New J-10 thread II

[crobato]

Some people are saying its the J-10B.

[unknauthr]

It appears as if the J-10, and the PLAAF are slowly earning the respect of their neighbors and peers.

In a recent interview with US Lt. Gen. Loyd S. Utterback, commander of 13th Air Force (responsible for the US Pacific Theatre of Operations), the American general was asked about his impressions of the J-10. He responded that, "As a fighter pilot, that's not the airplane I want to go up against."
http://www.armytimes.com/community/o...k_guam_031008/

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by unknauthr

It appears as if the J-10, and the PLAAF are slowly earning the respect of their neighbors and peers.

In a recent interview with US Lt. Gen. Loyd S. Utterback, commander of 13th Air Force (responsible for the US Pacific Theatre of Operations), the American general was asked about his impressions of the J-10. He responded that, "As a fighter pilot, that's not the airplane I want to go up against."
http://www.armytimes.com/community/o...k_guam_031008/

How did he come to know so much of the J-10 as to be so confident of giving such a statement? He might be just blowing smoke and was not serious about it. Anyhow, my personal opinion is that they should have better sources of intelligence than people like us who rely almost entirely on the internet for information.

[AssassinsMace]

Pinkov's latest... Remember his story stating that China's selling J-10s to Iran? Well now he's backtracked to a question mark.

[crobato]

J-10 with pilot, training PL-8 and PL-12 under the wings. Note this pilot's helmet has the HMS attachment support.

[Munir]

I do not think that is has HMS option. The only possible part that might be intresting is the stru for NVG attachment. For the rest it is exact the same as the helmet I have in my collection.


One particular thing that suprises me is that the pilot actually is much taller then expected. You guys probablt read about the wingpoint is not fitted with rails cause it might be difficult to attach weapons without loading equipment. Knowing how easy it is to attach aim9 on outer stations it would be strange to hear that J10 would be more difficult. So why is there no wingtip rail? The J10 has musltiple body attachments, yet the most easy one is not there.

And is there a possibility to alter the main gear so that it retracts into the lerx/wing? That way one can add 3/4 BVR's into the body like they did on EF2000 and Gripen NG.

[crobato]

You have to ask yourself why the F-15 does not have an air tip rail either. In fact, similar to the J-10, both aircraft have rounded wing tips.

The reason for this is that the wing with the wingtip rail is actually a clipped wing. The wing could have extended further beyond the rail, increasing wing area, and turning that point into a under hung hard point. If you extend the lines of the F-16's wing's forward edge and the back edge until both lines meet, you will that it forms a delta.

As for the helmet, attachments like those were meant to hold HMS. I've seen enough of the same attachment on helmets for Su-27 pilots.

[Munir]

The reason F15 does not need wingtip rails is the simple fact that it already has that many stations on the belly (4bvr) and it can handle also 4 on the first wingpylons (even bvr)... So why adding so many wepoals if you can use only few? It would be intresting question if you ask why Mirage 2000 doens't have wingtip rails.

But if you caount number of BVR on J10 then you would do anything to have some more... Normally it has 2 BVR with fuel tanks and if uprated you end up with 4 but a lot less range. F15 is an old design. I used gripen as an example. So why don't you compare more current designs?

About the helmet. I still doubt that it is HMS cause you do not want to have heavy weight on front of your head mass. It is the usual one with the usual attachment for NVG. HMS needs more then the very old simple chin strap and I miss all the wiring and sensors you need for HMS...

[Londo Molari]

I don't think J-10 is in need of more pylons. It already has what, 9 hardpoints? And they have just come out with the new attachment that lets you put 3 missiles on a single pylon. It was showcased on a JH-7A recently.

J-10 may look like Eurofighter, but it is not in that weight class. Eurofighter and Rafale are actually medium-heavy fighters, given their weight and max payload/thrust. Thats why they can afford to put pylons everywhere and strap on some more weapons. They can lift a lot. J-10 is in F-16's weight class, light-medium. That means you don't usually go over 9 hardpoints.

[King_Comm]

Originally Posted by Munir

About the helmet. I still doubt that it is HMS cause you do not want to have heavy weight on front of your head mass. It is the usual one with the usual attachment for NVG. HMS needs more then the very old simple chin strap and I miss all the wiring and sensors you need for HMS...

Why would you need night vision for an air superiority fighter? Plus, are NVG's lighter than HMS?

[unknauthr]

Originally Posted by King_Comm

Why would you need night vision for an air superiority fighter? Plus, are NVG's lighter than HMS?

Historically speaking, night vision goggles have typically been relatively heavy. They also shift the helmet's CG too far forward to engage in any heavy, air-to-air maneuvering. That's why all of the early helmet mounted sights to enter operational service (as opposed to the laboratory test specimens) incorporated a sight - but no display. It took nearly a decade for the helmet-mounted display technology to catch up to the point where even simple, HUD-type symbology could be reliably projected onto a helmet visor without exceeding weight and CG limits for air combat.

If this really is an example of a helmet, fitted for night vision goggles, then it merely confirms that the J-10 was always intended to be a more multirole platform than what some analysts have portrayed. This would make the J-10 much more analogous to the American F-16 - which was originally designed for the air combat role, but which has primarily carried out air-to-ground missions during actual, wartime usage.

I would anticipate that, much like the Eurofighter Typhoon, the J-10 was cleared for its air-to-air weapons compliment first - since both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions will require at least a minimal self-defense capability. All of the basic air-to-air sensors and weapons would have been needed in either capacity. The integration of air-to-ground weapons would have followed afterwards.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by Munir

The reason F15 does not need wingtip rails is the simple fact that it already has that many stations on the belly (4bvr) and it can handle also 4 on the first wingpylons (even bvr)... So why adding so many wepoals if you can use only few? It would be intresting question if you ask why Mirage 2000 doens't have wingtip rails.

That's not the reason why because after all, there is no harm adding two more points even if you have that many, aka Su-27.

If you want to talk about more modern aircraft, the F-35 and the F-22 are not putting wing tip rails either. Just because the F-15 is an old design does not mean its not aerodynamically efficient.

But if you caount number of BVR on J10 then you would do anything to have some more... Normally it has 2 BVR with fuel tanks and if uprated you end up with 4 but a lot less range. F15 is an old design. I used gripen as an example. So why don't you compare more current designs?

We can also say the Lavi also uses wing tip rails. But why remove them on the J-10? This is not a technological issue, the JH-7s and JF-17s also have wing tip rails.

You can put four BVR on the J-10 with a belly tank. If you want more BVR stations, just use more dual racks instead.

A plane that already has finished its wing design is not going to have the wing added with wing tip pylons without some major redesign of the wing. You will have to strengthen and thicken the portions of the wing right to the tip. One thing you have to realize that wings with wingtip rails generally have reduced or narrowed wingspans, increased reinforcement, lengthened chord, or increased wing thickness, or any one or combination of the three. Once you put adding weight on the tip, so will your wing elasticity or flex increase, and these are the ways to reduce that. Reducing wingspan affects aspect ratio of the wing, and so will its low speed handling, increasing reinforcement increases weight, and the other two methods only serve to increase the wing drag.

From an aerodynamics combined with a structural point of view, if you want an optimum performing wing, you get rid of the wing tip rails.

About the helmet. I still doubt that it is HMS cause you do not want to have heavy weight on front of your head mass. It is the usual one with the usual attachment for NVG. HMS needs more then the very old simple chin strap and I miss all the wiring and sensors you need for HMS...

Sorry but that design is the same design used in the helmets for pilots on the Su-27s and that attachment is used to hang the HMS. This is not a matter of opinion---this is a matter of reality. Citing disadvantages don't change the reality, it only means the disadvantages are only real. Yes it is true that the HMS used on the Su-27 is front heavy and yes all the cabling is right in front. That's something they have to live with until the next generation of HMS already being developed. BTW, for TC-2 HMs, it only has sensors on the added visor which aligns to the sensors located on the dashboard or HUD. This is a first generation design. Second generation HMS would have sensors all over and built into the helmet.

[Munir]

>>>That's not the reason why because after all, there is no harm adding two more points even if you have that many, aka Su-27.

I never saw SU-27 using all those points. It hardly is adding any power cause in a2a battle you do not need dozens of BVR. You add drag and RCS.

>>>If you want to talk about more modern aircraft, the F-35 and the F-22 are not putting wing tip rails either. Just because the F-15 is an old design does not mean its not aerodynamically efficient.

Nopes, they prefer stealth above points.


>>>We can also say the Lavi also uses wing tip rails. But why remove them on the J-10? This is not a technological issue, the JH-7s and JF-17s also have wing tip rails.

It has to do with the movable surfaces, strengts of the wing, weight and aerodynamics. If you add fueltanks then you have only 2 stations left if you do not have wintips. You do know ewhat happened to F2 and that was just a bigger F16... So the wintiprails aren't exactly a simple added feature. In reality the plane is optimized for having that. For that reason F16 with AIM9 flies much better then without them.


>>>You can put four BVR on the J-10 with a belly tank. If you want more BVR stations, just use more dual racks instead.

You cannot add that many on J10 belly. Just do the match with aerodynamica, lengths etc... You have to replace the main gear and even then the surface should be redesigned. Adding them on a long pylon will not work.


>>>A plane that already has finished its wing design is not going to have the wing added with wing tip pylons without some major redesign of the wing. You will have to strengthen and thicken the portions of the wing right to the tip. One thing you have to realize that wings with wingtip rails generally have reduced or narrowed wingspans, increased reinforcement, lengthened chord, or increased wing thickness, or any one or combination of the three. Once you put adding weight on the tip, so will your wing elasticity or flex increase, and these are the ways to reduce that. Reducing wingspan affects aspect ratio of the wing, and so will its low speed handling, increasing reinforcement increases weight, and the other two methods only serve to increase the wing drag.

Correct.

>>>From an aerodynamics combined with a structural point of view, if you want an optimum performing wing, you get rid of the wing tip rails.

But in this case you need more BVR and WVR... And since J10 has no belly stations, does not use multiple racks yet and is tially not stealty we can see that as a missed logic. Gripen got it. Lavi had them. EF2000 uses them as ECM stations. Flanker uses them etc etc. And we need see where the multiple racks will be added... You do not have the option to put them everywhere (area or weight restrictions). To put it simple. As long as you have no internal bay, no stealthy features and sofar 2 to max 4 BVR you desperately want to move beyond that.


>>>Sorry but that design is the same design used in the helmets for pilots on the Su-27s and that attachment is used to hang the HMS. This is not a matter of opinion---this is a matter of reality. Citing disadvantages don't change the reality, it only means the disadvantages are only real. Yes it is true that the HMS used on the Su-27 is front heavy and yes all the cabling is right in front. That's something they have to live with until the next generation of HMS already being developed. BTW, for TC-2 HMs, it only has sensors on the added visor which aligns to the sensors located on the dashboard or HUD. This is a first generation design. Second generation HMS would have sensors all over and built into the helmet.

Did not know that Russian HMS works this way. Would love to see a pic of that helmet. I had some Russian helmets (Mig29) and though they were extremely comfortable and light I did not see this feature. I do not want to be the pilot wearing this unlogical weight in front of my head and pulling high G's... I doubt that it is a realistic design.


I red in a mag called Combat aircraft that they did not added wingtiprails on J10 cause it would be rearmed in the middle of nowhere. Looking at the height it is easier to reload then F16. And reloading WVR isn't exactly a big deal. So we read a lot of unrealistic info. Just as the fact that the tilted F16 seat sin't exactly a big point but merely PR stunt. You probably know what Chuck Yeager said about that.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by Munir

>>>That's not the reason why because after all, there is no harm adding two more points even if you have that many, aka Su-27.

I never saw SU-27 using all those points. It hardly is adding any power cause in a2a battle you do not need dozens of BVR. You add drag and RCS.

Yes but they added them anyway.

>>>If you want to talk about more modern aircraft, the F-35 and the F-22 are not putting wing tip rails either. Just because the F-15 is an old design does not mean its not aerodynamically efficient.

Nopes, they prefer stealth above points.

It does not change the fact that the wingtips of the aircraft are pointed or rounded for aerodynamic efficiency.

>>>We can also say the Lavi also uses wing tip rails. But why remove them on the J-10? This is not a technological issue, the JH-7s and JF-17s also have wing tip rails.

It has to do with the movable surfaces, strengts of the wing, weight and aerodynamics. If you add fueltanks then you have only 2 stations left if you do not have wintips. You do know ewhat happened to F2 and that was just a bigger F16... So the wintiprails aren't exactly a simple added feature. In reality the plane is optimized for having that. For that reason F16 with AIM9 flies much better then without them.

And the J-10 is probably more aerodynamically efficient flying with two PL-8s under the wing than without. That seems to be besides the point of having wing tip rails or without. The issue is that it's more aerodynamically efficient without them.

You cannot add that many on J10 belly. Just do the match with aerodynamica, lengths etc... You have to replace the main gear and even then the surface should be redesigned. Adding them on a long pylon will not work.

You cannot say that unless you have accurate measurements of the matter.

But in this case you need more BVR and WVR... And since J10 has no belly stations, does not use multiple racks yet and is tially not stealty we can see that as a missed logic. Gripen got it. Lavi had them. EF2000 uses them as ECM stations. Flanker uses them etc etc. And we need see where the multiple racks will be added... You do not have the option to put them everywhere (area or weight restrictions). To put it simple. As long as you have no internal bay, no stealthy features and sofar 2 to max 4 BVR you desperately want to move beyond that.

The J-10 has stations underneath the intake and further down the tunnel. The Lavi does not have this nor does the Gripen. The stations on the front can be used to put laser targeting pods so it has interfaces on them, which means you can put other things like ECM pods. The two stations behind are for 250kg bombs. The J-10 also has a centerline point for a center fuel tank. Four bombs can also be put in the four fuselage points without ever using the wing stations.

Did not know that Russian HMS works this way. Would love to see a pic of that helmet. I had some Russian helmets (Mig29) and though they were extremely comfortable and light I did not see this feature. I do not want to be the pilot wearing this unlogical weight in front of my head and pulling high G's... I doubt that it is a realistic design.

Its not a good design but nonetheless its there.

I red in a mag called Combat aircraft that they did not added wingtiprails on J10 cause it would be rearmed in the middle of nowhere. Looking at the height it is easier to reload then F16. And reloading WVR isn't exactly a big deal. So we read a lot of unrealistic info. Just as the fact that the tilted F16 seat sin't exactly a big point but merely PR stunt. You probably know what Chuck Yeager said about that.

Kind of an odd reason, considering the JF-17 and JH-7A have wing tip rails, as well as every Su-30 and Su-27 in the PLAAF.

[challenge]

according to the 1991 back issue of MilTech, West German engineer examing the east germany soviet supplied arsenal's HMS for MiG-29,claim the technology is quite simple. the technology resemble your TV remote control. small IR emitter mounted on the helmet being track by IR tracker located HUD.
the helmet unlike western HMS do not display data or flight information .
But recently the Russian is offering more advance version to replace the original Ukrainian aresnal HMS.
it is not known if PLAAF willing to adapt south africa design HMS,which is far more advance that Russian HMS,which first saw action in angola against cuban pilot .