China working on 'Super-10' advanced fighter

Very interesting development:



and



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.

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.

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"



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

But how can I know is it a heavier version using twin engine or just a single engine as original version?

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.

But some technoloies the russians are leading in like practical TVCs. Why develop the wheel when your neighbour already has one

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

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.

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




Its refering to the nozzel design on the OVT



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.

Rather interesting actuallu. Good work Zion. Interesting that they have to satisfy with a worse engine.

>>
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 <300 to about 0 knots and cannot see in the likeliest direction from which the threat missiles are coming.

4. In those cases where you can notch on doppler; the advent of Monopulse and interleaved pulse/pulse doppler tracking still keeps the target readily within detection thresholds, simply because you deriving angular data based on the four (or twenty, with an AESA) lobes of the monopulse antenna segments. And you are still getting skin paint from the basic return. Add to this the ability to do what is called 'Multi Range Gated Hi PRF', wherein you put multiple software templates of allowable speed ranges over a given pulse-train and, by averaging to the Maxwellian limit, are STILL able to get good range and range rate changes. And the entire idea of 'zero speed=zero track' becomes just another PR lie to make it seem like radar operations have something to do with the importance of the screaming chimp six feet further back.

5. Missiles (which are also monopulse guided with a full range of variable PRF sensitivities to aspect) create their own doppler average through the antenna swing and closure/geometry angles separate from the fighter. Especially with 2-way datalinks becoming more common, it is relatively simple to do 'track via missile' comparisons which force the threat to work two aperture/bandwidth and two elevation/azimuth lines with whatever internal/towed SPJ they have working the threat.

CONCLUSION:
Everything you ever heard about radar weapons systems limitations is either an outright fabrication designed to make the military and particularly the pilot corps look good (ask them about surviving an SA-20 or Patriot and see them turn pale and ask where the Queer is) or an anachronistic artifact of the 1970s/80s timeframe where the kinda-thunk and sorta-heard understandings of the engineering began. Comparing that period with today, you need only look at an Apple II vs. a Pentium IV to get a rough idea how much more we can do to massage the signal and modulate all the elements which transmit and receive it to the point where NOTHING is the same.


KPl.

That looks like a rip-off of the
Eurofighter

How does it look like a EF?

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:



Any insider info on this?

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.

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)

hey thats works

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.

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]