How Good is the J-10?

[powerslavenegi]

Supercruise sigh........ its become a buzzword as if it were some mythical capability,imho there are many things to it apart from just engine design and airframe drag(inclusive of weapons loadout),

Questions to be asked are
1.how much edge does this 'SC' thingy lend to contemporary non-stealth fighters with no weapons bay ? (i.e. airframe design aside without an internal weapons bay one would need to sqeeze the bypass ratio almost equal to the Turbo Jet class hence bringing down the SFC which would negate the +ves of SC vis a vis AB turbofan).

2.Supercruise perfectly blends with the F-22 design doctrine i.e. stealth apart from the low RCS the IR suppression is achieved via SC(avoiding the AB),I dont see Supercruise being of similar significance for an aircraft of RCS=2-3 msq which would be detected on a conventional Radar (at close ranges anyways the IRST or OLS would take over).

 

[Thery]

Nope, the engine yes but aerodynamics no. The areodynamics can just be adjusted a little. And didn't you hear about the Super J-10? It has two engines can super cruise incorporates stealth tech and has TVC. The Chinese were considering it for a while as cheaper alternative because they would not have to design a whole new plane but I think they left it in favor of the J-XX.

As I expected, you are talking about the myth twin engine stealth J-10 variant.

First of all, it need internal weapons bay, to achieve that the intake must change to side way instead belly ones, which means the whole middle section need redesign.

In order to install twin engine the whole tail section need redone, and its likely the tail fin also needs to change for stealth reason (likely V sharp one).

Well you may able keep the nose section but to reduce RCS further it too needs reshape. All these changes are no less work than designing a whole new plane, actually designing a new plane will be even easier.

Supercruise sigh........ its become a buzzword as if it were some mythical capability,imho there are many things to it apart from just engine design and airframe drag(inclusive of weapons loadout),

Questions to be asked are
1.how much edge does this 'SC' thingy lend to contemporary non-stealth fighters with no weapons bay ? (i.e. airframe design aside without an internal weapons bay one would need to sqeeze the bypass ratio almost equal to the Turbo Jet class hence bringing down the SFC which would negate the +ves of SC vis a vis AB turbofan).

2.Supercruise perfectly blends with the F-22 design doctrine i.e. stealth apart from the low RCS the IR suppression is achieved via SC(avoiding the AB),I dont see Supercruise being of similar significance for an aircraft of RCS=2-3 msq which would be detected on a conventional Radar (at close ranges anyways the IRST or OLS would take over).

I agree with you totally. There is only one more point I would like to add. Super-curies other than BVR advantage (given the plane is stealth) it suppose allow the plan fly further and/or longer as well. This could transfer to larger combat range and/or longer battle time.

 

[crobato]

We don't know much about Flanker versions actualy , but if you care to explain we will be glad to listen

To start with an Su-27SK has electronics no much better than an non upgraded F-4E Phantom. That's a generation behind an F-15C/F-16C in terms of radar technology, cockpit ergonomics, and defensive measures. You are talking about an aircraft that is seriously outdated.

Well you are really optimistic. Do you understand such changes are equivalent as designing a whole new plane and engine?

Before the definition of supercruise was changed to Mach 1.5 in order to make it sound the F-22 can do this exclusively, a clean F-16 Block 30 or 40 with the GE engine could break supersonic on dry thrust and meet the meaning of the original term.

So is not likely for a F-16 beat a F-15 in a one on one combat.

They do actually.

 

[Thery]

Before the definition of supercruise was changed to Mach 1.5 in order to make it sound the F-22 can do this exclusively, a clean F-16 Block 30 or 40 with the GE engine could break supersonic on dry thrust and meet the meaning of the original term.

I don’t think speed is the only difference which F-22 redefined the term super-cruise. Super-cruise by itself does not give a fighter much of advantage, it give you huge benefit only when you can achieve it efficiently and at the same time still able to combat (with loads) and stay stealth (without AB).

A fighter achieve super-cruise with clean load is almost no use in real battle. Actually same thing goes to stealth as well, most fighters have far smaller RCS when clean loaded, but it has not much of use in battle.

As mentioned earlier super-cruise is mainly for stealth fighter, for an non-stealth fighter super-cruise is not that useful since with or without after burns others still able to pin point its position with easy.

 

[powerslavenegi]

To start with an Su-27SK has electronics no much better than an non upgraded F-4E Phantom. That's a generation behind an F-15C/F-16C in terms of radar technology, cockpit ergonomics, and defensive measures. You are talking about an aircraft that is seriously outdated.

Using the baselined Flanker as an example to prove your pov aint gonna win you any brownie points if platform evaluation is what you wish to do then compare the latest evolved version of the Flanker with J-10 or whatever .

Before the definition of supercruise was changed to Mach 1.5 in order to make it sound the F-22 can do this exclusively

Was it ?? please care to post any link or credible literature supercruise ==1.5 Mach nfloorl:.

a clean F-16 Block 30 or 40 with the GE engine could break supersonic on dry thrust and meet the meaning of the original term.

Clean being the keyword here (btw what exactly are you trying to prove ?).There is hige diffrence between a platform designed ground up for super cruise and others which can merely achieve the statistics by tweaking on several other variables which might not be true in a real time scenario.

Quote:

So is not likely for a F-16 beat a F-15 in a one on one combat.

They do actually

That proves nothing for a matter of fact in the recent red flag exercises a F-16 managed to shoot down a F-22 raptor but after the latter had eaten 144 F-15's and Superbugs ,but such exceptions cannot be used to peddle a pov.

 

[tphuang]

Well you are really optimistic. Do you understand such changes are equivalent as designing a whole new plane and engine?

They are continuously upgrading the design at CAC. Just look at what they did to JF-17 for prototype 04. You can imagine the effort being used on J-10.

Questions to be asked are
1.how much edge does this 'SC' thingy lend to contemporary non-stealth fighters with no weapons bay ? (i.e. airframe design aside without an internal weapons bay one would need to sqeeze the bypass ratio almost equal to the Turbo Jet class hence bringing down the SFC which would negate the +ves of SC vis a vis AB turbofan).

2.Supercruise perfectly blends with the F-22 design doctrine i.e. stealth apart from the low RCS the IR suppression is achieved via SC(avoiding the AB),I dont see Supercruise being of similar significance for an aircraft of RCS=2-3 msq which would be detected on a conventional Radar (at close ranges anyways the IRST or OLS would take over).

nobody ever said internal weapon bay isn't part of the plan for future J-10 upgrade. Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.

I know about Sukhoi models. The best of them are the Su-30 MKI's (Indian) and MKM's (Malaysian) . Both have canards, thrust vectoring, and western avionics. That makes them the TOP planes the Russians produce. The Su-35's have Thrust vectoring and canards but no western avionics. The Sukhoi 30MKK is not the best, yet it is a good plane.

I would go at su-35, su-30mki/m, su-27sm, su-30mkk, su-27ubk with N-001VE and su-27sk. If I was to factor in J-11B, it would probably be between su-27sm and su-30mki/m. Although the thing about su-27sm is that it uses all the Russian (non-export) missiles. If you add in other planes, I would put Mig-31M, Mig-35, Mig-29SMT (iffy) better than mkk.

Thought currently Flanker serve in PLAF is SK (export type ,groud attack capability locked, radar and avionics sys handicaped) and 30MKK (mainly improved for ground attack ) su 30Mk2 and Mk3 for China are variety of mkk favoured by PLAN, which can embody KH-31A and jdam like bomb .

mk3 never got ordered, mk2 are not favoured by PLAN. They are ordering a lot of JH-7A, because it can use the full range of Chinese and Russian weaponary.

So among China s flanker virtually only su-27sk are intended to air superiority and yet it s capability was deliberately unabled .That why i m not surprised to see J-10 can easily beat them, however when it comes to J 11B or the 27U or SM(can t remember clearly) russian use themselves,J-10 will be in disadvantages. Two engine always means larger radar , higher Trust/Weight, longer range, higher speed,larger capability.

J-11B doesn't necessarily have higher T/W ratio, it certainly doesn't have higher speed. larger radar is offset by larger RCS. It's advantage are in range and payload.

 

[crobato]

Using the baselined Flanker as an example to prove your pov aint gonna win you any brownie points if platform evaluation is what you wish to do then compare the latest evolved version of the Flanker with J-10 or whatever .

What the f*ck are you trying to talk about eh? The PLAAF has baseline Flankers and that's what the evaluation is based on. The Su-30MKK is just slightly above baseline.

No one knows how the J-10---which is still in its baseline form to begin with---would compare to uprated Flankers. There may be an opportunity in this month's Peace Mission 2007, and further down the road with China's own J-11B.

Was it ?? please care to post any link or credible literature supercruise ==1.5 Mach nfloorl:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.

Are you agreeing on this definition or not?

Take it from here too.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3116-start-60.html

Clean being the keyword here (btw what exactly are you trying to prove ?).There is hige diffrence between a platform designed ground up for super cruise and others which can merely achieve the statistics by tweaking on several other variables which might not be true in a real time scenario.

The original definition of supercruise was supersonic on dry thrust, before being ammended further to make it exclusive to the F-22. As a matter of fact, a few other planes can do supersonic on dry thrust ranging from the BAC Lightning to the Concorde. The key point has nothing to do with its military relevance. It's only there to illustrate that it can.

That proves nothing for a matter of fact in the recent red flag exercises a F-16 managed to shoot down a F-22 raptor but after the latter had eaten 144 F-15's and Superbugs ,but such exceptions cannot be used to peddle a pov.

LOL. F-16s and F-15s have been DACTing for over three decades now, and not just within the US but also with other nations. F-16s winning over F-15s is not an exception. They do it regularly and consistently enough. You understand what a 1:1 ratio is?

 

[ever4244]

Well, from what i read from the official media,J-10 is not designed to compete with 4th gen fighter like F-22, It more emphasized on efficiency and multi-task rather than pure exclusive high tech such as stealth and supersonic cruise, vector trust. Those are left to J-XX , a twin engine heavy platform.

So now the mean stream of improvement of J-10 would be its ground attack capability and array radar . J-10 s upgrade will aim at the capability of European fighter and manage to become the backbone of the PLAAF while the J XX ( currently the J-11B)will be the spear head.

Maybe when those 4 gen tech became more available and cheaper ,then J-10 can adopt them .but if we mount up every best single part on a handful J-10 regardless how much does that cost , hoping it would become a super advanced 4-gen fighter ,then we lost the origin meaning of J-10 ------a light ,efficient , cheap multi-role fighter.

BTW: many chinese article are argue about the 2-engine variety of j-10, but many expert believe moding j10 to a 2 engine one will take enough time and money to develop a brand new plane. the promblem is , even if the variety is a success ,it can t be much more than a european fighter,but the true threat comes from F-22, So rather than working for a 3.5 gen fighter ,we would take a bit more time to achieve a real 4 gen one . then the improved J10 can still have a place in supporting mission and numerous soft task on the field.

reviewing the 1 to 2 transformation , only the F-4 is a total success.
Phantasm 4000 is super-advanced 2.5 gen who can beat a 3 gen, but no one want to buy it because the concept is already outdated and super-advance also means super expensive .
J-8 is intended for defend F-4, but when it came out ,the F-16 has been in its prime for years.

 

[Thery]

They are continuously upgrading the design at CAC. Just look at what they did to JF-17 for prototype 04. You can imagine the effort being used on J-10.


nobody ever said internal weapon bay isn't part of the plan for future J-10 upgrade. Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.

I have never doubt CAC have upgrade plan for J-10, actually lots people are speculating that the J-10 variant going to be has DSI intake, fitting with removable conformal fuel tank to boost J-10’s ground strike ability.

At the same time reduce RCS and weight by use more composite material and install more advanced avionics and engine. These changes do not make J-10 fully stealthy or give it super-cruise ability, but they are reasonable and are expected.

But if you are talking about change J-10 into a twin engine fully stealthy fighter, then the modification is same as designing a whole new plane and will take long time and lots money.

More important this modification share almost except technical bottle neck as designing the next generation fighter. So there is no logical reason why must improve J-10 to such level instead designing a new plane other than military fans’ bias.

 

[crobato]

Well, from what i read from the official media,J-10 is not designed to compete with 4th gen fighter like F-22, It more emphasized on efficiency and multi-task rather than pure exclusive high tech such as stealth and supersonic cruise, vector trust. Those are left to J-XX , a twin engine heavy platform.

So now the mean stream of improvement of J-10 would be its ground attack capability and array radar . J-10 s upgrade will aim at the capability of European fighter and manage to become the backbone of the PLAAF while the J XX ( currently the J-11B)will be the spear head.

Maybe when those 4 gen tech became more available and cheaper ,then J-10 can adopt them .but if we mount up every best single part on a handful J-10 regardless how much does that cost , hoping it would become a super advanced 4-gen fighter ,then we lost the origin meaning of J-10 ------a light ,efficient , cheap multi-role fighter.

BTW: many chinese article are argue about the 2-engine variety of j-10, but many expert believe moding j10 to a 2 engine one will take enough time and money to develop a brand new plane. the promblem is , even if the variety is a success ,it can t be much more than a european fighter,but the true threat comes from F-22, So rather than working for a 3.5 gen fighter ,we would take a bit more time to achieve a real 4 gen one . then the improved J10 can still have a place in supporting mission and numerous soft task on the field.

reviewing the 1 to 2 transformation , only the F-4 is a total success.
Phantasm 4000 is super-advanced 2.5 gen who can beat a 3 gen, but no one want to buy it because the concept is already outdated and super-advance also means super expensive .
J-8 is intended for defend F-4, but when it came out ,the F-16 has been in its prime for years.

You make some very good and lucid points.

The J-10 and J-11B is intended to be the dual structure of the PLAAF. The modernized Flanker J-11B will probably the heavy duty ranged plaform until J-xx comes out. The J-10 becomes the muscle to fill the bones.

So where do you fill in the other planes? The JH-7A appears to be the strike specialist, though it will fight A2A if forced to defend itself. The role of the JF-17 is not very clear. Conventional wisdom suggests the replacement of the J-7 at the low end, and that it may be impossible budgetwise to use the J-10 and J-11B to fill every need. On the other hand, at this stage, the PLAAF has yet to make an official order of the JF-17. Furthermore, no JF-17 prototypes are spotted in the official PLAAF testing grounds, either in the CFTC or the FTTC.

I believe that officially, the line of development on the J-10 is the integration of new weapons and avionics; further improvement of the radar, maybe eventually to PESA or AESA; more powerful engines with the good likelihood of TVC. Though it is expected that the J-10 may eventually use the WS-10A, it seems Salut does not intend to give up the business without a fight with major carrots on the deal.

The two engined Typhoonesque J-10 variant in my opinion, could have been a serious proposal by CAC, probably with the intention to grab more business from its rival SAC which makes the J-11. It may also have been proposed for any potential carrier plan. But so far it appears the PLAAF has not approved of it or is funding it. In the carrier side, it appears that the navalized J-11 is the front runner.

 

[swerve]

... Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.....

No, sustainable high speed does that. It can be achieved either with or without afterburner. Supercruise is advantageous because it uses much less fuel than afterburners, so high speed can be sustained, instead of being for brief bursts only. But the MiG-25, MiG-31 & SR-71 can (or could) sustain high speeds by having specialised engines which are relatively fuel-efficient while afterburning. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[powerslavenegi]

nobody ever said internal weapon bay isn't part of the plan for future J-10 upgrade. Well, supercruise allows a fighter jet to fire off its missiles and get out of the action area.

nfloorl: yes for that 'no body' was sane enough to know the difference between an UPGRADE and re-engineering (infact at a level approaching building a completely new aircraft).

UPGRADE J-10 with internal weapons bay,supercruising TF and stealthy airframe ..........anything else on your wish list ?

 

[T-95]

That proves nothing for a matter of fact in the recent red flag exercises a F-16 managed to shoot down a F-22 raptor but after the latter had eaten 144 F-15's and Superbugs ,but such exceptions cannot be used to peddle a pov.

No it wasn't an F-16 that shot down an F-22 at Red Flag it was an F-18 super bug I even had a picture of the lock but I can't find it. Anyways I think the the F-16 is second most maneuverable production plane built by the US so far after the F-22 correct if I'm wrong.

 

[nero]

Dsi

No in BVR China wouldnt stand a chance against Russia's 30's

In dogfight sure it could have defeat Su-30 but dogfight is mostly about the pilot , so its not certain that J-10 is better.
Looking at the specifications overall J-10 is quite impresive, but if i had to choose i would put my money on the Su-30 still , that test didn't mean anything.

. J-10 is quite impressive.

4th prototype version is said to be redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSIs) being the most notable feature; according to Lockheed Martin, DSIs are more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSIs also divert turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet.

All precision guided munitions listed above are either GPS or radar guided, and when the television or laser guided munitions are deployed, addition electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky pod must be carried externally in order to provide guidance and targeting information


all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon



.

 

[powerslavenegi]

What the f*ck are you trying to talk about eh?

Sigh...that tells from where are you coming...... anyways the point is my post was legible enough for people to understand I dont know what part of it you did not get .

No one knows how the J-10---which is still in its baseline form to begin with---would compare to uprated Flankers. There may be an opportunity in this month's Peace Mission 2007, and further down the road with China's own J-11B.

I hope that you understand the fact that 'no one' includes you too hence stop yapping about the J-10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.

Are you agreeing on this definition or not?

I did not ask for the definition I know it,I questioned your claim that SC was redefined do refer to your post where you calimed SC speed ==1.5 Mach

Take it from here too.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3116-start-60.html

So much for your credible links that is yet another forum where does it say SC==1.5 Mach ??

The original definition of supercruise was supersonic on dry thrust, before being ammended further to make it exclusive to the F-22. As a matter of fact, a few other planes can do supersonic on dry thrust ranging from the BAC Lightning to the Concorde. The key point has nothing to do with its military relevance. It's only there to illustrate that it can.

Supercruise is fine but the point is under what circumstances and operational
scenario is the same being achieved what good is a CLEAN F-16 going at Mach1+ such instances are of academic purposes only what matters is cruising speed with mission critical weapons loadout ? How many combat fighters achieve that ?

LOL. F-16s and F-15s have been DACTing for over three decades now, and not just within the US but also with other nations. F-16s winning over F-15s is not an exception. They do it regularly and consistently enough. You understand what a 1:1 ratio is?

Look here mate you seem to have scrolled by my entire post ,I mentioned the Raptor .......please read before you reply.

 

[crobato]

Sigh...that tells from where are you coming...... anyways the point is my post was legible enough for people to understand I dont know what part of it you did not get .

And my posts are more than legible enough for anyone [mod edit: please avoid the convoluted insults. thank you.] to understand.

I hope that you understand the fact that 'no one' includes you too hence stop yapping about the J-10.

Wth do you mean huh? The bottomline, the J-10 has beaten the Su-27, J-11 and Su-30MKK in exercises according to the PLAAF. It ha followed that up by ceasing production of the J-11 and purchases of the Su-30MKK. They meant business. Now the J-10 is has to be tested against bigger game, particularly the J-11B or whatever the Russians are willing to offer.

I did not ask for the definition I know it,I questioned your claim that SC was redefined do refer to your post where you calimed SC speed ==1.5 Mach

So much for your credible links that is yet another forum where does it say SC==1.5 Mach ??

I read that from www.f-16.net. I bet you there are a lot of posters there that have a first hand experience in aviation than you.

Supercruise is fine but the point is under what circumstances and operational
scenario is the same being achieved what good is a CLEAN F-16 going at Mach1+ such instances are of academic purposes only what matters is cruising speed with mission critical weapons loadout ? How many combat fighters achieve that ?

So what?

The purpose was meant to illustrate for academic and technical purposes only.

No one ever said or claimed it for military purposes. You are the one projecting your own advocacy to any post around here.

Look here mate you seem to have scrolled by my entire post ,I mentioned the Raptor .......please read before you reply.

So what the hell is the Raptor relevant here eh? Read the title of thread.

Follow your own freaking advice. Moderators please.

 

[crobato]

. J-10 is quite impressive.

4th prototype version is said to be redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSIs) being the most notable feature; according to Lockheed Martin, DSIs are more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSIs also divert turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet.

So far no J-10 prototype has been sighted with DSI unlike the JF-17. So DSI J-10 is an extrapolation or speculation for now.

All precision guided munitions listed above are either GPS or radar guided, and when the television or laser guided munitions are deployed, addition electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky pod must be carried externally in order to provide guidance and targeting information


all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon

The last part remains to be seen.

 

[XaNDeR]

all in all the J-10 can easily compete with the F-35 & the typhoon

.

Your joking right ?

First of all why do you even compare J-10 which is a fighter , too F-35 which is not intended for air supreority , second of all J-10 is not better than Typhoon , it comes nowhere near with BVR capability's , Eurofighter would shoot him down before he even had him on the radar ..

 

[powerslavenegi]

Now the J-10 is has to be tested against bigger game, particularly the J-11B or whatever the Russians are willing to offer.

Well if J-10 indeed has so many mythical capabilities then why churn up home made RU Flanker lookalikes aka J11B.

I read that from www.f-16.net. I bet you there are a lot of posters there that have a first hand experience in aviation than you.

Point me to a poster/link who said or mentioned SC speed==1.5 Mach which you were claiming otherwise,you have no proofs to back your claims .we all are waiting for you to come up with proper citations.

So what?
The purpose was meant to illustrate for academic and technical purposes only.No one ever said or claimed it for military purposes. You are the one projecting your own advocacy to any post around here.

Co incidently that 'no one' happens to be you alone ,Afaik we discuss weapon specs which are meant for military use and objectives .

So what the hell is the Raptor relevant here eh? Read the title of thread.
Follow your own freaking advice. Moderators please.

Raptor is very much of significance for it is you who came up with a F-16(again is that related to the thread OH I forgot my bad J-10 and F-16 related true eh....) achieveing the SC in CLEAN config (I am scared),I mentioned the Raptor for it is the only bird out there which was made ground up to super cruise with mission critical combat load (although I have heard of EF and Rafael too having a limited capability to SC under certain config) .

 

[tphuang]

Well, from what i read from the official media,J-10 is not designed to compete with 4th gen fighter like F-22, It more emphasized on efficiency and multi-task rather than pure exclusive high tech such as stealth and supersonic cruise, vector trust. Those are left to J-XX , a twin engine heavy platform.

So now the mean stream of improvement of J-10 would be its ground attack capability and array radar . J-10 s upgrade will aim at the capability of European fighter and manage to become the backbone of the PLAAF while the J XX ( currently the J-11B)will be the spear head.

From all evidence, J-10's position as the spearhead as not changed with the induction of J-11B. Even if (that's a huge if), the J-11B can do better than J-10 in whatever exercises happen between them, that would still be SAC's newest product to CAC's product from 2005. Meaning, they are still going to make changes to J-10 and the next variant, will be undoubtfully better than J-11B. It's true that J-10 is not intended to compete with F-22, but neither is J-11B. What flanker series does bring is more payload and longer range.
I have nothing against flankers in plaaf, but they are future in pla reside mostly in naval airwing and long range fighter bomber (like F-15E/su-34)

I have never doubt CAC have upgrade plan for J-10, actually lots people are speculating that the J-10 variant going to be has DSI intake, fitting with removable conformal fuel tank to boost J-10’s ground strike ability.

At the same time reduce RCS and weight by use more composite material and install more advanced avionics and engine. These changes do not make J-10 fully stealthy or give it super-cruise ability, but they are reasonable and are expected.

In terms of just J-10 itself, there will be some major mod. Becoming a stealth plane is out of question, but becoming as stealthy as say Rafale is still achievable. Having capability to super cruise is not as hard to achieve. Think about it this way, even Gripen was said to be able to go faster than mach1.0 in A2A config without using afterburners. Typhoon has actually done it in A2A config. Rafale probably can do it in empty config. With improved engine and aerodynamics, SC is definitely not out of question imo.

But if you are talking about change J-10 into a twin engine fully stealthy fighter, then the modification is same as designing a whole new plane and will take long time and lots money.

China isn't short on money. This proposed twin-engined "J-10" is the bridge between J-10 and the 5th generation plane (from SAC I guess).

No, sustainable high speed does that. It can be achieved either with or without afterburner. Supercruise is advantageous because it uses much less fuel than afterburners, so high speed can be sustained, instead of being for brief bursts only. But the MiG-25, MiG-31 & SR-71 can (or could) sustain high speeds by having specialised engines which are relatively fuel-efficient while afterburning. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

sure, that's what I'm saying. I'm clearly not talking about SR-71 is a special plane. I'm not sure Mig-25/31 can remain as fuel efficient using afterburners as SR-71.

yes for that 'no body' was sane enough to know the difference between an UPGRADE and re-engineering (infact at a level approaching building a completely new aircraft).

a lot of people would say the jump from prototype 3 to prototype 4 for JF-17 was like creating a new plane. Unlike the Russians, China does not create a new designation every time it makes a major change.

UPGRADE J-10 with internal weapons bay,supercruising TF and stealthy airframe ..........anything else on your wish list ?

well, if you have a hard time accepting some of the changes planned on J-10, that's not my problem.

Well if J-10 indeed has so many mythical capabilities then why churn up home made RU Flanker lookalikes aka J11B.

you clearly haven't read anything we wrote. They are by competing firms. Like you know, LM producing F-22 hasn't stopped Boeing from producing super hornets? And the other reason is that they need some experience developing an A2A version before moving on to the more complex carrier version and long range fighter/bomber version.