crobatoIt does appear that my initial prognosis (new F-15 with AESA) is correct or is the leading contender according to this article posted by Don Chan in another thread here.
“There’s a whole licence-production training curve that goes with that,” Victor says.
Japan may later upgrade the F-15J’s APG-63 to the (V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) variant or introduce the enhanced standard with a new batch of fighters. Manufacturers expect Tokyo to select a new fighter in 2007 or 2008 and acquire a first batch of aircraft in 2009.
Boeing’s F-15E and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are the early favourites for the 40-60 aircraft requirement, since Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are unlikely to meet Japan’s delivery and co-production requirements.”
crobatoNah, the engines are still there. You can see the ridged collar (looks like short open vanes) just before where the nozzle is supposed to, and it is the nozzle part that appears to be missing for some reason. I just wonder if the plane is being tested entirely on dry thrust without afterburners. The picture of the yellow J-11 prototype shows the plane doing a takeoff on dry thrust with the nozzles closed, which is pretty strong in my opinion if you do it without a long runaway.
The AVEN project, intended to put a thrust vectoring nozzle on an engine, is most associated with the WS-10A project. But as you can see the picture of the AVEN nozzle here, the vanes are not short, and that gives you a clue that the WS-10A’s original nozzle would look similar to this. As well as incidentally, a rear shot view of the WS-10.
crobatoHehe … as I just had some boredom during the last few minutes I tried around a little bit of “Photoshoping” !
I took the J-10A from Huitong’s page with the no. 22 which has in the “original photoshoped” form the no. 51422 … but as we all asume it should be no. 41252 I cut and paste a little bit and here it is !
Cheers Deino 😀
You mean you restored the digits to their rightful place. If you look at the way the digits are after restoration, they look more natural rather than ‘forced’ into their positions.
Note this plane is a later serial production type with the third door on the front gear.
crobatoThe reason why they don’t paint the prototypes is probably because it makes surface inspection for cracks and other flaws so much easier. This can tell you first hand if there is any structural problems should arise.
crobatoDoesn’t mean they can’t try.
If I remember, they also bought an IL-78, a Mainstay, a Backfire, a Blackjack, Frogfoot, among others.
crobatoBort 86, if I remember, is one of the upgraded SKMs. That exercise is a funny one; it seems more like a live defense equipment exhibition to sell products than an exercise.
crobatoGreat photos. Thanks for sharing.
The HF-2 looks so big on the AT-3 and F-CK-1, but I guess that’s because they aren’t relatively big aircraft themselves.
Anyone happen to have any photos of the F-CK-1 with AGM-65?
The plane isn’t cleared to use the AGM-65.
crobatoThere are increases in the J-7 engine power. The J-7E which had the airframe of the first generation MiG-21F13, had the engine from the third generation MiG-21MF. Classic hotrod philosophy. Furthermore, the output of that engine (WP-13) had been bumped up to 60 to 66kn or even 68kn (roughly just under 7000kg max thrust) in different versions (WP-13F, WP-13FII, WP-13B). Furthermore, the latest engine in the family, the WP-14, has a thrust of 7500kg.
Range on the J-7E has is already lengthened by the double delta wing design which allows for more fuel storage.
China had the third generation MiG-21 design manufactured as the J-7C and J-7D (the airframe is similar to the -MF and -bis). This had more fuel than the original -F13 design and a bigger nose to hold a bigger radar. However, the PLAAF was not happy with the high landing speeds and high wing loading of the type to continue with its production.
crobatohehehehehehe
OH! incredible unbelieveable oh!………………hehehehehehehehehe so where they learnt such technologies?
Perhaps the Chinese engineers learn everything by internet university.You are falsifying the truth, China was trained and supplied with all the tools by Russia even to the degree they could fly the first MiG-21 built in China in January 1966.
Wrong.
http://air.xuexue.net/pla/j71.htm. Chinese simplified encoded.
由于中苏交恶，实际上大部分的技术资料没有到手，到手的有很多错误，真正有用的就只有几架样机，这给试制带来了困难。最后经过负责此项目的沈飞公司和成都飞机工业公司艰苦努力，硬是“照猫画虎”把米格-21制造出来。因此我国的米格-21研制历程与印度、捷克非常不同。
这一过程是痛苦而卓有成效的。之前国内科研机构曾构思过东风-113高空高速战斗机，但因好高骛远，很快被迫放弃，科研力量的思想变得更脚踏实地。1961年国内开始对米格-21进行系统的“技术摸透”工作，赋予这一新歼击代号“62式”。次年5月，航空研究院和航空工业局联合做了部署。其深远意义在于为自行设计先进的歼击机打下一个牢固的基础。“技术摸透”的步骤，首先是根据仿制需要，摸清主要的生产技术问题，包括技术关键和材料；其次是仿制，通过必要的试验研究，摸透其设计思想、设计方法和技术特点。沈阳飞机设计研究所在对米格-21的“技术摸透”中，完成了飞机强度计算报告的校核、机头锥强度计算、机翼的强度与刚度计算、飞机战斗性能分析、空气动力特性校验计算等39项课题；进行了27项3300次高低速吹风试验；安排了进气道、飞机共振、座椅地面弹射、飞行等64项试验。通过这些计算和试验，一方面补充和校核了设计技术资料，同时也学习和掌握了原设计的方法，为自已积累了经验。
锻炼技术水平的另一途径是开展对西方国家飞机的分析研究，兼收并蓄，吸取诸家之长。沈阳飞机设计研究所前后对5种歼击机和高空侦察机进行系统的分析研究，提出了研究报告，绘制了部分图纸，搜集整理了某些飞机可供借鉴的技术。沈阳飞机厂和发动机厂还在试制中逐一解决了钛合金件成型、整体壁板化学铣切、整体机头罩加工、整体密封油箱装配、非金属蜂窝锥体制造等工艺技术关键，完成了各项技术攻关。其中包括26种新合金、涂层等新材料，试验并掌握了46项新技术和新工艺。实践证明，用三年时间对米格-21飞机进行“技术模透”的决策是正确的。磨刀不误砍柴工。“技术摸透”为歼-7的研制和自行研制更先进的歼击机，准备了比较充分的条件。64年，62式改名歼-7。”
if you want to babelfish it the first paragraph goes
“As a result of China and Soviet Union 交恶 (having issues), the majority of technical data has not arrived the hand in fact, has very many mistakes to the hand, true is useful only has several prototypes, this has brought the difficulty to the trial manufacturing. Finally the process is responsible for this project Shen flies the company and the Chengdu airplane industrial corporation is difficult diligently, actually “follows a model” -21 makes the Mig. Therefore our country Mig -21 development course and India, Czechoslovakia are extremely different.”
crobatoBS from Flogger. China never flew the J-7 until 1968, which is years after the said blueprints were delivered. Not only that, they had encountered many problems from the original Soviet design that they had to overhaul the design piece by piece, reengineering the gaps, designing compatible parts to replace Russian parts that was deemed inadequete, until the plane is perfected. The J-7 never came into service until the mid seventies, well over ten years after the blueprints were delivered.
crobatoFlogger, you are the one lying—once again. The Chinese engineers were trained with constructing the MiG 17 and the MiG 19, but they were not adequetely trained with the MiG-21. At least the Russians were not able to complete the job, and so was the technology transfer by 1962 when relations went into a complete nosedive. The Russians have restrained their transfers and every Russian in China is being kicked out.
crobatoMore BS and lies from you. Russia never trained in any Chinese engineer in 1965 because both countries have already broken relations in 1962. In fact, the relationship was broken right at the time when the MiG-21F information was in the process of being transferred.
crobatoAll your excuses why China does not respects The MiG-21 license comes from a very distorted History of the Chinese aviation.
The MiG-21 and the J-7 are the same aircraft and the Russian gave all the technology, blueprints, machinery training and MiG-21s samples in order to China build them
You are the one with a distorted view of history. Russia did not provide all the necessary information completely. In fact, China had to reengineer all the gaps to create compatible pieces before they could finally fly the plane—several years after the original blueprints were given.
Besides China alredy had all the machinery of previous MiG-19s and MiG-15/17s and their related engines to start the MiG-21 production
Another ignorant statement. The tooling needed to create the airframe components of one plane and another are different and specific to one type of plane.
China sells the J-7s becasue simply does not respect Rusia`s rights after they broke relations
Why should they? It is cold war. The Soviet Union uses a rip off of the Rolls Royce Nene engines on the MiG-15 and MiG-17. The Atoll is a ripoff of the Sidewinder. The Soviet Union does not respect the IP rights of other countries either. Furthermore former Warsaw Pact nations all got their copies of AK-47s and T-55/72 tanks and selling them, as well as being able to manufacture parts of the MiG-21 on their own. You extol the Ukrainians who happen to be trying to sell jet engine designs from the Soviet Union.
India and China in designing capability are more less in a similar level.
But their ability to test is not. Do you understand the basics of this? You think projects succeed on a matter of design? B*****. It’s 1% design and 99% testing. The reason why WS-500, WS-11, WS-9, WP-14, and now WS-10A are all now certified while the Kaveri is not, and probably not for a long time, lies in the vast difference between the testing infrastructure between the two countries. The Chinese could do the entire development loop inside the county. All the testing can be done internally. But for the Kaveri they have to send the engine to Russia, had to be flown in some Tu-16 testbed. (Ironically Tu-16s are made in China as H-6s). The Kaveri has not lifted an entire airframe on its own power, but the WS-10A has done so with a complete Su-27. Why can’t India make an engine testbed on its own? Why not develop the entire testing infrastructure within the country so the entire development loop can be executed within the borders?
One reason why the LCA is so late, is ironically explained in the title of this thread—only four prototypes after all these years. If you had built more prototypes, the testing process would have accelerated. A typical fighter needs about 1500 to 2000 flight hours; the LCA has achieved only somewhere between 400 to 500 between all protoytpes.
All your BS about Russian and Israeli assistance also shows your gap about the development process (as well as in your mind). Assistance is useless without testing. All the advisement still had to be tested, tested, and even more testing. Not all will be accepted or validated. Some of the advisement may even produce bugs on their own. All a matter of testing, testing and testing. That—the entire test loop—is something China can do all inside internally
crobatoWith the introduction of FC-1, the saga of J-7 of will definitely end.
Is it possible to make some *low-cost* modifications to J-7 (the latest version with double-delta wing) to keep it viable for air-to-air roles.
The two most glaring weakness of this aircraft are range and radar. To remedy these issues, is it possible to
1. Increase the fuel capacity (by 20 to 30 percent) by either increasing the length of main fuselage, or using MiG-21 bis style fuel tank (but without effecting handling of the aircraft)
2. Increasing the diameter of the nose to house an antenna with approx. 50 km detection range without resorting to expensive receiver modifications.
Finally strengthening the hard-ponints so that two SD-10 class missiles can be carried in addition to two lower weight/size missiles.
This is the F-7MF concept plane. The difference of course, is that the nose is modified not just to fit something with a 50km detection range, but something about the size of the J-10’s radar, maybe the J-10’s radar itself.
However, the PLAAF is not interested on it, and CAC has displayed the model of this plane, now a privately funded project, and there seems to be no buyer interest on it either.
crobatoBut could this all been done in deceit in mind? Soviets did play alot with digit numbers back in the cold war…could China just paint new digits over former ones just to mislead western observers? Or distribue few planes to each of these regiments and paint misleading digits that would make others believe that there are far more planes service than there actually is?
Extremely unlikely. Considering that the J-10 is not even admitted or propagandized officially by the government, why would they try to show they have so many when they won’t even show just one?
The powers at be more often tries to censor the digits from pictures instead, its much more likely that the reason is that China wants the opposite effect. To suggest that the numbers are lower than they actually are. To lull a potential opponent into making the fatal mistake of underestimating. The Chinese do not practice Soviet marking tricks. They do however, practice what is taught in the Art of War, and one of the big lessons from that is to feign or fake weakness in an area when there is actually much strength.
The fact that website administrators often try to blur or PS away these numbers do tell you that the numbers have valid information that the government does not want you to see.
Perhaps i’m being just sceptic but this still doesen’t covince me. But i’m quesing we need to wait untill more solid information comes around, like clear pictures showing more than dozen J-10 in a row in some operational base attached to operational regiments….
We have already seen a few pics of multiple J-10s in a row done by spotters. Pictures of long lines of aircraft with planes such as J-8IIs are usually those allowed by the government, or publicity propaganda pictures with official photographers doing their bit during exercises. Since the J-10 is not officially acknowledged by the government, don’t expect to see this for a while. Generally aircraft tend to be inside hangers, and there are pictures where we have seen the factory in Chengdu where all the hangers inside are filled with J-10s, plus a few on the outside.
Let me add this, if the J-10 regiment has the same structure as J-11 regiments, we would expect to see at least 4 J-10Bs added to all the operational regiments. A regiment can have a total strength of 26 to 30 aircraft, with 22 to 26 single seaters and 4 double seaters.
Sign In
