*New J-10 Thread*

[Deino]

O.k ... then after only "crobato" answered to my question or gave at least some very usefull comments - THANKs ! - bit I still have some problems in three fields / areas !

1. the number of prototypes we know for sure, the year in that we noticed them and therefore …
2. the production rate together with the numbers of engines delivered
3. the very short time from first flight (1989), to pre-production (2002) to production (2003) to service entry (2004 even maybe with limited capability)

Therefore I re-worked my list of the first machines one again with the years in that we saw them first or a number of machines were reported !

CAC Prototypes - all planes confirmed in bolt the year of construction / notice !

01 001 or 1001 built during ‘94-’96; ready maybe 1996 at least ‘98
02 maybe static test built / ready maybe similar ’98 (?)
1002
1003 until ‘99
1004
1005 now AVIC 0165
1006 until 2000
1007
1008
1009 until 2002

… still not 100% sure for 1008 + 1009 as both pictures are of quite bad quality and the reports of 5 prototypes + 2 improved ones (would fit only to 01 + 1002 – 1005 and 1006 + 1007 improved (albeit 1007 never confirmed ... 2. static test maybe or the one damaged by confirmed accident in May 2002 (?) with a fire destroying the entire right flank fuselage)

Pre-production models 101x-numbers at 3rd Test Regiment at CFTC
1010 first pre-serial confirmed 1. flight 28.6.2002
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016 ... at least until 1016 confirmed during mid 2003
1017 -1019 ?? … and 1020 ???

Two Seater prototypes, both confirmed
1021 2003
1022 highly likely static test airframe
1023 2003/2004 (?)


FTTC 13th Trials Regiment - Beijing MR … reported as first operational regiment on 30.3.2003
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10 … already delivered on 30.3.2003
11 – 18 maybe 20 … maybe delivered until the end of 2003 (18 confirmed at 15.8.

44. FD at the beginning of 2004 with also 10 machines later to the complete regiment strength !


Table of number of aircraft per year:

1989 2 (01 + 02)
1999 2 (1002 + 1003)
2000 3 (1004 – 1006)
2001 3 (1007 – 1009)
2002 10 (1010 – 1019/1020) … until end of first engine contract (unconfirmed numbers)
2003 23-24 (1021 – 1023 + 01 – 18 .. maybe 19 / 20) … fits to reports of 2 aircraft/month + some for ...
2004 for 44. FD similar number until end of second engine contract (54)


Oh god, I love the J-10-mystery !!

Cheers, Deino

 

[optionsss]

I have a question about J-10 ground attack capability?
This is the stats from Sino defence:

WEIGHTS
Empty 8,300kg
Typical Air-to-Air Combat 13,200kg
Max take-off 18,000kg
Fuel capacity 4,500kg
Max payload N/A

This mean J-10 should be able to carry almost up to 9 tons of payload right?
Then wouldn't it better to introduce a J-10 ground attack version to replace the JH-7s, all you really need is just to introduce some new electronics. IMHO it would both be easier for the logistics and increase the versatility of the PLAAF to have 650 J-10A + 200 J-10X(ground attack). I understand JH-7 would be cheaper, but J-10 should have a higher survival probabilitythen JH-7 and more room to upgrade for the future. Just seems like a worth while investment.
ps: assuming the engine problem is solved.

 

[Scratch]

This mean J-10 should be able to carry almost up to 9 tons of payload right?...

If you put 9t of payload in that AC that weights 8.3t empty and has a max TOW of 18t, what do you think will power the engines for starters??
The stats say it carries 4,5t of fuel, and I guess that's only internal. And I somehow don't think the sctructure could carry those 9t, but I may be wrong here.
And with JH-7 as a good attacker the AA role seems currently more importand to put a new AC in. That will take time, and cost is an issue here. I'm quiet sure J-10 will get an A-G capability in the future, but in will not totally replace JH-7s in a few years.

 

[optionsss]

If you put 9t of payload in that AC that weights 8.3t empty and has a max TOW of 18t, what do you think will power the engines for starters??
The stats say it carries 4,5t of fuel, and I guess that's only internal. And I somehow don't think the sctructure could carry those 9t, but I may be wrong here.
And with JH-7 as a good attacker the AA role seems currently more importand to put a new AC in. That will take time, and cost is an issue here. I'm quiet sure J-10 will get an A-G capability in the future, but in will not totally replace JH-7s in a few years.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking when I said 9 tons

But it just seems like with 6.5 ton max load(or mayber its 5 ton) JH-7A, is an AC a bit out of place in the PLAAF. I am not saying use J-10 to totally replace JH-7s. JH-7 is important for the PLANAF, because its longer range and can carry more anti-ship missles than J-10. To have a hi-lo combo of J-11/J-10, then what would be the purpose of a mid-seized AC in your airforce anyways? If CAC wants to put J-10 on an aircraft carrier, then they will have to open up the A2G and naval strike capability.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

How would J-10 fare against J-7/Mig-21?
IMO, J-7, since it's smaller, will outmaneuver J-10 in a dogfight.
In real life, they probably could be used together, like the NVA Mig-17/21s were against F-4s!

 

[maozedong]

Halo! lets take a rest to watch some J-10 video.
this is video click:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

this is some J-10 index from the internet:
length:14.57 metre
wing span: 8.78 span
thrust: 122 thousands newton
max speed: 2.0 M
max high limite: 18,000 metre
fighting range: 1,100 KM
max range: 2,500 KM
take off weight:19.277 ton
loading: 7 ton
reference:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[crobato]

If you put 9t of payload in that AC that weights 8.3t empty and has a max TOW of 18t, what do you think will power the engines for starters??
The stats say it carries 4,5t of fuel, and I guess that's only internal. And I somehow don't think the sctructure could carry those 9t, but I may be wrong here.
And with JH-7 as a good attacker the AA role seems currently more importand to put a new AC in. That will take time, and cost is an issue here. I'm quiet sure J-10 will get an A-G capability in the future, but in will not totally replace JH-7s in a few years.

The J-10 should be around 6-7 tons of payload with full internal fuel. If you consider the internal fuel load of 4500kg and an empty weight of 8300, you get 6447kg remaining for the payload. You should be able to adjust the ratio of payload <-> internal fuel.

I think the plane will run out of space first before you can even tax the structure.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking when I said 9 tons

But it just seems like with 6.5 ton max load(or mayber its 5 ton) JH-7A, is an AC a bit out of place in the PLAAF. I am not saying use J-10 to totally replace JH-7s. JH-7 is important for the PLANAF, because its longer range and can carry more anti-ship missles than J-10. To have a hi-lo combo of J-11/J-10, then what would be the purpose of a mid-seized AC in your airforce anyways? If CAC wants to put J-10 on an aircraft carrier, then they will have to open up the A2G and naval strike capability.

The JH-7A is officially quoted at 7 tons.

The JH-7A has other advantages over the J-10 when it comes to carrying stuff. The high shoulder mounted wing for example, gives you a lot of room to put ordinance. Not just the height of the hardpoints, but also the space between them. The J-10, IMO looks pretty cramped between its hardpoints.

Once you get a lot of stuff in your hardpoints, your aerodynamics would suffer. But it would suffer more if you have less space between the wings to provide lift. I think this is where both the JH-7A and the Sues justify themselves.

The JH-7A also appears to have terrain following capabilities in its radar, and its aerodynamics and the fluid dynamics of its engine intakes seem optimized for low level flight. I am not sure the J-10 (or any of the Sues) can chase down a JH-7A screaming just above tree tops. The jH-7A is designed as a classic low level interdictor, much like the Tornadoes, F-111 and the Su-24.

How would J-10 fare against J-7/Mig-21?
IMO, J-7, since it's smaller, will outmaneuver J-10 in a dogfight.
In real life, they probably could be used together, like the NVA Mig-17/21s were against F-4s!

In paper, the J-10 should have vital advantages; superior in instantaneous and sustained turn rates, and along the vertical plane (climbs, loops, scissors, dives). Another vital advantage is the plane's endurace. Having more fuel and missiles means it can last longer into the fight. One of the problems of MiGs is running out of fuel during a fight and is forced to disengage, providing the fatal opportunity for the attacker. Another, being low on fuel, means you can't use your afterburners as much. The J-10 also has better sensors, among them optical MAWS, which literally gives it eyes on the back. I suspect the sensors work particularly well against Flankers on dogfights.

The J-7 is small, very nimble and not easy to spot on the eye due to its size. Few aware that the MiG-21/J-7 can be regarded as a low observable. It's not a stealth jet but it does not present much of a radar cross section either. Under low altitudes and/or ECM intensive environments, it may not come out on radar on time, and by the time it does, you would already be in a dogfight.

I think when you're up high, the J-10 should win it. Down low, it becomes anyone's guess. To add, another aircraft, the Q-5 Fantan, can be another contentious opponent at low.

The J-10 should have the ability to dictate the situation of its engagement though. That means it can decide that it should fight on the grounds where it is most advantageous.

Maneuverbility of the J-7/MiG-21s are uneven among variants. The J-7E/G should be the best, and it has an incredible instant turn rate (max 25.2 deg/sec at a certain altitude), not bad when you consider the F-16A is should be around 28 deg and so are the Russian jets. But variants like the J-7C/D, the MiG-21MF and the MiG-21bis suffer from higher wing loading, so they cannot turn just as fast, perhaps not by a long shot.

corbato, no multipile post! Use the edit button to add to your last post

 

[Kim Jong Il]

How many J-10's does the PLAAF plan to buy?
What Aircraft is the J-10 going to replace?
And how good is the J-10?

 

[Pointblank]

How many J-10's does the PLAAF plan to buy?
What Aircraft is the J-10 going to replace?
And how good is the J-10?

I suggest you read here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tphuang]

How would J-10 fare against J-7/Mig-21?
IMO, J-7, since it's smaller, will outmaneuver J-10 in a dogfight.
In real life, they probably could be used together, like the NVA Mig-17/21s were against F-4s!

Not a chance, people who have seen the two fighter fly together have said that they don't know how it is even possible for a 2nd/3rd generation fighter to ever beat a 4th generation fighter. That should give you an idea of the difference.

This mean J-10 should be able to carry almost up to 9 tons of payload right?
Then wouldn't it better to introduce a J-10 ground attack version to replace the JH-7s, all you really need is just to introduce some new electronics. IMHO it would both be easier for the logistics and increase the versatility of the PLAAF to have 650 J-10A + 200 J-10X(ground attack). I understand JH-7 would be cheaper, but J-10 should have a higher survival probabilitythen JH-7 and more room to upgrade for the future. Just seems like a worth while investment.

Well, the thing is, the great your payload is, the smaller the range is. Think about it this way, JH-7A has a 1650 km combat radius with 7000 kg of payload using just internal fuel. J-10 with 3 external fuel tank and 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 only has a combat radius of 1100 km. That's a huge difference.
Also, as crobato mentionned, JH-7A is more designed for low altitude flight, which is pretty important for strike missions.