Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

J-10 production in problems?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I think what he meant with the bands are those three bars connecting the intakes to the main fuselage...
On the outside it looks like a correction job, a pattch-up done after testing..
Doesn't look like parameters that would be included in the original design..
On ewould think that the designers would hope to maintain a sense of continuity between the fuselage and the intakes..
But this is just speculation..
As chinawhite said..no one knows anything about the J-10..
Its then safe to assume that the actual numbers produced are in question too..unknown..

Also the J-10 is rumored to have "amazing" manueverability to rival that of the EF typhoon even..
Whats the basis to these claims?
Or is it rumors again??


[edit on 15-4-2005 by Daedalus3]




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Heh...

You know what they remind me of? those early EW suites on ME110s, they used them for the later stages of the second world war, could they possibly have a EW function?

Or

I could be barking up a tree... but its interesting.

- Phil



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
There are problems related to the J-10 [or they would not be seeking the assistance of Israel], but production will begin as given by the information given by the Chinese military media news sources. The J-10 program has been running behind. It is a 1980s program with a prototype crash in the mid-1990s. which lead to a complete redesign. As indicated by the original article on this, the PLAAF is rumored to be seeking to replace the J-10 with the French Rafale. Yeah...no wonder those eager beaver EU big heads want to get the arms ban against China lifted.....
. The Chinese have already temporarily cancelled the J-11 program, J-10 production does continue, J-7s are still being built, China is experiencing crashes with their Russian Flankers, and they are very interested in the Rafale and Mirage 2000, and the Chinese have ended their Su-27 license with Russia.

IMHO, I think the original article is indicating that the French are "desperate" to sell the Chinese either the Rafale or the Mirage 2000s and that the Chinese are not "unhappy" with the J-10. As indicated, production fo the J-10 continues.

Found this:


The new J-10 fighter, which is expected to be launched this year, was built with the aid of Israeli technology, either by copying a design or through assistance from Israeli industries, according to the officials. The jet is China's most sophisticated fighter to date, and on a par with the US F-16, intelligence officials said.

US officials stopped short of suggesting that Israel has given technology to China, but they said they saw the new fighter as the latest result of the close military ties between Israel and China.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recently dressed down Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz for assisting China's military, say aides familiar with the meeting of the officials in Washington.

The Israeli Embassy did not respond to inquiries about the J-10.

China bolsters its forces, US says





seekerof



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I am a firm believer in K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) credo. And I say that all China needs to do to produce their beloved J10's is buy a bunch of F16's and slap some canards on them and BAM! Instant J10. Save allot of $$ and aggravation for everybody



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BruteGorilla
Link

Translation from Bable fish
The newest issue "Chinese And Defense Commentary" reported that, annihilates -10 production quantity not to be able to surpass 50. The Chinese and also declared the Chinese military to annihilates -10 airplane the performance quite to be discontented, after test flight France "a wind" the airplane, the Chinese air force's one batch of trump cards pilots collective has submitted a written statement on the other day the Central Military Committee, the request stops annihilating -10 development and the production, direct introduction "wind" in home production.
News, encounters the domestic broad army to confuse immediately intensely denounces. We only many pester the news itself, but is knows this news lead - France "a wind" the fighter aircraft..


Sorry, but something (everything?) was obviously lost in the translation from bablefish. This is absolute gibberish - unless it's some kind of secret code.


[edit on 4/15/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I am a firm believer in K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) credo. And I say that all China needs to do to produce their beloved J10's is buy a bunch of F16's and slap some canards on them and BAM! Instant J10. Save allot of $$ and aggravation for everybody


Who's China gonna buy F-16s from? Cuz the U.S. definitely isn't selling them to China.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
They already got one from Pakistan.

Canard config is very different from the conventional config (on F-16). Canards increase pitching moment and reduce stability, giving it excellent manoeuvrability but unstable and requiring FBW for proper control. Usually the centre of gravity is more to the rear of the plane. Another thing is that the J-10 uses completely different components than F-16, engines, avionics, radars, etc. The whole plane needs to be completely redesigned.

You can't put canards on an F-16 and expect it to work. You also can't take out the F-16's engine, radar, avionics, then replace them with different ones, and expect them to fit/function properly.

The J-10 had its design influences from the F-16 and Lavi (but more from Lavi) but it's by no means a copy of either because 1 they don't look alike on the outside and 2 they can't be alike on the inside if they don't look alike on the outside

Re: news that the J-10 is performing badly
Up to now all info I've seen about the J-10 are either rumours or untrustworthy official info from PLAAF. Nobody revealed any details about what exactly the J-10 is lacking. Nobody revelaed any details about how exactly the project is showing progress. They're all just speculation, rumour, and propaganda.

Maybe when they're finished with it or when they cancel it, we can know for sure, but until then this plane is shrouded in mystery (or more like loads of misinformation) so all we can do is speculate.


Originally posted by WestPoint23

I personally think the PLAAF is playing crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon with this but I can only speculate.


Crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon? They better produce the J-10 in small number and stick to purchasing export fighters or else they are playing hidden dragon with a piece of *bleep*.

Well, if they are, then it would work perfectly on you


[edit on 15-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I don't think they'd waste all that money on R&D and cancel it.

What do you guy have against Chinese equipment? because they are a potentional foe?



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
im not worried about Chinas equipment what im worried about is there pilots, Wasnt that a Chinese pilot who flew his F8 into our EP-3 spyplane and crashed, must not have good weapons guidance systems yet gotta use the plane instead



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
i hope china gets Rafale

one sexy locking aircraft



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Yup, the next day we should have flown like 20 E-3’s the Chinese pilots would have been attracted like moths to a light bulb



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
You should see the video of the EP-3 vs. J-8II incident. The pilot was having major problems keeping the plane in the air because the EP-3 was flying slowly and the J-8II, having low profile wings, cannot keep up the slow speed and went out of control.

www.china-military.org...

I would say both sides were at fault for this. The US for sending that EP-3 there in the first place, and the J-8II for being unstable at very low speeds. Interception of foreign aircraft approaching national border without authorisation is normal.

If anyone are to suggest the Chinese pilot who lost his life in this incident did it on purpose, I will personally whip your @55. Because I find that offensive.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
A known tactic of the J-8 pilots, including Wang, was to "hot dog" EP-3s by flying either side of them and slowing down to the jets' minimum speed. Once a jet slows down to subsonic speed it becomes inherently unstable and it seems Wang had already been known to fly dangerously close to the edge of his flight envelope.

If the plane was able to travel an additional 76 miles and land on hostile territory, why couldn't it have flown to Vietnamese territorial waters? The US Government claims that the plane was "severely damaged" and had to make an emergency landing. How "severely damaged" could the plane have been and still have flown 76 miles to make a landing at a Chinese air force base? The aircraft had to fly north when it could have simply turned west. Since it was less than 76 miles from Vietnamese territorial waters, there would have been no threat there given the extremely hostile relationship between Vietnam and China regarding territorial disputes in that region.

The Chinese F8 fighters, which supposedly forced the Aries II to land, are knock-offs of early MIG-21 jets from about 1961. The US Government is saying that the two Chinese F8 fighters were on "routine patrol"(you could ask -- how do they know that?) and one of them collided with the EP-3E. The Aries II ECM capability would have completely fried out the fire and control mechanisms of the F8. They couldn't have fired. They couldn't have locked on the radar and target imaging system. The only thing they could have done to be a threat is to have rammed the aircraft.

The Chinese aircraft was letting the Aries II know that if they didn't fly to Hainan Island that the Chinese pilots were prepared to sacrifice their lives and ram the plane. In other words, "your ECM technology may have fried our fire and control mechanism and our target imaging system but we will still ram you." The Chinese pilots didn't have the bigger picture. They were scrambled out on a mission and sent after this aircraft with the instructions to force this aircraft to land on Chinese territory by any means necessary.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Wow thats the first time I've seen the video. Thanks and yeah hes pretty damn close.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
What? Which bastard told you this tale? You'd better ask him some evidence to prove it. If not, don't believe it. THe 10 has already producted more over 100. Further more, there is a two-seat type being developed.


Bah! All the chinese failed designs have atleast 100+ copies.

EDITED for a huge big-quote violation.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BruteGorilla
Bah! All the chinese failed designs have atleast 100+ copies.


I really wish Abovetopsecret wouldn't become flame board.

The topic is Aircraft Projects, if people can't discuss topics properly, there should go elsewhere.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

I would say both sides were at fault for this. The US for sending that EP-3 there in the first place, and the J-8II for being unstable at very low speeds. Interception of foreign aircraft approaching national border without authorisation is normal.


Yeah, but the EP-3 was in INTERNATIONAL waters. And the Chinese pilots better be trained better, I don't know how much ramming their going to do with other jet fighters.



[edit on 15-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah, but the EP-3 was in INTERNATIONAL waters. And the Chinese pilots better be trained better, I don't know how much ramming their going to do with other jet fighters.


Inconsequential, the U.S. reinforces it's interception line way into International waters.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah, but the EP-3 was in INTERNATIONAL waters. And the Chinese pilots better be trained better, I don't know how much ramming their going to do with other jet fighters.


Inconsequential, the U.S. reinforces it's interception line way into International waters.


Yep, during the cold war there was more than once when the USSR sent Bear-E recon planes, they were escorted away from the US carriers outside US territorial waters. So China buzzing the E-3s away is no big deal.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by BruteGorilla
Bah! All the chinese failed designs have atleast 100+ copies.


I really wish Abovetopsecret wouldn't become flame board.

The topic is Aircraft Projects, if people can't discuss topics properly, there should go elsewhere.


Huh? Its a fact , not a flame. Look I will explain,

J-7 the copy of MiG-21 had series up to J-7H or G. In between all the models were not "acceptable" but you can stii see 100 + of them. They wisened up with J-8 and restricted their production. Now you will find few j-8, few J-8-1, j-8II and j-8III all put toghther some 100+.

FBC-1, same story. Now J-10. It wasn't flame.






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join