China

A significant moment for china’s aviation industry, WS10 engine is finally moving ahead towards equiping single engine J10:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241342[/ATTACH]

Finally this ugly bird is taking shape
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237710[/ATTACH]

I remember 10+years ago, on this very forum, Indian government’s CAG reports had been used as evidences to prove how great LCA would be.

Now, are we gradually agreeing that these auditing reports don’t value much?

…
J-10A = 9750 kg, 50% fuel= ~2200kg, 4xPL-9 = 460 kg. Total = 12410 kg.

Thrust/Weight with AL-31FN = 1.01
Thrust/Wing Area = 3184 N/m2.

Typhoon = 1.32 T/W, 3515 N/m2
Su-35 = 1.20 T/W, 4580 N/m2
F-22 = 1.31 T/W, 3997 N/m2
F-35 = 1.09 T/W, 4473 N/m2
MiG-23MLD = 1.05 T/W, 3400 N/m2
JF-17 = 1.05 T/W, 3463 N/m2

…

If your calculations are correct, China should really go for JF-17 rather than J10. JF17 is available from the same manufacturer and significantly cheaper.

That analysis is here http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6995

BTW, a new picture
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236485[/ATTACH]

Interesting that they’d go with 2 different types..any idea about the numbers involved? I do recall reading some analysis done on another forum that showed that the Mi-35’s high altitude capability will exceed that of the Z-10..if they do base the Mi-35s at the higher altitude Afghan borders then it kind of bears out the results of the analysis.

I think I’ve read the same Z10 analysis (comparing with other attack helicopters). It’s quite impressive. And I agree that Z10’s engine has been its weakest part.

But I can see 2 issues with his analysis, which may explain why there’s a gap between his conclusion and reality:
1. He paid too much attention to the “Engine on high altitude” factor, whereas many other factors of a combat helicopter need to be considered, in a balanced way as well. Not to mention that these factors weigh differently by different users. It’s just too simple to compare combat helicopters only by a figure called RoC, let alone that figure may not be up to date, which leads to my second point

2. Static snapshot view is a bad way to compare weapon systems. Weapon systems are ever changing. While there’s no way to find a 100% correct comparison point between different systems, one at least needs to take the dynamics and different mile stones into consideration. For example, he uses the current LCH (which is currently in test flight phase with only 3 prototypes) comparing to 5-8 years ago’s Z10 version. At least he should use current LCH prototype to compare to Z10’s current variant (2015) test prototype, which includes 2nd iteration of engine enhancement changes.
Now, I know the standard answer to the above line is: no one knows about Z10 (or whatever Chinese weapon system). But honestly, if you don’t know about Z10, you should just leave it instead of making a serious comparison with in-consistent and unreliable data.

All in all, it’s fun for military fans to do all sorts of comparisons and analysis, but it’s quite a leap of confidence to use those analysis to measure what’s happening in real world. We simply don’t have enough information, and tools to make comprehensive and solid analysis.