J-10 Thread IV

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by Jeff Head, Apr 18, 2015.

  1. davidau
    Offline

    davidau New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    To celebrate new year, another batch of modified J-10 B, now station at the northern military district....

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]






    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    3,097
    I am not a big fan of the re-fueling pod on J-10A/B, it maybe effective but looks ugly, similar to Rafael ... I hope the next iteration (J-10C) would be much better looking
     
  3. SanWenYu
    Offline

    SanWenYu New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2015
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    213
    The best looking one would have to be retractable or collapsible. Doubt J-10C could have the room for it. A later version (J-10D?), if to be built, might.

    I think It is also going to depend on whether PLAAF wants to adopt a “flying boom" style refueling system in the future.
     
  4. davidau
    Offline

    davidau New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    J-10B refuelling under the falling snow and at high attitude.....

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  5. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    3,667
    Rumor from "pupu" (a fairly credible poster from CJDBY) claims that the J-10D, which he claims is a "silent variant" akin to the F-35 (not sure what this means), is about to be revealed soon.

    dQ931q0.jpg
     
    N00813 and Air Force Brat like this.
  6. kwaigonegin
    Offline

    kwaigonegin Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    The rigid boom is more beneficial to larger airplanes like the Y20 etc because the fuel transfer is at a much higher rate.
    For smaller aircraft like fighters drogue is adequate. It all depends on what the PLAAF wants to use them for and if they want standardization. USAF etc has a much inventory of larger aircraft inventory especially transports therefore the boom is beneficial. It would take signficiantly much longer to refuel a C5 or a C17 with a drogue line.
     
    delft, defenceman, N00813 and 3 others like this.
  7. dingyibvs
    Offline

    dingyibvs Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    619
    Did he mention J-10D anywhere else? That weibo post only mentions that we'll see the J-10D soon.
     
  8. asif iqbal
    Offline

    asif iqbal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    6,392
    Likes Received:
    5,668
    Interesting

    J10A flew 2002
    J10B flew 2008
    J10C flew 2013

    And J10D flying in 2017 definitely makes sense

    First a 6 year gap, then a 5 year gap and now a 4 year gap

    That is the way technology and fighter iterations move on

    J10D is one to look out for I guess a radical changes there's not much more on this J10C they can add so must be a big step

    But I doubt it will be any stealth changes the timeframe is too short you have already J20 and J31 for that, you do not redraw the fighter

    My guess is a good upwards step but not drastic like some are saying
     
    defenceman and Air Force Brat like this.
  9. Pampa
    Offline

    Pampa Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    21
    I ask why blur a well know j-10 cockpit?

    Regards
     
  10. Pampa
    Offline

    Pampa Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    21
    I mean a J-10S cockpit.

    Regards
     
Loading...

Share This Page