crobatoGood time for a J-10 article in Combat Aircraft Magazine then!
In the current issue, the author argues that IAI acted as a consultant, just like General Dynamics consulted for the Ching Kuo, to design an aircraft for China’s needs, or Dassault was consulted on the Novi Avion. Even SAAB contracted Rockwell, MBB, and BAe for support in various areas for the Gripen. I don’t see why certain forum members seem so opposed to the idea that IAI, SIBNIA, or Mikoyan might have been contracted to support J-10 development.
The problem of consultations is to what degree are they used and to what degree are they not.
I mentioned before Mikoyan’s involvement as there in fact similarities in the frontal area of the J-10 to the 1.44. Mikoyan could have been involved in consultations regarding a proposed delta canard “J-10” twin engined variant using two RD-33 engines which was rumored about for some time. This twin engined model looks quite similarly to the 1.44. MiG is also clearly involved with consultations on the FC-1 project. And clearly MiG sees the possibility of an alliance with Chengdu Aircraft Company as a counter to Sukhoi’s alliance with Shenyang Aircraft Company as access to the Chinese market not just in fighter planes but also in other varieties of aircraft.
But consulations can also be discarded in the final product. I credit MiG as the possible source for the idea of using dogtooth strakes in front of the FC-1’s LERX near the engine intake. But the idea was disposed of in the next set of prototypes for a larger LERX.
Frankly I’m surprised that Phazotron wasn’t mentioned; it was quite likely they were consulted with regards to the radar of the J-10. And once again, there is very doubt about the Israeli impact on the development of Chinese avionics—HUDs, MFDs, radar, fire control systems, navigation equipment, ECM/ECCM, laser guidance, etc,. But the Chinese would not have achieved those avionics truimphs if it were not for the rise of their own domestic electronics industry thanks to the import of dual use technologies from all major industrialized countries, not the least, the US, Taiwan, Japan, and Europe.
The Israelis and the Russian contribution to the J-10 airframe are clearly overrated. The kind of construction techniques, management and quality control processes, precision machinery, computer aided design and manufacturing, composite manufacturing needed to make the J-10’s complex airframe (its lines show distinctly even more complex curved geometries than the Lavi, Gripen, or Typhoon) are not what I would associate both the IAI and the Russians for. That’s much more of the dual use technology the Americans, the Europeans, the Japanese and even the Taiwanese introduced to China for use in commercial projects and even for airline segment subcontraction. These are things I would associate Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Hughes, BAE, Airbus, Cincinnati Milacron, are better for. And airline section subcontraction are things both SAC and CAC are clearly involved. As a matter of fact, Chinese companies are contributing composite sections in the latest Boeing and Airbus airliners, which is something I can’t say about Russian firms.
crobatoBeing proposed and actually doing it are two different things. As we all know, the Russians have track records of saying anything to make a buck but often fail to deliver. When you have an actual MiG-23 that flies with an AL-31F engine without very extensive modifications, then show it. Even the gearbox locations of the AL-31F and the R-25 engines are in different places.
Tell me, Flogger, what is the whole point of adding a mere 6600kg thrust engine to a prototype when the specified product uses a 12,500kg thrust engine? Can you tell me the structural effects on a monoque designed to fit a wide turbofan engine are forced to fit one of the smallest diameters turbojets in service? Can you tell me the resultant effects on such an engine when the intake tunnel is originally designed to not only fit a engine that is not only much wider in diameter, but has double the thrust and has to be optimized for bypass.
Your line of reasoning is so BS. When the JH-7 had trouble acquiring more Spey engines, they never once considered fitting it with two WP-13 engines. Even the FC-1 prototype never fitted the WP-13 engines just to “try out”.
Even if aircraft is upgraded with more powerful engines, these engines are still approximately the same size as the one they had originally.
And why would the J-10 even use the WP-13 if they had a prototype in 1995-96? Do you have a reasonable idea that even at that time, China already has spare AL-31Fs for their Su-27s which were recieved in 1992?
Why would you fit a WP-13, when you can do it with an actual AL-31F which is a lot more closer to the AL-31FN in dimension? Eh, explain that? And they didn’t use an AL-31F either because the plane is so tailored to fit the WS-10A/AL-31FN.
One thing you failed to account is that as planes become more advanced, their tolerances and specifications become a lot more tighter and they become a lot less accomodating when it comes to major changes. The more extensive amount of testing and modifications required for such changes would greatly enhance the cost of the aircraft. Every change creates a ripple effect through out the entire airframe. New stress lines have to be evaluated and tested, airflow retested again and so on. Changes of center of gravity requires reprogramming of the FBW, and that calls for another round of expensive tests. In fact you fail to account that the WP-13 is not just a smaller, but also a much lighter engine than the AL-31FN, that fitting it on a J-10 prototype creates such a serious difference of central of gravity that flight data results are absolutely useless for further development. Not only that but you have to reprogram the FBW twice, and programming a quadruplex FBW IS NOT EASY because each module requires a different set of codes so that each module cannot replicate a bug that would occur in one module.
crobatoCrobato
tell me explain me how the MiG-23 can fit a fat Al-31 and also the slim R-35?
Not without extensive airframe modifications and frankly, i doubt any MiG-23 was ever fitted with the AL-31F and flew.
Modifications contrary to what you are saying are very common during the development and research program of any aircraft that is the reason they are prototypes, and not main production aircraft they can be modify at any stage of the prototype phase, see the MiG-23 it started with even Al-21 or R-27 engines and ended with Al-31, or the Mirage III/IAI kfir, or the F-5/F-20 you are just denying your self a reality the J-10 can be powered by an slim R-13 in the prototype stage and later even change it to the Al-31 your arguments are just based on pride and fear and are only to scape from reality and deny the very real J-10-Lavi connection.
Idiot. The Kfit had its rear end completely changed. Even the heat shields for the J79 are different from the Atar’s. That’s why the Kfir is not the same aircraft as the Mirage III. There are extensive airframe modifications.
You are the one with the reality denial. You can’t prove a WP-13 J-10 proto.
If an engine is fitted you look for the best advantages.[/QUOTE]
crobatoRussia Scrambles To Save China Plane Contract: Report
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
Russia is scrambling to save a $1.5-billion contract with China for
the sale of 38 large transport aircraft that is in jeopardy due to
delays in delivery of the planes, the business daily Kommersant
reported Sept. 15.
A meeting of a Russia-China military cooperation commission to be
chaired by the defense ministers of the two countries this month has
been postponed until at least mid-October amid “serious questions”
over the contract, the paper said, quoting an unnamed defense ministry
source.
The contract, worth 1.18 billion euros, for delivery to China of 38
Russian-built Ilyushin 76MD transport aircraft and four Ilyushin 78
cargo planes was signed last year and called for the first planes to
be delivered this summer.
So far however no planes have been delivered and senior Chinese
officials began “regularly” insisting that Russia respect the terms
of the contract following their inspection of the factory in
Uzbekistan where key components of the planes were to have been
produced.
The delays in production of the planes appeared to be due in large
part to insufficient manpower at the factory outside Tashkent, the
paper said.
“The Russian side has already begun work to save the contract,”
Kommersant said, saying that this could include transferring
responsibility for production of those aircraft components from the
factory in Uzbekistan to a site in the central Russian city of
Ulyanovsk.
China has told Russia that the next meeting of their bilateral
military-technical cooperation commission will not go ahead until
questions over the contract have been resolved.
Delay of the meeting of the commission “could postpone the signing of
a range of new contracts for delivery for weapons and military
equipment delivery to China,” the paper said
crobatoFor what its worth, the Russian SIBNIA institute, which has worked closely with China on J-11 production and assisted with J-10 as well, said:
The Chinese has rather very ingenious methods of brain farming. They probably already knew the answer to some of their problems but already having the solution would not stop them from still attempting to harvest brains from so called foreign assistance, just to get their ideas and perspectives. There is something called you can never have enough information. To give you an idea, I read something about the so called Russian assistance with the Type 094 sub, and it was said that the Russians were only allowed to work on very specific portions and were not allowed to get the complete picture and status of the actual project. In other words, its called “need to know” basis.
For what’s its worth, the Russians may have been fed with intentionally designed filtered information and problems, and asked to solve them, regardless whether or not the Chinese already has the solution, or simply want to compare solutions etc,.
“Need to know” is the crux of it all—the Chinese don’t trust the Russians and the Russians don’t trust the Chinese either. And I doubt the Chinese would have taken Russian solutions to the designed problems in face value without comparisons and evaluations on their own.
Classic intel trick btw.
crobatoFor what’s its worth, Israeli engineers have to be in Chengdu although it can be said that the Lavi wasn’t the original purpose for them to be there. In the late eighties, CAC would no doubt need Israeli expertise to integrate the licensed Python 3 copy called PL-8 into the first J-7Ds and later J-7Es. They would need Israeli assistance to integrate such into the radars and hence the Chinese learned radar queing.
I think the Israelis contributed a lot of tech to China, and they appear to involve areas like radars, avionics and fire control systems. You got way too much focus on the Lavi, but failed to look at other areas such as in tank warfare. Even the PLA got subtle Israeli style hints like using storage rails around the tank turrets as additional armor. I read an anecdote that the PLA once considered a Merkava style tank for their next generation tank but settled conservatively on the T-72 style and what eventually evolved into the T-98 and T-99.
I think one of the biggest coups the Chinese was able to obtain—and its suspected it was from the Israelis but never proven—was the technology for a digital quadruplex redundant fly by wire system when these systems are still state of the art. That’s one major generational leap, when the last Chinese planes were flying with mechanical controls. The Su-27 nor the Pakistani F-16s could not offer this because both had analog flight control systems. The F-16C had a digital FBW, but that system wasn’t designed to cope with the level of instability you would expect of a delta canard, where its layout basically throws much of its weight in the rear. Such a system would be more advanced to the systems used either on the ROC F-CK-1 or the Japanese F-2. An active delta canard is more unstable than your already unstable F-16 (I think it’s around in the pitch and yaw), and the Europeans have their nasty experiences with this developing for the Gripen and the Typhoon. Developing an FBW for such a plane would be much more challenging than let’s say, a J-7.
Digital FBW software cannot be copied and transferred from plane to plane because each plane’s flight characteristics are as distinct as signatures. So not only was the Chinese able to obtain this technology, they mastered the theory behind the algorhythms well enough to code their own software.
Despite all the so called Israeli assistance—which I think was well overrated—the project was clearly in trouble by the mid nineties, and the PLAAF expressed its dissatisfaction through the licensing of the Su-27 and ramping up modernization of the J-8IIs. If foreign assistance was required at this point, it could not come from Israeli since the PLAAF wasn’t happy with their work, but from the Russians, through their AL-31FN engine and offer for the Zhuk radar, and I suspect some help from Europeans as well. There is some really interesting coincidences with the X-31 project (concluded in 1994) to the J-10, mainly, the coupling of TVC to an active delta canard model. That requires a lot of flight data to evaluate, and yet the J-10 appears on the verge of producing the Super 10 model with TVC.
crobatoCrobato you do not have any picture of the 1995 J-10s do you? all of the nine prototypes, the aircraft built in 1993 do you?
you are just following a childish reasoning you can modify the J-10 is not like you are saying, any aircraft can be modified so all your brilliant reason is so false because how in that case they plan to make a naval twin engine J-10 if they can not modiy the aircraft? any airframe can be modified to make room for a new engine , you are just going in a false reasoning path
That’s bull****. You’re the one who has to come up with pictures of 1995 J-10s not me. You’re the one making the claim, not me.
And you surely know not one zilch of aircraft engineering or any idea of airframes to say that jet aircraft can easily be modified to your wishes. Even if the aircraft still looks similar from the outside, the inside airframe changes are quite drastic that it really is a new airplane (F-5E vs F-20 Tigershark). I think it’s clear you just ran out of any technical argument and once again, have gone to the deep end. But then everyone in the forum already thinks you’re a loon. So nothing new here.
And by the way, a twin engined J-10 isn’t a J-10 anymore but a totally new aircraft and there is no official twin engined J-10. And even when that happens, it will be given a new number.
crobatoNo Crobato is not technical it is political, your technically is a false excuse you use i have shown you the MiG-23 acccepts engine of very different diameters and lengths, You have a very false reasoning in fact a very crucial flaw if the WS-10 was not ready in 1993, the AL-31 was not the first engine chosen to power the J-10 what engine was powering the first J-10 prototypes? not an AL-31 for sure not an WS-10 since it was not yet ready niether the Kunlun also was very foolish to built an airframe and wait 10 years just to be power by the WS-10, conclusion you are just giving excuses
Listen to me closely. There is no J-10 prototype flying in 1993. And even if they did, it would have been easier for them to use the Spey, which is already a turbofan and with an output much closer to the PW1120 than the WP-13. And certainly China has 50 of them before 1990 and only built four JH-7 prototypes. Won’t hurt to take one engine right?
lOl. Nothing but circular reasoning. Let repeat the bottom line.
You got no photo or tangible evidence to back up your claim that a WP-13 based prototype existed.
There is no mention of that in Chinese texts.
You don’t have a technical argument to support such. Even the JH-7 would have required a massive fuselage alteration and that’s for a plane that’s switching from turbofan to turbofan, and isn’t a monoque. What more the problems if the engine from a small turbojet to a fat turbofan (the AL-31FN is even wider and has a higher bypass than the standard AL-31F) and from a fuselage designed as a monoque.
You don’t have historical precedents from any of the other Chinese development projects, which during their development phase, used the WP-13 as temporary engine.
And lastly, there is no precedent at all, that the Chinese make special technology demonstrators. Everyone of their projects, from the J-8I, the J-8II, the JH-7, the FC-1 showed prototypes remarkably similar and very little changed from the definitive production versions.
crobatoWhatever troubles the Chinese had in obtaining the Spey, they still have 50 engines they received from the British, and that’s certainly more than enough to make a potential J-10 prototype out of that. And if you think fitting engines is that easy, if the Chinese had problems obtaining the Spey, why not design the JH-7 around two WP-13s like the J-8IIs?
Guess what, it can’t happen for the same reason why you can’t have a J-10 around the WP-13. It would require a massive redesign of the fuselage.
You really are out of technical arguments are you? The WP-13 is so different from the engine the J-10 was intended for that to use the WP-13 would result in a totally different aircraft. The Chinese know more than enough of the WP-13 to know that this will be the result. Hence not even the J-9 concepts ever called for using the WP-13.
To sum it up,
You got no photo or tangible evidence to back up your claim that a WP-13 based prototype existed.
There is no mention of that in Chinese texts.
You don’t have a technical argument support such.
You don’t have historical precedents from any of the other Chinese development projects.
crobatoIf you look at that Chinese topic thread about quantity over quality, the topic should really be about domesticity over quality and quantity, and even cost effectiveness, and that seems to be a prevailing trait with the armed forces in China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. The latter two however, had appeared to temporarily given up on “indigenization” for the moment.
But I’m not totally in disfavor for such efforts because for all the money spent, you do stretch and push the boundaries of one country’s aeronautical engineering. Japan’s F-2 project was a massive failure for example, but guess whose building the vital structural composite parts of the latest Boeing airliner?
crobatoWrong wrong wrong.
As a matter of fact, the Spey would have made a much more logical choice than the WP-13 because of its greater power output and dimensional similarity than the WP-13.
The J-10 isn’t “modified”. You show no concept what a monoque is. The airplane structure is built around the engine like one giant cylinder, where the engine support structure and the airframe is considered one. The plane has to be built around its intended engine for one thing, which is basically not the AL-31F but the WS-10 whch even has a larger diameter than the AL-31F.
While your figure of 1.14m diameter for the AL-31F is correct, it’s actually wrong for the J-10 because the AL-31FN has an even larger diameter than the AL-31F. The J-10’s engine cavity would have been extremely cavernous to stick a WP-13 in it. Worst yet, the intake air tunnels leading to the engine would have been massively disrupted because of the great change of the tunnel shape.
What you say isn’t technically possible. If the Chinese made a delta canard from a WP-13, that certainly isn’t a J-10 by far. However, the Chinese have shown no history in making X type experimental prototypes intended purely for research.
crobatoSo V9 is 30% more than V5, which puts it at 96 KM for 5 Sq Mtr
(from
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/apg68-v-9.htm)The Defensa article is also in the ballpark then!
The Zhuk M indeed appears to be more powerful (tho’ with usual disclaimers about test conditions etc )!
Like I had said earlier, MiG29Ks with RCS reduction (~~1 Mtr class, 1.5 with weapons) and a more powerful radar (120-130 vs 5 Sq Mtr) + new IRST, with State of the art ECM will have a definite advantage, vs non RCS reduced F-16s (5 Sq Mtr class) with an APG-68 series (100-110 km ranged radar for a 5 Sq Mtr target) and downgraded ECM.
The IAF MiG-29s might be slated for the same upgrade (for avionics), presently being decided.
You have to understand that the Zhuk-M (700mm diameter) has a bigger and more rounded antenna than the APG-68, whose elliptical array area is more comparable to the smaller Kopyo. Also V3-V7 has been around for more than a decade.
Those are perfect examples of a well implemented federated architecture….so, by using perfectly capable RISC processors (or of course DSP ones depending on your function) & divvying up the functions, and coming up with optimized code, you can achieve excellent results. In aircraft like the Su-30 where space is not a constraint, I’d still go for federated architecture, I see no particular need why it is in anyway worse off than the combined DSP/RDP approach (bar space). If we look back, some of the key issues with the F-22 for instance were with its highly unified CIP and running different functions off a common whole, despite software division/ function splitting among banks of processors. In my view- if it aint broke, dont fix it! Connect these federated processors with proper databuses optimized for the data transfer like the Indians did and you have a good working system on your hands, rather than something that looks fancy in specs, uses the latest COTS stuff because you need to squeeze all the functions out of one unit, but you end up spending more and more time debugging it
There is a reason why DSP/RSP are being combined is that they lessen complexity and with it they reduce latency from bus transfers since all data transfers are directly in chip, the possibility of bugs by having less parts, and less bus interference since signals no longer travel through a motherboard. Traveling through the motherboard incurs some electrical resistance which requires extra power to overcome and all this adds noise. Simply said, I don’t think both Motorola and Texas Instruments or any digital electronics engineer would agree to what you said.
crobatoThanks Bringiton
Three times better than the current F-16s in USAF…they have V9s too ??..so the range for those is round 74 km for a 5 Sq Mtr target…pretty low actually?!!
Zhuk Ms and RDY2s would have a substantial advantage over this unit in first look IF correct (68V9)!!
No, they don’t have V9s but current Block 50 F-16s in the USAF are being upgraded.
crobatoThanks!
RDY7? Is that a new variant of the RDY?The APG-68 V(9) can just track 4 targets? Or can it fire at 4 targets?
Engage 4 targets. V3 to V7 only engages 2.
crobatoA false reasoning i will ask you how it is possible the MiG-23 and MiG-27 have been fitted from the ultra fat AL-31 that has a diameter of 1.14 meter to the slim R-35 of only 0.912 meters or the R-29 of 0.986 meter of diameter or 0.91 meters of diameter depending in the variant?
check that Lyulka offers a retrofitting of the Al-31 to MiG-23s and MiG-27 already India will upgrade 60 MiG-23 with newer AL-31
The MiG-23ML is powered by the R-35, The MiG-23BN is power by the R-29B, the MiG-23M is powered by the R-29-300, the latest upgrade accepts the Al-31 Lyulka currently powering Su-27s and J-10s
I like to see them try without a major change of the airframe. Just remember the JH-7A was proposed for an AL-21 or AL-31F engine swap and the project was eventually cancelled because such a change would require a major change in the airframe. And the JH-7 isn’t a monoque.
If that’s so clever why are you not fitting MiG-21s with AL-31Fs?
в конце 1993 г.) завершается строительство прототипа истребителя. Внешне он напоминал «Лави». Это была одноместная машина с двигателем WP13C со штатной системой спасения китайской разработки, с авионикой и РЛС израильской разработки.
here they say the first aircraft was fitted with a WP-13C and looked very similar to the IAI Lavi, was construted at the end of 1993 and was fitted with israeli avionics.
Like I said this article is blatently lying. There is no proof or evidence that a prototype flew with the WP-13. As a matter of fact, neither did FC-1 and JH-7 prototypes ever flew with WP series engines so there is simply no precedent for it either.
want to check diameters and sizes well here is the link http://www.airwar.ru/enginer.html , in fact the PW 1120 has a diameter of 1.02 metes and the R-13/WP-13 have a diameter of 0.907 meters
However the AL-31FN is bigger than both of them, and the J-10 already needed a brand new airframe to accomodate the AL-31FN. Simply said, the Lavi won’t fit the AL-31FN either, and the same level of size difference exists between the PW1120 engine and the WP-13 engine. The Chinese would not make that kind of investment to redesign an airframe. And again there is no precedent for it from either JH-7 and FC-1 projects. Even the L-15 project showed that the prototype was designed with the intended engine from the get go.
Sign In
