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.

 

China working on 'Super-10' advanced fighter

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Very interesting development:



China is developing an advanced version of the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation (CAC) J-10 multirole fighter aircraft, referred to as the Super-10, with a more powerful engine, thrust-vector control, stronger airframe and passive phased-array radar, according to Russian sources.

Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG (RSK-MiG) specialists, contracted to provide technical assistance to Chinese design houses, said the enhancement to the J-10 airframe is a logical step, since the fighter was initially intended to have the compact Pratt&Whitney PW1120 engine that powered the Israeli Lavi aircraft, which served as a basis for the J-10.

However, the imposition of US export restrictions forced the decision to install the 20 per cent heavier Russian AL-31FN engine, which requires a larger intake as it needs 40 per cent more air flow.

Janes.com (subscription required)


and


Production examples of China’s J-10 fighter will be powered by an increased thrust version of the AL-31FN engine with a 29,800lb (132kN) output and thrust-vectoring control.

Flight International.com


More info on the J-10 can be found on my website.

With this upgrade, I think the J-10 will finally become serious competition for the western next-generation fighters, like the JSF and Eurofighter.




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Theres really only one way to find out if they are that good and that would require a war of some description. I'm tempted to knock it like everyone else but then noone thought Japan could produce anything to take on the Europeans in 1940 but the Zero soon changed that. China is in a vaguely similar position to Japan in the 1930s as well, he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it and all that.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
You own air to air attack Zion mainframe? Great site.


Some excerpts from the Jan 11, 2006 JDW article on the matter. Same article

"Super J-10 Fighter"



Will feature- Passive PAR, TVC, Strengthened Airframe, Russian help. The J-10 was originally designed to use the Zhemchug, a mechanically scanned slotted array by Phazotron, but some critical components were made impossible to copy.

The other Bureau, Tikhomirov, recently resumed a working relationship with the PLAAF, after having submitted an early prototype of their Pero in the late 90s but with no followup by the Chinese. They are now submitting a derivative of the Pero (is this the Panda?). The Pero was originally designed for use on the Su-30KN.

Recall the recent large order for engines in late 2005. Most observers assumed it was for more of the AL-31FN, but this is not so. It was for a new engine, the AL-31FN-M1. The M1 features an enlarged fan with inlet diameter of 924 mm instead of 902 mm, which improved thrust from 122.6kN to 132.4 kN. Also features a swivel nozzle developed by Salyut in conjunction with Zavod imeni Klimova. Similar to the KliVT used on the RD-33OVT of the Mig-29OVT- it's improved over the IAF's Su-30MKI in that it deflects in BOTH pitch and yaw, rather than pitch only.


The rest of the article mentions inproved thrust and life time engines. I never throught the J-10 would feature TVC but this is a good development.

I also heard that doing the cobra manuver can trick the radar on a AAM because the pulse-dropper radar works on speed or something like that



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
But how can I know is it a heavier version using twin engine or just a single engine as original version?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
What makes me kind of puzzled is the fact that China goes to Russia for help. While Russia does make economically priced quality aircraft, they have yet to produce a fighter that has proven it can win against Western fighters. I think China is better off keeping this one in house and taking their time to do it right themselves. The only plane I really love that came out of Russia was the Tu-22 Backfire(Bomber by the way). Supersonic, would have been nasty to deal with.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
But some technoloies the russians are leading in like practical TVCs. Why develop the wheel when your neighbour already has one



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
im woundering why PLA still haven't formally announce the produce of J-10

perhaps J-10s are still in testing stage, and will eventually become more sophisticated

but still, the news of super10 might be only a rumor



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The rest of the article mentions inproved thrust and life time engines. I never throught the J-10 would feature TVC but this is a good development.

I also heard that doing the cobra manuver can trick the radar on a AAM because the pulse-dropper radar works on speed or something like that


You heard that? hmm..
Strange.. maybe true.. maybe not.. who knows

Everyone's switching to AESA soon anyways..


Anyways, is the TVC J-10 a reality or are we hearing info about stuff which is yet to be finalised?
True, the RD-33 OVT engines on the MiG-35 OVT are more manueverable than the AL-31FP (Su30MKI), and with canards on the J-10 it will get a good AoA capability.
Maybe they can ditch the canards if the J-10 isn't already aerodynamically unstable.
But as I read the article, the engine rumored to be used is the Salyut AL-31FN M1?
What engine does the J-10 currently use? The RD-33 seems to be a tad underpowered for a jet of that size.

Also since the Su30 MKI has 2 AL-31FP engines rather than one, and also since the AL-31FP axis of movement is angular; the end result equates in 'virtual' TVC of 30 deg lateral and 60 deg vertical.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Anyways, is the TVC J-10 a reality or are we hearing info about stuff which is yet to be finalised?


The deal was signed for 300 engines.

The current prototype J-10 was fitted with russian AL-31FN with its underside gearbox. Same performance as the AL-31F with 12,500kg thrust

The new engine is the AL-31FN-M1 which is going to be fitted with similar TVC on the OVT and the thrust has been increased to 13,200kg



The RD-33 seems to be a tad underpowered for a jet of that size.


Its refering to the nozzel design on the OVT


You heard that? hmm..


This was how i heard it.

Doppler radars work on speeds and to make them work, it filters out slower objects so the radar does not get cluttered, The Su-27 does a cobra and slows down under a certain speed and the radar mixes it up

AAM missiles are presumerly more sensitive



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
This was how i heard it.

Doppler radars work on speeds and to make them work, it filters out slower objects so the radar does not get cluttered, The Su-27 does a cobra and slows down under a certain speed and the radar mixes it up

AAM missiles are presumerly more sensitive


Ive heard its better to do a 90deg turn off, and run equi-distant to the emitting radar, you achieve the same thing [loss of lock], but maintain energy.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Rather interesting actuallu. Good work Zion. Interesting that they have to satisfy with a worse engine.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
>>
Doppler radars work on speeds and to make them work, it filters out slower objects so the radar does not get cluttered, The Su-27 does a cobra and slows down under a certain speed and the radar mixes it up
>>

Blather.

1. If you aren't at coaltitude and speed, you won't be in a position to dictate the geometry by which the fight is winnable (missile poles) /regardless/.

2. PD techniques were originally developed to beat the lookdown/shootdown problem where targets were seen against clutter and the only way to find separate the two was to subtract anything not moving. If you are at coaltitude and/or speed, the radar can still see you with nothing more than skin paint _in pulse mode_ because the relative clutter values are much lower (and much farther away).

3. Nobody wants to flat plate an airframe, in addition to QAUDRUPLING your signature; you have gone from



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
That looks like a rip-off of the
Eurofighter



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
How does it look like a EF?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I've posted this on the air superiority thread as well but thought this would be a relevant place to post it to:

I was going through a wiki on 4th gen fighters when I came across this:



Chinese J-10s have always overcome their Flankers in their exercises adding more mystery to the already little known about aircraft.
Source


Any insider info on this?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
The PLAAF Aggressor Squadron with Su-XX series of fighters was in a series of air battles with the J-10 in 04~05. The outcome was the J-10 winning the vast majority of intercepts, BVR, dogfights etc. The article was published in a few army magazines last year.


Seasoned MiG-21 pilots flying the J-7E have also bet Su-XX series as well.



The performace of the J-10 is unknown, but people here are underestimating its capabilities/performance because it was made in china.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
How does it look like a EF?


Thats easily explained, you almost, but not completely, close your eyes, blur your vision and switch your brain off for a while, hey presto! The J-10 looks like the Typhoon (or F-16 if you're American)



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
hey thats works




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Without ARH, a 2-missile BVR jet is not going to beat a 6-missile equivalent with twice the gas.

I have long maintained that the Su-27 is not an invincible airframe at WVR, simply because it has to feed those engines and thus has both fuel limits on G and a total mass penalty.

It's also huge.

But if you have six AA-10 60km SARH shots at least 2 of which are extended burn vs. 2 PL-10/11 SARH shots of perhaps 40-50km, you simply start far and keep shooting until they obey your turn signal or bite missile.

Now, if the J-10 is running on only a centerline, things may change again. But only if it's CAPing it's own airfield.

While if the J-10 is 'disregarding the Phoenix envelope' in these so called exercises to emphasize the hazards of closing through the merge against a small lightweight fighter then again, it will do better (though still not well).

Because it can point and click with an airframe that has more in common with the X-31 EFM than the F-15.

And it has the installed thrust to stay in the game (something the original Lavi did not) using short sprints and hard bleed off turns to set the anchor and crush the elbow.

But if the flying SAM site which the Flanker represents enters into WVR against a threat which is more agile than it is _without_ rendering that threat entirely defensive (nose off, speed down, no mutual support, numbers advantaged, expendables depleted), it's pilot deserves to die because he/she is stupid.

Lastly, you cannot ignore the fact that the fighter you have in the greatest inventory numbers is the fighter you use for the majority of missions. This is why the worthless LGPOS is functionally employed as a 'multirole' bomber. Again, if you put combat ordnance on the cheek pylons and centerline as a minimum representative A2G load and possibly take away at least one of the midwing stations with ARM (sufficient to attack Taiwain or 'interfere' in Korea), you HAVE TO then accept wing tanks to overcome the drag. Which means you are fighting with one BVR longspear and two boot knives.

And now not only will you wallow like any other 'heavy' fighter. You will also end up fighting as a WVR drag queen which has to drop everything (literally) to get back to fighting weight /after/ running the BVR gauntlet with little to say about who shoots first or last.

The J-10 is a complete joke. The Chinese know it. They are just harvesting it as a developmental hack and for-export replacement for their equally laughable F-6/F-7 series airframes. When the time comes to start building their own for-real jets, they will have to do so with the same eye towards their geography in defining max range vs. affordability similar to what we do as an 'expeditionary force' which relies on stealth to go the distance without nominally pointless engagement with intervening threats at all.

The J-10 will become even more of a laughable waste of money at that time because not only it's external configuration but it's material design and functional mission trades will all be wrong for the kind of fighter China really needs.


KPl.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
How does it look like a EF?


What do you mean it doesnt look like a EF? Look at his "my website" link. The major difference I see is that it has an extra wing.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by wildcat]




top topics



 
0

log in

join