crobatoIMHO if Kanwa article is speculation, the whole J-10 articles are speculation. I remember Chinese members upbeat on Kanwa’s reporting on J-10. Now let me post a China.com article.It too sites Kanwa article.
Same rehash of the said article. That’s the same material in the J-10 problems article.
I had read about the Russian involvement in J-10 structural changes , placing the Al-31 Gearbox on the bottom and try to reduce enginesize and increase thrust (strage isn’t it? WS-10 claims the same changes). Let me dig it up.
Most fighter engines—well just about every engine in the west has its gearbox in the bottom. These include the Pratt and Whitney F100 and the GE F110. The engine on the Lavi, the PW 1120, also has the gearbox on the bottom. All the engines on the MiG-21 and MiG-19, has their gearbox on the bottom. The WS-9 and Spey engines on the JH-7 all have their gearbox in the bottom. Not surprisingly the RD-93 on the FC-1 also has its gearbox on the bottom (RD-33 has its gearbox on the top).
Did it even occur to you that they were doing this simply so because that’s the way things have been for a long while? And that the Chinese have most of their experience with the configuration having the gearbox on the bottom, just like every fighter in the West?
The 3 sleeves KANWA was calling in question are these, which anyone can see from any J-10 picture and draw the same conclusions.
crobatoSo crobato,
Is this subscription to Kanwa worth the money? Granted, it’s only $200 some odd dollars a year, but looking at the way Pinkov steals pictures off the ‘net, it would seem that his articles are merely rehashes of what’s found on the Internet.
$200 a year definitely no unless you’re a professional news correspondent or you work in intelligence.
Stealing pictures off the net, that’s a no either. Anyone can take pictures of the 052B and 052C destroyers in their Shanghai ports and they will look all alike even with those in the Internet. Not much image choices on this one.
Rehashes of what’s found in the net, some certainly seems to repeat information posted in the net found months before. KANWA certainly rehashes and repeats old articles in their free site and in their published magazine articles dating way back almost a year earlier in their paid English and Chinese Defense and International Journals. The stuff tends to appear first in their Chinese International Journal then to their English and Japanese International Journal before moving on to the online Defense Journal and then to the journal they sell off the streets in Hong Kong. By the time this happens, the article may have been out for a year.
The stuff I posted appeared in different titles, maybe as early as February 2004 in the Interational Journal under a different title “J-10 Production Reaches Peak”, and yet the same content.
Main points are.
1. The structural issue of the engine tunnel was underestimated and was resolved with the addition of three load bearing sleeves. That was the problem in the J-10 design. (I say this is plain too obvious, since the 3 sleeves are visible in the pictures).
2. The PLAAF was generally quite satisfied with the J-10.
3. A second production line was opened. (this piece of information appeared rehashed from the net.)
4. Affirms that the radar is indeed Type 1473. (rehash from an earlier KANWA article in 2002).
5. PLANAF showed interest on the J-10 but equipped with the Phazotron Zhemchug radar. However since production of the J-10 is exclusive for the PLAAF being, the chances of the J-10 being fitted with the Zhemchug radar is remote. (Ah this is the real jewel of information I like.)
Finally, the online subscription to KANWA is only $66 a year. That’s not too expensive.
crobatoWell, can you summarize for us some of the main articles?
Literally recycled word per word from an earlier KANWA article in Russian in April 2004, which in turn may have been recycled from yet another earlier KANWA article.
Babelfished—and it’s in the free section of KANWA but in Russian.
The Chinese destroyer J10A has the structural deficiencies AKOR the China- aircraft: MOSCOW, on 24 April. (Corr. OF ARMS- TASS). According to the information of source in Chinese VPK, in the construction of destroyer J10A is a number of deficiencies. As reports the publication of &.tsuot;Kanva of intellidzhens of rev’yu&.tsuot;, for example, the selection of engine AL -31FN took place only in the middle of design works; therefore its mass and overall sizes proved to be more than it was assumed at first, because of what it was necessary to weaken the construction of air duct. For the solution of this problem between the air duct and the fuselage they were established three strengthening sleeve. In the opinion of source, &.tsuot;eto the largest error of proyektirovshchikov&.tsuot;. Nevertheless VVS of China expressed satisfaction by the characteristics of those J10A, which already entered into service. It is registered Until now, of no incidents with these aircraft. As another source reported, in the present year began the series production of the new destroyers J10A. At present at plant 132 the second production line is prepared for the introduction into the system. After output to the rhythmical rates of production plant 132 plans to bring the yearly production of these aircraft to 50 ekz. Destroyers J10A, which will be prepared in the present year, will be executed in the version VVS and equipped with locator 1473 Chinese developments. NAVY of China also plan to acquire these aircraft, but in the version with the Russian locator of &.tsuot;Zhemchug&.tsuot;, which in its time did not arrange Chinese VVS. According to the information of publication, obtained on the last year’s exhibition in Lankavi, the Russian firm of &.tsuot;Fazotron&.tsuot; it placed to China only three RLS of &.tsuot;Zhemchug&.tsuot;. From this it is possible to draw the conclusion that destroyers J10A, which will be released during the subsequent years, also not will be equipped with Russian locators.
crobatoPlease post the full article so that we may all read it! Do you have a subscription?
Sorry, KANWA has clear stipulation that no article or part of the article be reproduced without their permission. And yes I have subscription to the Defense Journal. Much of the same stuff gets published for free in the Hong Kong journal you can buy off the streets a few months later.
Article only says that the structure housing the engine turned out to be heavier than originally estimated and required the addition of three load bearing sleeves (which you can all see in the pictures attached near the inlet). Other than that, it goes on to say that the PLAAF is fully satisfied with the plane.
Title seems intended to catch the reader’s attention but when you read it, it’s hardly worth the excitement.
crobatoIf that is a real FC-1 pic (the one with the SD-10 reals or mockups) and it appears to be a new prototype as it lacks the lightning badge of the 01 prototype. If you remember not too long ago, CCTV ran a video documentary of Chengdu engineers explaining some J-7 engines. In the background the camera accidentally caught an FC-1 prototype similar to 01 with the radome open with some sort of radar inside, which looks very similar to the radar on the J-8II (KLJ-1). I have a feeling it maybe the same plane.
Kanwa said the radar is KLJ-10, which sounds like KLJ-1 + 0 (It could be that KANWA typoed and it could be anything like KLJ-1 with a letter suffix, e.g. KLJ-1E, KLJ-1G). The J-8II KLJ-1, the J-10’s KLJ-3 and the FC-1’s KLJ-10 appear strongly related anyway, and the success of the original KLJ-1 help hurried the development of the J-10’s KLJ-3.
In most FC-1 pictures, it is very very hard to catch the tiny sharktooths near the engine intake fronting the LERX. But the sharktooths are there if you have a good planform view of the aircraft. In this picture, if you look it up closely, you can see the tiny sharktooths.
The position of the plane’s control surfaces are consistant with that of a plane in the midst of a roll from left to right.
As for those “PL-9s”, the seeker domes appear well protruded forward, rather than flat like you usually see in a PL-8 or with most Sidewinders. The protruded seeker is typical of a wide boresight seeker, as it allows good room for the seeker to gimbal and “peek” to the side.
crobatolets see the full article first.
I read the full article.
To sum it up, too much ado over three reinforcing bands. The rest of the article has nothing to do with problems of the J-10.
crobatoIn a negative or positive way.
Both.
It appears that the all the electronic additions and modifications made the plane easier to fly and manage.
On the other hand, the plane does not attain the full performance envelope of the Russian equivalent (like only reaching about 95%), which I suspect maybe because the WS-10A has not reached its full power output specs (as in rushed into service), or the engine maybe heavier than the AL-31F equivalent.
However, there appears to be a newer piece of news (as of December 2004) indicating that the “J-11B” may have indeed finally reached its performance goals, indicating further tweaks on the engine and the plane’s weight.
Please note that if Russian pilots are indeed testing the J-11B, then the J-11B mods are legal and within the license contract.
crobatoCool find. I could barely read the unit numbers on it though.
crobatoI think people are reading too much into student made aerodynamic models in some aviation engineering tech school (there is a major one in Shenyang).
crobatoShould there be a pic with your post?
The front base does not look like the reloading trap door on the 167. The box on top of it adds to the mystery. It also extends outward in a way there is no space to put the octal HQ-7 launcher. I really don’t know WTF this is. And then you have a similar base structure on the back on top of the hanger.
crobatoLooks to me like wind tunnel models. Could be a school for budding aerodynamicists.
crobatoIt looks to me that some kind of gun, Type 730s perhaps, will be placed amidships near the funnel in either side. Then another 730 on top of the hanger.
I got problems looking at the base structure where the HQ-7 is supposed to be on the front, and the structure on top of the hanger. Since they are not circular, I have to rule out a rotary cold launch system. However the base structure also differs from the base structure in the 167. The structure on the front is fenced just like the base structure on top of the hanger.
crobatoMargolis has a sensationalist aspect in his predictions in my opinion and I have rebuttals for everyone of them. But the one prediction everyone is worried about is the continued decline of the US dollar. This will force the Fed to raise interest rates to go up when you need to keep it down to sustain economic recovery. If the dollar does not stabilize there will be a serious “tsunami” in the financial markets later.
crobatoThose who think it’s a game will play it like a game. Those who don’t will simply donate money, supplies and rescue personel.
The pledging game is notorious about pledges with little true will and action to back them up. During an earthquake disaster in Iran, countries pleged over 1 billion dollars in relief, but only less than 18 million were ever received.
crobatoCobrato, with all due respect, u are not convincing at all. Aleigh Burke Flight I and II have decks also, do they have hangers? How about Kongos? Using simple line extension methods, u can see that the hanger height of 167 and 115 are different. I stated in another post that the 167 hanger is about 2.7 decks high, (similar figure is found on 168, 170), the so called hanger on 115 only 2 decks in heights.
Stretch the whole thing? Well they whould love to, but what about the CoG horror that would be?
I’m not sure the height measurements is correct. The picture is too blurred for any precise measurements. I don’t believe the 115 would differ from the 167 in any sense of dimension. Making changes are going to be more expensive as it requires redesign.
The hanger could only fit one six cel launcher, while the front can only fit another six cel rotary launcher. Hardly a convincing layout for a VLS, especially if the outcome is a ship inferior to the 052C. Why would you justify making it then?
At best 051B appears to have space for a VLS system, but only a small one, and certainly not the rotary cold launched style of the 052C or the Russian RIF-M, which has a large eight cell rotary launcher.
My feeling is that you have an enhanced 051B class, with HQ-7 with the traditional octal launcher or VLS if you want to wet dream a little, with a good possibility you may have Type 730 CIWS. The AshM armament is a question market though YJ-83 remains on top of the list.
Why build this thing? Well probably, because it’s probably cheaper than the 052B and 052C, and it’s a tested and well honed design. No surprises. It also reinforces the trend that China is arming itself for the short run with maximizing as many ships as possible instead of fewer but better quality ships. Just to let you know, KANWA seems to be saying that China seems interested to get another pair of Sovremannies, which is supporting the short run max qty theory.
If I were to ever wet dream on the ship, I would imagine it would have a wet launched Mk 41 style of launcher (remember the 930 test ship also tested a wet style launcher along side a cold launched rotary launcher) in the front where the HQ-7 is supposed to be, in the middle where the AshMs are usually located, and the rear one on top of the hanger. The launcher can fire HQ-7, YJ-83, KS-1A, SA-N-12, S300 or HHQ-9, or even a cruise missile.
Sign In
