New J-10 thread II

[bladerunner]

Sorry Typhung
Got myself confused what I meant was I viewd a clip of the Typhoon that didnt have voice over or music, it was so realistic that it could have been live. We live near an air force base, and I had the sound turned up on my special sound system and the sound of the twin jets/ as the plane was put through its paces.Other people in the house thought it was a live exercise by our airforce..well anyway the Utube demo of the J10 was pretty lame in comparison as I dont think the J10 was pushed.

[bladerunner]

Low wings are good, because they give you a potentially higher rate of roll than if you're to put wings in the middle or shoulder. And keeping the plane slim is good too, less cross section for less drag and less "fat" for less weight.

I don't like the long curved of the back, because for some reason, the eye and the brain don't perceive long unbroken structures as beautiful. You need that interrupted somehow. Some people think the J-10S looks better, for the same reason the Su-27 two seater looks better than the single seater, the long uninterrupted back-hump line is shorter.

If you like to understand the psychology of beauty, lets take another example, the J-8II. The J-8II looks ugly on the ground and on the top, when you see that long long fuselage line. But when flying and seen underneath it looks rakishly good. This design psychology can apply to ships, cars, houses, or just about everything, including cartoon characters.

Continuous line = boring
Interruption = excitement

Thats very interesting, I did think the J10 looked odd because of its long back/or length. I thought it might have had something to do with accomadating the engine change while trying to maintain the flight characteristics of the original design model.But i do think the distinctive spine disadvantages the J10 in the looks department

[mxiong]

PLA photographers suck big time, that's a common agreement among all Chinese military fans, unfortunately...

[Quickie]

Some of the J-10s in the posted pictures clearly show the uneven surface of the fuselage, especially those of the section between the wing and the intake. For beauty sake, maybe something can be done on this, in addition to the intake moustache. Other than that, the shape of the aircraft just doesn't look as symmetrical as some modern fighter jet would. (which may explain why it don't have that more sleeker look). Not saying this is a less than good design practice but just pointing out my observation. In the end, it's the aircraft's performance that counts.

[AssassinsMace]

Here's another great shot from CDF by GT.

[bladerunner]

What's the reason for the unpainted parts?
Why does the two seater have a more pronounced spine/ridge?
I don't know whether its due to the angle of the picture but I think the undercarriage is a bit narrower then on other planes

[Quickie]

What's the reason for the unpainted parts?

They are on primers.

Why does the two seater have a more pronounced spine/ridge?

Housing for ECM and other avionics stuff?

I don't know whether its due to the angle of the picture but I think the undercarriage is a bit narrower then on other planes

The picture is PSed. The whole single seater image is larger than the twin seater image.

[crobato]

They are on primers.



Housing for ECM and other avionics stuff?

Because the spine on the two seater is shorter, and the spine has a structural purpose. Not taking about the visible part, its what underneath that line. Its possible that for the two seater, lacking enough space underneath, you beefed up the upper and visible part instead. Of course the structure allows you to put maybe some antenna inside it.

The picture is PSed. The whole single seater image is larger than the twin seater image.

You can explain that by having the single seater plane being physically closer to the camera than the two seater.

[bladerunner]

[QUOTE=crobato;78347]

If you like to understand the psychology of beauty, lets take another example, the J-8II. The J-8II looks ugly on the ground and on the top, when you see that long long fuselage line. But when flying and seen underneath it looks rakishly good.

One gets the same impression with the J10. The long slim clyndrical
look makes it look longer than the Typhoon, Rafale. and Grippen, as well as a little strange.Boy was I surprised, when checking out the dimensions, to find, it was shorter in length,and about the same as the Grippen. I thought the answer lay in the twin engines of the Typhoon and Rafale, but the single engine Grippen doesnt give that impression. Anyway cant wait to see a two seater twin engine version. By the way was it the J10/11 or something completely different,(such as a trainer)when the posters were speculating on the seating arrangements of a 2 seater, in whether it would be a tandem or side by side.

[Gollevainen]

Well actually the lenght given in the earlier western reports was around 14.5 meters which IMO (and others as well) was underestimation. I reality the aircraft is somewhere around 15.5-16.5 meters and thus its "long appearance" is in fact correct.

[lilzz]

what's the name of Chinese AESA radar using in the J-10A

August 17, 2007: China is touting the advanced electronics in their new J10A fighter. The J10A is using an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. AESA systems consist of thousands of tiny radars that make it possible to track many different targets simultaneously. China claims the J10A radar can track ten targets at once, and attack four of them simultaneously (with long range missiles). China has revealed other military AESA radars recently, indicating years of intense research and development in this area.


The J10 is also Chinese made. It looks something like the American F-16, and weighs about the same (19 tons). Like the F-16, and unlike the Su-27, the J10 has only one engine. Originally, the J10 used a Russian AL-31FN engine, but China has been working for a decade to manufacture their own version of this, the WS10A.


It's no accident that the J10 resembles the F-16, because Israel apparently sold them technology for the Israeli Lavi jet fighter. Israel abandoned the Lavi project, because of the high cost and availability of cheaper alternatives (buying F-16s and F-15s from the United States.) But the Lavi was meant to be a super F-16, and incorporated a lot of design ideas from the F-16 (which the Israelis were very familiar with, as they used them, and had developed new components for them.) China has about a dozen J10As in service, and will probably increase production once their WS10A engine is operational (which may be in a year or two.) China's extensive espionage efforts in the U.S. has long sought jet engine and AESA technology.

http://www.nowpublic.com/chinese-dep...erior-avionics

[AssassinsMace]

Strategypage article = bull. Another alarmist source where emotions rule and they can't decide whether China is inept or all powerful. I'm sure China is working on it but how would they know? Their contradictory thinking says it all.

[crobato]

One gets the same impression with the J10. The long slim clyndrical
look makes it look longer than the Typhoon, Rafale. and Grippen, as well as a little strange.Boy was I surprised, when checking out the dimensions, to find, it was shorter in length,and about the same as the Grippen. I thought the answer lay in the twin engines of the Typhoon and Rafale, but the single engine Grippen doesnt give that impression. Anyway cant wait to see a two seater twin engine version. By the way was it the J10/11 or something completely different,(such as a trainer)when the posters were speculating on the seating arrangements of a 2 seater, in whether it would be a tandem or side by side.

One also has to consider that the cockpit and canopy of the J-10 might be slightly smaller than with European aircraft, in order to fit the smaller statue of Chinese pilots. That can add to the impression of size, because you also relate the size of the canopy to the rest of the body.

We do know that the J-10 is only slightly longer than the FC-1 based on pictures where the two are together, and the FC-1 is about the same length of the F-16.

Also the J-10 does not have an AESA. There is already near confirmation that the J-10 only uses a slotted planar array, which is enough to track 10 targets (or even 20) and engage four of them. The idiot at Strategypage obviously don't know that Western and Russian slotted array planars could also do the same thing.

[adeptitus]

Also the J-10 does not have an AESA. There is already near confirmation that the J-10 only uses a slotted planar array, which is enough to track 10 targets (or even 20) and engage four of them. The idiot at Strategypage obviously don't know that Western and Russian slotted array planars could also do the same thing.

Would this be the 1473/KLJ-3 radar?

Usually PLA radar is compared to US or Russian models, but I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about how it matches vs. European ones like RDM, RDY, & RDY-2 on Mirage-2000's.

Also, usually the comparison ranks distance to detect fighter-sized targets, # of targets actively tracked, # of missiles guided, etc. There's very little info that I can find on the multi-role capability, such as Synthetic Aperture Radar mode for ground attacks.

[crobato]

Would this be the 1473/KLJ-3 radar?

That may be the original radar, but there is also now something called KLJ-7 or KLJ-10. One of them has to be the JF-17 radar, which leaves the other for the J-10.

Usually PLA radar is compared to US or Russian models, but I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about how it matches vs. European ones like RDM, RDY, & RDY-2 on Mirage-2000's.

Also, usually the comparison ranks distance to detect fighter-sized targets, # of targets actively tracked, # of missiles guided, etc. There's very little info that I can find on the multi-role capability, such as Synthetic Aperture Radar mode for ground attacks.

Hard to say without concrete data that is publicly available. But even in the radars in Europe and the US you won't find much concrete data either. Too many confidentiality and classified information.