J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Then can you please let it go and accept that the idea of a "WS-15 powered upgraded J-10" doesn't make sense? And so we can stop talking about this topic and get back on track?
When I said that a degree of speculation is okay in the flagship threads, the allowance for it is finite.
As weig said on the last page, if multiple people have given enough patient explanations for why an idea is not feasible or sensible, then there is an expectation that reason can overcome enthusiasm.
Yang Wei was the deputy chief designer of J-10 to the Chief Designer Song Wencong, who passed away a few years ago. As you may or may not know, Yang Wei was the Chief Designer of J-20. He has already moved on to focus on China's 6-gen fighter aircraft.
As you see, J-10 was China's first modern fighter aircraft and the training ground for new generation of aircraft designers. They have moved on or will move on to design and develop much newer and more advanced aircraft. They're scarce and precious talents even in a country whose military aircraft industry grows by leaps and bounds.
It appears that you have a very hard time grasping even some basic ideas and concepts. That is probably why you're stuck with your speculations even after repeated clear and patient explanations. You know what, sometimes, it's best just keep quiet and listen/read if you don't have much to contribute here - my friendly advice to you.
Last edited:
Sure @Blitzo, I can let the WS-15 part go. But I think we got a good discussion about an upgraded version powered still by WS-10C.
Thanks for participating, you shifted your view, in this regard it was worthwhile for you I think.
Pleae dont walk over the fact that this was just about WS-15, as all the other suggestions I made seem still valid, as you even acknowledged.
Finally, take some responsibility for the quality of the discussions of the last few pages. You are the one that is instigating stuff, I am just getting to the bottom of things.
You said you didn’t want to participate, but you cause the shit here today.
Weig, thanks for your input, so refreshing to have a simple answer. one that actually gives a reason.
No, my view did not shift at all.
I've always stated that it makes sense for them to continue with upgrades for the J-10C platform that can include avionics and weapons systems. (And it goes without saying that as existing airframes replace their engines, they can use newer WS-10 variants with iterative improvements).
Re-engineing the aircraft with a whole new engine or making significant structural modifications is not a good idea and a waste of resources, time and money.
No, your other suggestions about structural modifications are not valid either.
No, I gave you multiple opportunities to back away and to recognize that your idea didn't make sense, but you continued to persist, despite multiple pages of multiple people telling you that it was not a good idea, before you said you were "struggling with justification".
As weig said, you seem to have a hard time grasping some basic ideas and concepts.
So perhaps sometimes it is best to keep quiet and listen/read more instead.
Just answer me this, finally. As this was all about range in the first place.
The J-10 with the spine, is this not considered a new variant?
It has been designed and built, it sure has it’s internals rearranged otherwise there is no need for a spine.
So, if those intervals have been re-arranged, will this not allow larger fuel tanks, and longer range?
The J-10 with the spine, is this not considered a new variant?
It has been designed and built, it sure has it’s internals rearranged otherwise there is no need for a spine.
So, if those intervals have been re-arranged, will this not allow larger fuel tanks, and longer range?
Sure, I will answer this question.
We do not know if the spine variant has a significant improvement in range to begin with. The addition of that spine is for a J-10CY variant deliberately for airshow use, likely with an internal smoke generator use.
An actual military operational variant of J-10CY with that spine (i.e.: with the extra space in the spine used for fuel) would in theory enable slightly more range, but given the small additional volume the spine has, that would be relatively minor.
Of course, you probably could increase range further if you develop CFTs for the aircraft as well and add it onto the aircraft, but then that comes to the question of aerospace resources, time and money (while also not adversely affecting the rest of the performance of the aircraft). If they are able to do it with minimal expenditure of aerospace resources, time and money, then I'm not inherently against it. Keep in mind, this would require substantial significant flight testing with CFTs on the aircraft.
BUT, this idea must be entirely conditional on being a modification that is minor, easy to implement and can be done with low cost.
As I wrote in 6191: "The most I could see is perhaps if the PLA want a further iteration of J-10C with maybe CFTs or slightly increased range that would at most involve a minor structural modification, but even that I think would be pushing it."
Well we may have some overlap after all.
About the spine again, didn’t we see an image of the J10 with spine in yellow primer? In that image it had different colored materials, both yellow and grey.
Any idea what they grey part is for and why it is not all yellow?
Any idea what they grey part is for and why it is not all yellow?
I wasnt thinking the extra fuel would go in the spine, but the spine would hold avionics. And the existing fuel tanks would be enlarged now that a lot of avionics are out of the way.
So the green is likely composite skin while yellow is metal (aluminum alloy most likely)
Also with regard to the extra space provided by the spine, that space would probably be more useful holding extra avionics like a better ew/ecm suite or something along those lines. PLAAF doesn’t desperately need J-10C to have a larger combat radius (they have a few hundred flankers who’ll happily operate with a 4-digit combat radius), but having more and better avionics is always good and has just about no downsides.