J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[maya]

a new picture

 

[challenge]

according to TW def. magazine, J-10 is fitted with data link equivalent to link-4 data link,this data link has very limited capability,restricted to just one on one between fighter and AWACS.
and open admission from the test pilot,J-10A T:W ratio stil below that of F-16A,it is possible that J-10C may have fitted with more powerful engine to overcome not so good T:W ratio.
although SU-27 and J-120C are fitted with IRST,claim to detected air target at 70Km plus range ,in reality the target they are refering are 4 engine type bomber flying at tail section with full after burner,w/o the after burner ,detection range reduce by half.against fighter flying head on w/o after burner the detection range reduce to 5km!
other problem is IRST are vulnerable to weather interference.
that may be the reason the author claim why USAF reluntant to fit there aircraft with IRST,cuz this simply added extra cost and weight.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

according to TW def. magazine, J-10 is fitted with data link equivalent to link-4 data link,this data link has very limited capability,restricted to just one on one between fighter and AWACS.
and open admission from the test pilot,J-10A T:W ratio stil below that of F-16A,it is possible that J-10C may have fitted with more powerful engine to overcome not so good T:W ratio.
although SU-27 and J-120C are fitted with IRST,claim to deteced target 70Km away,in reality the target they are refering are 4 engine type bomber flying at full after burner,w/o the ftare burner it reduce by half.against fighter flying head on w/o after burner the detection range reduce to 5km!

Lol.... would you expect otherwise form a TW defense mag?
And can you tell me what the hell a J-10C is?

Note- some claims are definitely true, like the ones referring to the datalink.
However, first time I've heard that mentioned about the TW ratio and the info on the IRST sounds sketchy at first. Has this ever been mentioned in any sort of "real," source?

 

[crobato]

according to TW def. magazine, J-10 is fitted with data link equivalent to link-4 data link,this data link has very limited capability,restricted to just one on one between fighter and AWACS.
and open admission from the test pilot,J-10A T:W ratio stil below that of F-16A,it is possible that J-10C may have fitted with more powerful engine to overcome not so good T:W ratio.
although SU-27 and J-120C are fitted with IRST,claim to detected air target at 70Km plus range ,in reality the target they are refering are 4 engine type bomber flying at tail section with full after burner,w/o the after burner ,detection range reduce by half.against fighter flying head on w/o after burner the detection range reduce to 5km!
other problem is IRST are vulnerable to weather interference.
that may be the reason the author claim why USAF reluntant to fit there aircraft with IRST,cuz this simply added extra cost and weight.

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

On the TW ratio, the J-10 doing a near vertical climb without after burners from a STOL start---so quickly that the wheels have not finished retracting---that's an indication of a hell of TW ratio. To do that stunt, the aircraft's weight, including fuel for the demo and the pilot is near and under the dry military thrust of the engine. For the AL-31FN, that's 7,950kg.

As for the data links how do they know? The telecom technology in China is so way ahead of Taiwan that even Huawei does contracts on the island. Peer to peer data link isn't exactly that hard to do. And even if it is AWACS only for the uplink, it only means the AWACS can take the uplink information and downlink it to another J-10.

As for the IRST, it is meant to track the heat from plane's exhaust as well as missiles. Yes it is affected by weather, but only certain bands because they are absorbed by water vapor. Other infrared bands are not as badly affected.

The author is pure crap, figure out why the USN has IRST on their Tomcats and Hornets.

 

[hbogyt]

Maya, I think this is the same picture as one we had before.

Hey Londo, what happened to defence dot pk?

 

[Blitzo]

On the vertical climb, the J-10 could have been filled up to just the amount of fuel needed for the flying and stunts it did.

That may have been why it was so easy to have done a vertical climb..
I personally would prefer it if the J-10 was able to do it without limited fuel, but I think some skepticism needs to be put in into that performance at Zhuhai.

 

[HKSDU]

On the vertical climb, the J-10 could have been filled up to just the amount of fuel needed for the flying and stunts it did.

That may have been why it was so easy to have done a vertical climb..
I personally would prefer it if the J-10 was able to do it without limited fuel, but I think some skepticism needs to be put in into that performance at Zhuhai.

Doesnt matter, the fact is it did basically a vertical climb without afterburners, show's it T/W ratio. Even with with full fuel and payload, the J-10 still can revert to afterburners, which they didnt use in the demonstration. I find the article BS. Firstly what is J-120C??? China fighter designation official acknowledge up to only J-11. If it was a so called PLAAF pilot speaking about T/W being lower then F-16, how would that PLAAF pilot know what the T/W of an F-16? Cause China don't have F-16, so the pilot would've never flown one for comparison. All in all it sounds like a Tawain military supporter, having a hatred on the Chinese J-10.

 

[Lion]

Yup!

Don't post rubbish from unknown source or non-credible website.

Example like articles from Strategypage are full of Bull..

Then I just anyhow post and claim J-10 is comparable to F-22A.
You all must believe too,right?

 

[Londo Molari]

Thanks crobato. I always wondered exactly what type of wireless tech military datalinks used... its too long distance to be wifi-style connections. So it was cell phones all along. How vulnerable are modern data-links to jamming? I know militaries have jammers strong enough to jam an entire city's cell phone networks.

Hey Londo, what happened to defence dot pk?

I think you might have me confused with someone else, I don't manage that site or anything. It seems to load up fine for me.

Agreed. But this effect also goes beyond the materials being used. Weight (and volume) will scale as the length cubed, while area will scale as length squared. The result is that the wing loading will be much lower than the real aircraft, while (as you suggest) thrust loading will be higher. Both effects lead to a far more agile airplane.

True, I forgot about the exponential effect on mass and wing loading.

 

[RedMercury]

during the desert storm,aviation week reported that Iraqi ground jammer attempted and failed to jam link-16 .
according to miltech, frequency hopping radio must ,a minimum high hopped p 10,000 /sec. in order to elude jamming,link-16 able to perform 77,000 hop/sec.

And how is that relevant to the point you are supporting?

China first introduced there own data link back in 1984,according to there own admission ,the first gen. chinese data link highly vulnerable to jamming,and limited number of fighters it can control.

Source? Date of source? Which generation of datalinks are installed in recent PLAAF aircraft?