New J-10 Thread III

[tphuang]

It's simple, when we see what they offer to PAF, we will know. The only thing I can say is that the version offered for export is not going to be the same as the one used domestically (as seen with F-8IIM and FBC-1).

As for why not more J-10As were produced, it's mainly because they didn't have AL-31FNs due to the entire IL-76 fiasco. WS-10A had more problems than previously thought, so they couldn't continue. So basically after more than 1 year of hiatus, J-10A production has restarted.

[Quickie]

Another problem is that a DSI inlet is probably less stealthy than a conventional inlet. (Although not by very much, I guess.) How do you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having a DSI inlet?

[latenlazy]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Another problem is that a DSI inlet is probably less stealthy than a conventional inlet. How do you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having a DSI inlet?

I thought the DSI was more stealthy?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

How do you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having a DSI inlet?

No, DSI is far more stealthy. Variable-airflow inlets are the least stealthy of inlets. The Flanker series offer an extreme example. One of the issues the J-11B addressed was covering up the movable wedges that direct airflow, thus reducing the aircraft's RCS. The use of DSI intakes offers reductions in aircraft weight, ease of maintenance, lower complexity, and reduced RCS. It can also improve performance at lower airspeeds. However, at higher speeds, you need variable inlets tend to provide the engines with optimal airflow.

[Quickie]

Okay, I should've said a DSI inlet is less stealthy than a conventional inlet if the problem of radar reflection from the air-flow control surfaces in the inlet, can be solved like the way they have done it with the F-22 conventional inlet.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

F-22 has fixxed inlet, J-10A and Flankers have variable-ramp intakes. Raptors use an angled S-shaped intake duct that hides the engine to minimize radar return. I would not call such an intake "conventional."

[Munir]

Without going further... I am extremely shocked that JF17's arebough on loan from China... What can we indeed expect from more expensive J10? Let us wait and see what 2014 will bring. I think it will be not much looking at what Pak is going to get in 2010 and what the finances are after 2010. Last thing we heard was PAF had to sell land cause it is forced to build Jacobad for the new f16's... I do not know what our "democratic" elected government thinks but it surely makes it unrealistic to shop for expensive items.JF17 was delayed for 2 years. Il78 are delayed for 1 year. Erieye is delayed for 6 months. We doubt that F16's will ever be delivered...Let us move the focus whether China sells latest or not. I think it will have its own versionslike we see their K8 is different (inferior) then K8P. We have clue whether their FC1-06 is more or less then the JF17-09-110... And wesurely haveno clue what will j10B and FC20... So many variables to be sorted...

[latenlazy]

Originally Posted by Munir

Without going further... I am extremely shocked that JF17's arebough on loan from China... What can we indeed expect from more expensive J10? Let us wait and see what 2014 will bring. I think it will be not much looking at what Pak is going to get in 2010 and what the finances are after 2010. Last thing we heard was PAF had to sell land cause it is forced to build Jacobad for the new f16's... I do not know what our "democratic" elected government thinks but it surely makes it unrealistic to shop for expensive items.JF17 was delayed for 2 years. Il78 are delayed for 1 year. Erieye is delayed for 6 months. We doubt that F16's will ever be delivered...Let us move the focus whether China sells latest or not. I think it will have its own versionslike we see their K8 is different (inferior) then K8P. We have clue whether their FC1-06 is more or less then the JF17-09-110... And wesurely haveno clue what will j10B and FC20... So many variables to be sorted...

It's simple, the one constant is money. PAF simply doesn't have the money or much else to leverage for better products.

[Quickie]

F-22 has fixxed inlet, J-10A and Flankers have variable-ramp intakes. Raptors use a S-shaped intake duct specially designed to minimize radar return. I would not call such an intake "conventional."

By conventional inlet, I meant the "external part" of the conventional inlet as opposed to the "bump"-shaped DSI inlet. As for the internal duct, the J-10 also has a somewhat S-shaped inlet duct. What I am trying to say is that the round bump in front of a DSI inlet is nothing stealthy at all. That's why you don't see a true stealth fighter like the F-22 having DSI intake.

Now, if only they can manage to solve the problem of inlet airflow like they did with the F-22, without having to put in place a DSI intake, the J-10 can be even more stealthy.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

It is certainly possible to design a stealthier fixed inlet for the J-10, but having a fixed inlet results in compromises in high speed performance as well as top speed. Although the maximum speed of the Raptor is classified, it is questionable whether the plane could exceed Mach 2.0. DSI bumps are very stealthy as well, as shown by the F-35. The fact that overall the F-35 is slightly less stealthy than the F-22 has nothing to do with the inlets.

[Baibar of Jalat]

Any news on when gonna be inservice or does anyone have an educated guess?


The developers need to bring J 10B project inservice without delay, because PLAAF does not want to face advanced jets that are currently being trialled by neighbouring airforces, without having a good counter.

[Quickie]

One way to reduce RCS for an DSI intake (including the "bump") is to have them made of composite, which, I believe, is what they are doing already.

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by Quickie

One way to reduce RCS for an DSI intake (including the "bump") is to have them made of composite, which, I believe, is what they are doing already.

The usual aviation composites don't reduce RCS, unless they're specifically made for this purpose. The DSI bump does not increase RCS, not in the frontal aspect at any rate. And maybe not even for a radar scanning it from the ground.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

The DSI bump does not increase RCS, not in the frontal aspect at any rate. And maybe not even for a radar scanning it from the ground.

Sorry, I don't agree with that, but of course you entitled to your own opinion. Let's not continue arguing about it.

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Sorry, I don't agree with that, but of course you entitled to your own opinion. Let's not continue arguing about it.

It's a good thing the truth is totally independent of what you agree or do not agree with.

It's a simple fact that the shape of the DSI bump prohibits nearly all radar waves from returning to the emitter source (if that source is frontal aspect). The concept is the same as that used by ship designers when they slope the sides of ships to prevent radar waves from returning to the source emitter, except that the effect here is even more dramatic due to the higher angles of incidence.