-31FN aircraft engine, featuring a low unit layout, is designed to be mounted on Chinese single-engine aircraft. The contract envisions aircraft engine after-sales services and maintenance and is to be in force until 2005, with the possibility of extending the contract provided for. The AL-31FN boasts the same maximum afterburner thrust as the baseline AL-31F, which totals 12,500 kg. Its specific fuel consumption is 0.685 kg/kgf.h. The engine’s dry weight equals 1,547 kg, while its guaranteed service life is 500 hours, and the specified service life is 1,500 hours.
crobatoHere this picture you got one documented aircraft right next to the J-10. The FC-1 is reported to be 14m. The telephoto has flattened the perspective so there is little to no depth illusion here.
crobatoThe max speed of the F-16 has nothing to do with the installed engine at first.
The F-16 is speed limited by its fixed inlet. Up to ~ Mach 1,6 it works fine. Behind that the engine inlet becomes clogged. If you fit a 8,5 tons J-79, a F100 with 11 tons or 13 tons does not matter. The inlet limits the top-speed to Mach 2. It is like in a car, when the speed is limited by the transmission.
All that in mind for a better acceleration from engine. The main factor, which limits speed is frontal drag at first. So weight is no issue for FBW-fighters at first. The IDF-AF did not choose the wider inlet for its F-16Is with F100 PW229, before it is its main intrest is to have the best performance till 600 kt dash for the low level strike role at first. A2A performances are of secondary importance for them. For selfdefence are the AW-suit, HMS and high agility AAMs are tasked. Your fighter is limited to 9 Gs, when your AAMs are >50 Gs.
Before FBW fighters, the better T-W ratios under sea-level-conditions were an indicator of SEP in general. At medium heights that ratio drops under unity at all.
Who told you the issue is about top speed? In aerial combat, we’re looking at acceleration at subsonic speeds, which is the most important for recovering from a low energy state from losing energy in maneuvers. This is where weight and thrust plays a more important role than drag factors. Frontal drag in most modern fighters are so low enough they’re not a factor until you reach high subsonic speeds.
Power drops at height, but drag drops too, so speed can rise despite that. Do you notice a small, but an important detail. A fighter of ~ 15 tons do weight the same 15 tons at medium or upper heights. (The fuel consumption in fuel aside. When it helps bring it up to 15 tons by air-refuelling) Nothing changes 15 tons are 15 tons. What is no longer the same is the thrust, it drops with height, dry thrust similar to air density and wet much slower. Despiter slower thrust you can gain speed, what is related to drag. Speed/height x weight is your kinetic engery to deal with. Wing-load is important, when it comes to turning capabilities. The factor for that is lift generated by the lifting area.
So? What’s your point?
Do you note a further important detail, I did not wrote wing-load, because that becomes misleading again. FBW and related lifting-areas up to the lifting body-concept does make it impossible to compare older designs with new ones. A MiG-21 from 50s could be compared to a F-104 in wing-load, but with the F-14 f.e. it was no longer usefull. It is not you, but in general someone who claims a better wingload for a MiG-21 compared to a F-14 is not serious or shows a lack of understanding about technological gains to generate lift.
All that in mind, to claim a2a capabilities with yardsticks from the 70s is very questionable. But I understand the wish to compare something with data known in general, like thrust-ratings at sea-level and zero speed.
Irrelevant. We all know about this, and we’re not comparing aircraft here with lifting body designs.
crobatoYou start mixing facts. The Lavi contained a high ratio of light weight composites.
So? The Gripen has a weight of 6600kg, the F-CK-1 around 6540kg, and the FC-1 is around 6400kg, the F-2 is around 9700kg, and the J-7 is around 5300kg. What does it say about the ratio of light weight composites?
Similar built fighters differ considerably in weight through avionics and capabilities installed. A MiG-29 in the A2A role only weighs in basic equipped with 10,8 tons. Add to this an AG role and you are close to 12 tons basic equipped. The F-16A were built with A2A at first, when A2G was an limited extra. Still in the ear from the LWF ‘mafia’ “No pound for A2G!”
Still not cheap enough for most countries, it was no longer restricted to a single role and more and more capabilities were added with the related rise in weight. Non is surprised, that the last multirole ones are the most heavy in basic equipped.
What variant of a M2000 do you have in mind, when you claim a basic-equiiped weight?!
The same thing it is with the Gripen. An A-model from the first lot close to 6 tons or one of the last C-model close to 7 tons?!
The Swiss and Finish examples of the F-18C limited to the A2A role mainly are well below in basic-equipped compared to USN examples. But what data are mainly published, when it comes to the weights of a F-18C for example. It is up to the informed reader, to notice that and adjust the related data or for the ones published to a given variant. It seems there is no time to look into such important details, when someone is eager to claim his point. Please keep in mind, that my critic is in general and not to a specific person in mind at first!
When the comparison about elevators is ok, it is not related to size. 600 mm to 700 mm is a difference of 15 % nearly. If your body will get that incrise in size, you may weight-in more up to that value. I think a difference to feel and see in most cases. The Rafale was built with a 10 % reduction in size compared to the EF with no reduction in overall performances in hope.
By comparable technology/workforce the price estimate of a fighter was judged to its basic-equipped weight : lighter = cheaper. A 45 mio $ to a 50 mio $ for example, what was seen by Dassault as an argument for better export prospects. Today we have learned that the most expensive part of a fighter is the related software.
What’s really your point? You are referring to cases of planes that are basic A-A models. And that’s what I am referring to as well.
Guess what, the J-10 we have right now is the basic A-A model.
600mm to 700mm difference I am referring to the difference of planar size array. How much weight you expect would be the difference between the two sizes of array.
crobatoAnd where is the specific link to your -31FN4L?
I am talking about the AL-31FNM1. This was disclosed to Salut via interviews with Jane’s. This is the equivalent of the AL-31FN series to the AL-31FM1, which is the modification of the standard AL-31F with increased power.
As for the rests of the posts, much adeu about nothing. If you want to say things, get to the point.
crobatoFinally we got the full picture
J-10 with JF-17 in CAC airfield. 😀
Too bad the unit numbers have been censored. Would have told us the regiment where these planes are headed to. 04 prototype suggests this photo is taken a few months later after the pics of 3rd Division J-10s appeared. J-10s look like in a ferry state. 3 external fuel tanks no missiles for drag, they’re set to go for a long journey, I think towards the east coast.
One of the planes had an added remark of a number “110” on the tail by the original poster of the picture.
crobatoLooks like the Chiense may have to source buying more second hand IL-76s then. There appears to be quite a number of those flying in and out of western China to the Asian former Soviet Republics. Remember there was a report of one that crashed that was overloaded full of Chinese goods to one of the former Soviet Republics.
I know from pictures, they have created an overhaul facility with planes in various stages of assembly and engines in stands that had wheels.
crobatoNo. Basic AL-31FN is about 1534kg. It’s actually lightened a little bit compared to the AL-31F.
I don’t know about the weight of the additional TVC nozzle, but the TVC engine is also more powerful, starting with 13,200kg maximum thrust. I do suspect that the base AL-31FN may not be at 12,500kg but 13,200kg since the new compressor stage was already implemented on the base AL-31FN and not just starting on the TVC engine.
We might have to add that the GE F110 is also heavier than the PW F100 at 1800kg. So as a matter of fact both the F100 and F110 are heavier than the base AL-31FN by 200kg and 300kg respectively!
That makes it harder to see why the base J-10 would have an empty weight exceeding the F-16Cs.
The J-10 TVC variant may be heavier but then you would have to factor the documented increase of power in.
crobatoi am not saying that its weight should be excatly 9750KG. but it will be somewhere around this figure. they are not off by a wide margin.
what is payload capacity , engine weights, fuel capacity of J-8? unless those are known we cannot deduce the result. and weight of J-8 remain constant for past 20 years or there is improvement in capability.
FC-1 is better as it is from same firm and similar time frame.
I do think it’s quite far off actually. FC-1 is from the same firm and from the same time frame. Also understand that the FC-1 does not have that much composites as the J-10.
For a plane that is slightly longer than an F-16 and has just about the same wing area, the FC-1 weighs 6300-6400kg empty. The engine weighs just slightly over 1000kg, while the AL-31FN weighs just slightly over 1500kg.
crobatolets do simple maths.
lets replace FC-1 RD engine (F404 class) with AL-31( F100). Increase its fuel
capacity from 2200KG to 3400KG. increase payload to 5500KG. Do u think
its empty will be same as 7 ton F-16A. (which will be the difference between RD-93 engine and AL-31 engine weight). or it will become more like 7.5 to 8 tons just to cater for increase reinfrocement for bigger engine, fuel and payload.
Exactly. So where is the 9750kg empty weight coming from.
the same will be true for J-10 assuming it is made of similar material as FC-1.
It cannot achieve weight of similar single engine western fighter with similar capability. unless there is some advance weight reduction material used.
But then why should it be heavier than a J-8II of a larger size? The J-8II is made with material technologies that are at least a generation or two behind the J-10, is bigger in all respects and got two engines. And that’s not Western construction either.
base M2K is 1 ton heavier than F-16A. and u cannot compare to Advance F-16C that is different class in terms of external payload.
How? Base M2K is around 7200 to 7400kg while the F-16A is 7000kg.
crobatoWhen does the Rafale has low TWR? Those two engines combined produces a lot of power. That’s 1.0 TWR right from the full combat load.
The Gripen has lower TWR than a J-8II. Somehow that won’t pass with the PLAAF. The FC-1 is already criticized among Chinese circles for this already, and the F-CK-1, which has slightly better TWR than the Gripen, is considered underpowered in circles both sides of the straits.
Canards add weight? Of course, but then do does elevators. You’re just exchanging one for the other.
Nose size difference isn’t a big factor in weight as the weight difference between a 600mm planar array vs a 700mm ain’t much.
Having more wing area isn’t a reason either. The Mirage 2000 has more wing area than an F-16 and yet’s lighter.
And remember the Lavi, which has canards and greater wing area than any F-16, is only 7000kg empty.
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.
Sign In
