It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

J-10 to get DSI intakes ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The J-10 may get DSI intkes .

Check out pic :


It is widely speculated that Israel transferred DSI intake tech from the F-35 to China prompting the US to suspend Israel from the F-35 programme.

The same DSI tech may also find its way into the FC-1.

Will someone who is acquainted with the language in the image give me a translation of what's in there ?

Here is another pic of technicians looking into the J-10's intakes. (Looks a little stupid)

img85.imageshack.us...



[edit on 7-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Here is a rare video of the J-10 in flight (Windows media player):

J-10 Video



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Every time I look at the J10 I cant just cant get over how much it looks like the F16. Take those canards off and adjust the back of the wing and I dont think you could tell the difference from a 100 yards. The tail end of the plan is nearly an exact copy.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
can anyone say hello Dr Frankinstien? thing looks even more like a cross now between the F-35/16/typhoon. honestly do they just look at other planes and are like oh this seems good! Oh and if its was Israel did leak the info it serves them right to get the freakin boot and see how long they last.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Enough has been discussed on the J-10 being a copy/based on the Israeli Lavi (which inturn is a modified F-16) on this thread : www.abovetopsecret.com...

and this thread : Israel apologizes to U.S. over sale of technology to china

Please, keep this thread free of the copy stories.

Anyway getting back , here is a look at the J-10's old intakes. They look like they'll fall off. Those links are so thin and small :





[edit on 7-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
sorry stealth my comment was aimed at this topic though. the intake that they do have on the plane does look very lackin in both stealth of any sort (in that case the intire plane actually) and the intake is being held in place by some supports over top into the body of the plane. very thin very lacking



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Greetings,

Those Links, between aircraft and intake, look like an after thought, in my opinion it appears that the Aircraft would have been experiencing flutter problems either at high g angle of attack Maneuvers or High mach numbers. Its interesting that it wasn't picked up during the wind tunnel tests.

Its rather hard to stealth a design that wasn't orginally designed with it in mind, sure a new intake might make a minor difference, I have my doubts, but sure, its possible. It seems a very expensive to change the design so soon after getting it finally into service.

Although, if there is indeed a problem with flutter, it may be cheaper to change the intake rather than degrading the airframe life.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Is it me or does the clear picture look extremely fake and more CGI then a real photo.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
My Chinese sucks but I'll try to translate

First pic

Current problem existing with J-10's intake

(Referring to poles connecting fuselage and intake) To prevent intake support board (I guess the board part sticking out in front of the intake) from fluttering and to increase strength of the intake (prevent it from falling off), [it looks] very ugly, not only increased complexity of structure between intake and fuselage, it also ruins aerodynamic shape, increase manufacturing difficulty, and a wasteful increase of manufacturing cost
(The text with arrow says same thing, a bit condensed)


Second pic
(Text with arrow) A bump (sticking out the fuselage), says something about transparent material, then says something about infrared... I'll try to translate that later


1) Using DSI, (reverse every downside stated in first paragraph. Yes, even about the ugliness)

2) Says the same thing as text with arrow, but I'm having difficulty translating. I'll fix it later



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
China is obviously trying to reduce the RCS of the J-10. As it is now, that aircraft would stand out on radar like a flying barn door. I don't really think that there is a way to make the J-10 at all "stealty", but this intake redesign would at least reduce the radar signature from a head-on angle. It also makes more sense aerodynamically.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Is it me or does the clear picture look extremely fake and more CGI then a real photo.

If u refer to 3rd photo, look at bottom right and see what it says.


Every time I look at the J10 I cant just cant get over how much it looks like the F16.

To help you get over it, I'll just break it to you: you have a bad eye for planes, that's why you can't tell the difference between two rather different looking fighters. You need more practice at looking at fighter pictures and aircraft identification.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I'm pretty darn good at plane identification and I can see quite a few similarities in the tailplane of the J-10 and the F-16. It doesn't look EXACTLY like an F-16 but there are a LOT of similarities.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
Second pic
I'll try to translate that later

K, I got it, it says
(Text with arrow) A bump (sticking out the fuselage), if built, and if structure strength allows, we suggest using transparent material in the front, and installing targetting device and laser designator inside the bump.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm pretty darn good at plane identification and I can see quite a few similarities in the tailplane of the J-10 and the F-16. It doesn't look EXACTLY like an F-16 but there are a LOT of similarities.

There are even more differences. Study it very hard, and you'll see the differences and similarities for what they really are.

In my opinion, I don't think that DSI intakes will bump this aircraft to the top of the food chain, they are better off with the original intakes.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Is it me or does the clear picture look extremely fake and more CGI then a real photo.


That's because it is, the signature of the person who made it is in the bottom right corner.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Actually the rectangular intake on the J-10 is one generation ahead of the intake on the F-16 because of several things. J-10 has a rectangular intake which was designed to provide better performance and decrease RCS than the round intake of the F-16 (keyword round, if you know anything about RCS, you know what I'm talking about). J-10 has a variable intake which is one generation ahead of the F-16 intake. Variable intakes provide better airflow for the engines at any AOA. The beams supporting the intake are round and shaped for high speed attrition against air, they significantly increase the stability of the intake under huge forces of the wind in high AOA and speed conditions. The beams (I heard) also help brake up the booms or explosions or somthing created in supersonic flight and decrease the forces that other parts of the plane designed to brake up the boom has to receive.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I must admit I'm far more inclined to see those little 'struts' between body and intake as something a little less crude than some seem to here.

If they really were just simple and rather crude 'reinforcement' why wouldn't they go for a far more effective, cleaner and in the long run (provided it really was about just reinforcement) cheaper option?
Namely a central supporting 'V-blade'?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
IMO they could have done with the LAVI intake instead of meddling with it and ending up in problems.

And one gen ahead of the F-16's intake..i really doubt that.

For low-level navigation and precision strike, a forward-looking infrared and laser designation pod is likely to be carried F-16-style on an inlet stores station.

Now this may move into the bump.

A Chinese designed pod similar to(copied ?) the Israeli Rafael Litening will find its way in here in most liklihood.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Check out the Israeli LAVI's(Lavi - Israel's failed attempt to develop its own modified F-16 despite spending 2 billion $ on it) intakes :



Now here is a pic of an early J-10 prototype, that was perhaps an outright copy of the LAVI and used the same intakes as the LAVI :

like this :
external image

and then china seem to have developed these intakes


and the tail fin too seems modified from the original LAVI that china got :

look at the first J-10 fighter model photo revealed by an internal press of the Chinese Aircraft Industry in the early 90's.


clearly the tail fin is same as the Lavi and this is an outright copy of the Israeli Lavi that Israel sold to China.

In the mid-90's 2 of these prototypes crashed and upon further study design changes were asked for. Now this is the time that Russia stepped into the J-10 project as Russia had very little money (collapse of USSR) and appears to have helped China in redesigning. The tail fin is new, the intakes are new and the delta wing has minor modifications and the canards are slightly moved, the FBW software codes are corrected and Russia provide the J-10 with their Lyulka Saturn AL-31F turbofan to power the J-10. And the new J-10 is born.

Like this :



And now Israel give (speculated) China DSI tech from the F-35 (and get booted out of the F-35 programme)and its incorporated and the latest J-10 as shown in the first post is born.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
No, 616 institute has been onto the DSI tech for the last five years, practicing with wind tunnel models and computer generated designs and airflow effects (yes, BUMP or DSI is nothing but something created on the computer).

Stealthspy, I thought you would know more of intakes. I won't correct you but I think you should know more on intakes and the reason for separation of intakes and the aircraft body (its all about shockwaves).

The millions of times people say about the relationship of J-10 and LAVI, I'm not gonna correct them anymore, believe in what thy want to believe but a simple comparison in specs and capabilities give you the truth about that relationship.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join