J-10 carrier version revealed

Just one important comment !!!

The H-5 is a Chinese built Badger .... but the SH-5 has nothing to do with the original Il-28, it's a completely new design !

This is the SH-5 !!!!!!!!

Deino

Deino said:

Just one important comment !!!

The H-5 is a Chinese built Badger .... but the SH-5 has nothing to do with the original Il-28, it's a completely new design !

This is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[hyperlink added]!!!!!!!!
Deino

Click to expand...

Thanks, I missed that- it said "water-borne variant of the H-5". But maybe indeed they developed a hydroplane based on the H-5, besides the completely new SH-5. Perhaps our Chinese speakers can help us on this issue!

BLUEJACKET said:

Thanks, I missed that- it said "water-borne variant of the H-5". But maybe indeed they developed a hydroplane based on the H-5, besides the completely new SH-5. Perhaps our Chinese speakers can help us on this issue!

Click to expand...

NO ... at least as far as I know the Chinese aviation history ! :rofl:
IMO this is once again only a very bad mistake made by fas.org, that was later just cpoied to the new globalsecurity.org-page !

Deino

About SH5, first I wanna say China name the first model of every category of plane as XX5. So first fighter is J5, first attacker is Q5. SH5 has nothing to do with H5, just they are both the first model of one category. Maybe SH5 has some relationship with Be6.

BLUEJACKET said:

I implied in post #886 why should a navalized J-10 be absolutely twin-engine? The answer I got doesn't satisfy me. Only AV-8B Harrier is entirely STOVL, & F-35) has a CTOL version besides STOVL. IMO, given a higher TWR and TVC engine, the land-based J-10 can be navalized further without much (if any) decrease in performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong- is there anything I've missed?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

i agree with your logic. but would J-10's underbelly intake be modified coz there are rumors around saying it would be too weak to be land on a carrier.

what does the intake have anything to do with landing? You're not landing on your intake. The airframe certainly has to be strengthened, but to specifically target the intake is a bit ridiculous.

eecsmaster said:

what does the intake have anything to do with landing? You're not landing on your intake. The airframe certainly has to be strengthened, but to specifically target the intake is a bit ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I think cooker is referring to the fact that J-10's front landing gear "seems" to be mounted to the bottom of air intake. But again, I don't think the front landing gear is structurely supported by the intake. However, landing gears might need some improvement for carrier use.

another question, say J-10 was navalized what range of weapons will it be carrying? other than PL-8, PL-11, and PL-12.

Is there any evidence that they're planning to build it? Or is it just an artist's conception. Because once we actually see it flying we'll probably be expecting a chinese carrier.

So far a J-10 carrier version remains highly speculative, though likely a serious written proposal may have been submitted by CAC. Purchasing Su-33s are the most likely option, and in the longer term, navalizing J-11s to the Su-33 template.

Few people however have talked about a much more likely alternative. This is a navalized, though non carrier, PLANAF version of the J-10. Here is a J-10, in the conventional way as we knkow it, albeit with avionics and radar that will support naval assignments like use of AshM. Perhaps a J-10 that uses 607 institute radar like the JH-7A or the PAF FC-1, with support for YJ-83.