J-10 assessment

[gf0012-aust]

Unable to provide a link on this.

Recent pictures obtained by Frost & Sullivan show the new J-10 combat aircraft more closely than ever before. At first look, the aircraft is very impressive, particularly when compared to previous generation Chinese built types. However, one must be cautious about the true extent of Chinese "original" content in this aircraft, as many experts of the Chinese military have extensively elaborated upon in the past.

We have examined the aircraft and its capabilities internally, as well as in previous articles, roughly equivalent to an F-16C, the FC-10 is China’s hope to achieve independence in the production of advanced combat aircraft and may have export potential in the next 5-6 years.

Such a program however has significant repercussions for the Chinese industry as a whole. The advanced technologies developed for and used on this aircraft have propelled the Chinese industry in a new technology era, and will most likely lead to the acceleration of several new programs in the area of weapon systems, payloads and sensors.

To some degree, the J-10 is roughly the equivalent of a mini Apollo program for the Chinese. We estimate that roughly 150,000 people are directly or indirectly participating in this program. As a direct consequence of the lengthy development of J-10, China has made key advances in the areas of propulsion, low observability and flight control systems that will be further refined and integrated in the J-12.

This also raises the usual concerns about technology transfers by third party countries such as Israel and Pakistan, which have undoubtedly provided China with a wealth of knowledge, worth millions of man-hours of research and development.

Now, looking back at the aircraft itself, it is most interesting to note the apparent quality of the manufacturing process, which is in sharp contrast with previous versions of the J-8II for example. Engines and radar are derivatives or licensed versions of Russian origin initially developed for the ill-fated Mig-33. Indeed, China and its original partner in the J-10 project, Israel, were not capable of developing the advanced propulsion system needed for aircraft. China then turned to Russia who initially supplied the AL-31F, which are used in China's J-11 Flankers. J-10 now uses the modified AL-31FN, which is a miniaturized upgraded version of the F model and has a modular afterburner.

We also believe that the current engine used on the J-10 is only going to be fitted on early production; a next generation engine, the WS-10/A turbofan engines designed by Shenyang Motor Company will likely be fitted later on. The WS-10/A has already completed flight-testing on a J-11/SU27. We can expect WS-10/A to be a lighter engine with performance superior to the AL-31FN, in the area of 25,000Lbs of thrust. Russian and Chinese engineers are also collaborating in the area of thrust vectoring developed for the SU-35, and future versions of J-10 or more likely J-12 could be fitted with this additional capability.

J-10 is bad news for Taiwan and India. Now equipped with advanced generation aircraft (J-11, J-10 and may be FC-1), and developing its AEW capabilities, China is almost on par technologically with some of Taiwan’s most advanced aircraft.

Still, much needs to be done in the areas of training and weapon systems to give the PLAAF a significant advantage over the Taiwan straits. Although China is in a position to fight and possibly win such an engagement now, its capabilities and chances of success will reach new levels around 2008-2009. That’s of course if you take the US out of the equation…


-- ends --

Whats interesting about this is that Frost and Sullivan are moving the goal posts on Chinas threat level. Up until this, every analyst had looked at China being "Taiwan capable" by 2006.

 

[P.A.F]

listen mate! the US don't need to be taken out the equation. my personal view is that China will kill the US for joke. the US can't take it so all they do is release some dumb propaganda against china being a week nation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

listen mate! the US don't need to be taken out the equation. my personal view is that China will kill the US for joke. the US can't take it so all they do is release some dumb propaganda against china being a week nation.

You need to look at the reality of what China currently has in place. It is not militarily capable of taking Taiwan. The last report submitted by the PLAN and PLAAF by their war college admitted it themselves.

As for China being weak, that is always an issue of a point in time.

Lets assume you are serious in your comments. Please explain to me how China is capable of waging war against the US and winning a full theatre war that is unlocked, choose a nuclear or non nuclear scenario and convince me that China has the capacity to wage an intercontinental conflict and come out as the winner.

You are challenging the Chinese own strategic assessments of their capability. Take away their nukes and they could not wage war on France. (who in actual fact has more nukes and a greater capacity to deploy them from multiple platforms)

I am assuming that you're joking. But I am happy to wargame this if you insist.

Lets remember that I posted an article, getting excited at its contents and venting your spleen demonstrate that you have lost a little focus. and just to add a little piece of extra info, I'm actually part chinese.

 

[webmaster]

Here is the link with some pictures:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_001579.shtml

 

[gf0012-aust]

Here is the link with some pictures:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_001579.shtml

Thx web, mine was a subscriber only acct, so I was a bit loathe to publish a link with my password.

 

[adsH]

GF the problem i see with all these new developments that China strives to achieve and does achieve like the J-10 is that by the time they would have this bird flying (which is rite now) another more advance weapon would come into the Equation the US maintains this tech gap purposely to Maintain superiority!!, and i would agree with your assumption and assertion about Training, I would say Training makes a Hell lot of difference!! the ability to interact and conduct a war in a professional Armies way is not an easy task let alone for a Army of 5 million men. thats why the UK has always maintained a small professional Army which can't be counted out if you list the best Armies in the world. they have the means and the will to fight any country if they need to!! means i would say there Quality traineing ands lets leave out the "will" which is a completely different issue!1 but means as, they can wage war on a global scale reach any part of the world and return with minimal casualties, a strong assertion but quiet an acceptable one, wouldn't you say?

 

[Pathfinder-X]

china does process a superior number of aircraft compare to taiwan, but most of that aircrafts are J-6(still numbering around a thousand),J-7(around 2000), J-8s(5 to 8 hundreds) with no BVR capability, the new 3rd generation fighters only makes up a small percentage of the front line fighters, around 200 J-11, 80 Su-30, 30 J-10s. at this point chinese does not process a edge on quality against ROC airforce, although the gap is closing fast. it was estimated by JDW that china will have the upper hand around 2010.

 

[adsH]

Path finder whats the point if every AC would get shot down the ideal defence for Taiwan is not to prevent a physical takeover as this is impossible,but rather to prevent a smooth takeover, to inflict so much harm on China as an opponent that it (china) would rule out an invasion make the milk so sour tasting that it would be unbearable to drink!, you would ask how do i know this well look at any small nation competing with a large one!! they all have similar strategies, take PAK INDIA Pak has alwyas tried to stay ahead in training and Logitics and Equipment but idis is continuously trying to match and even supass pak in Tech it already has an advantage in Population of 10 to 1 and its land 5 to 1 and its military 2 to 1, but the only thinkg that lags behind is Quality and training and effective logistics. And pak know it can't stop an army of that size so it has tried to Kit its self to the max of its ability to make the invetible victory india unbareable, so unbareable that they would not even think of invadeing.

in taiwan, there for all these patriots missiles and sam and radar tech that they are investing inn. they know what they have to concentrate onn, what china is now working onn, is countering what ever tai has but its hard to do that since what tai has is what the US has. So china is trying to bring its tech upto and extent where they could compensate the tech gap with there numbers, and bring down the level of casulaties of there armed forces, ie adding suggar to the glass of soured milk to make it bareable to drink.


you could draw parallels between India Pak and china Taiwan, except that Allies are differnt!! and the proportions are different but the same idea applies

 

[Aussie Digger]

PAF, your comments are ridiculous. 2 or 3 US carrier battle groups and a few missile firing subs, off the coast of China would make it near impossible for China to invade Taiwan. Their "thousands" of aircraft wouldn't even get off the ground, as their runways would be destroyed through Tomahawk and stealth bomber/fighter strikes before the US even got serious. The damage inflicted on China would force them to the negotiation table before they got any actual benefit from trying to re-take Taiwan. What would be the point of re-taking a smoking ruined hole of an island, een if China did manage to win? They want the economic benefits from Taiwan, not a smoking wasteland where anything of value has been destroyed. A military takeover of Taiwan, could not succeed in it's goal in my view. They "might" be able to take the island, but there would be very little of value left there. Possession of Taiwan, would be meaningless at that point...

 

[Red aRRow]

AD, a nuke tipped Dong Feng will easily take care of a battle group.
Anyways the thing is that China should be so developed and present such an attractive prospect that Taiwan should voluntarily join back with the mainland. That would be the ideal outcome.
Anyways topic is J-10 so please try to debate the plane and not the political scenario.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AD, a nuke tipped Dong Feng will easily take care of a battle group.

We don't normally have much of a disagreement on things, but I have to say I do on this one.

1) US battle Groups in war formation are spread out over 100+ sq miles, they are done so to minimise vessel damage. All the tests the US did on derelict naval vessels with A-bomb and H-bomb sea tests was to test the spread and effect of a nuclear strike.

2) The Dong Feng would require target updates on journey to attack the fleet, China does not have the satellite coverage to do this. The last assessment was that for a CV battle group to be accurately tracked by satellite for targetting purposes would require a minimum of 128 satellites on a known "racetrack". China does not have that level of satellite coverage. It also does not have the capacity to update a ballistic missile on a moving target.

3) The US knows how difficult it is due to the Russians changing their targetting doctrine to one of saturation and swarming. Their tactical nukes run on a separate satellite system. They also assumed that even with an air launched nuke strike on a CBG that less than 5% had a chance of getting through. - On a dispersed fleet spread out over 100sq miles it would be very difficult to take out any other vessels as all US tico class and up vessels have NBC proof citadels - a nuke would have to direct hit a vessel to compromise the VLS launchers

4) The intercept radius of a battle group is 1000m plus (obviously classified - but it also does not include the issue of whether the BG is under the path of a US sat "racetrack" - if so, then it's depth just increased substantially). It's a layered defence, and any vessels that are kitted out with either ESSM or RAM2 can intercept the BM. So there is a graded defence layer specifically designed to trap incoming supersonics etc... Current critical fleet escort assets are being kitted out with ESSM which can act as an anti-BM weapon.

5) Since approx the early 60's, at least one vessel in the battle group is tasked as the emulator. So if someone launches at a CVN, unless they are guided visually, then those missiles will in all likelihood be seduced by the hack. I know of a bloke in the USN who actually never understood what it was that he used to have to protect with a weapon - it turns out that it was the seduction black box on that vessel - he now understands he had an important job. The technology to do the same job is a bit different now, but the concept and principle still stands.

6) USN escorts are also fitted with an Aust'n invention called Nulka - also designed to emulate the host vessel and to act as a seducer. There was discussion at some point that Nulka could be used to emulate a given vessel, if so, then that means that potentially 5-8 vessels in the task force are transmitting data to simulate a CVN. It would be a targetting nightmare. Each vessel is far away enough from another vessel so as to not cause damage. In some cases (apart from the hacker and the guard vessel) they are BVR

There are about 4 other technologies in place which would make a ballistic or supersonic strike on a CVN BG a "non"-event. (not meaning to be cavalier or dismissive - but the supersonic threat etc is overplayed)


So, if we try to stay on subject and include the J-10 as part of a strike element - it will have a very hard time breaking defences. Against a conventional CV-BG it might be lucky, but certainly the pilot is challenging the survival stats if he takes on a US/UK/French style battle group.


Finally, I do like the J-10 , it's an example with potential - I'd be more worried about what comes after it, rather than "it" itself at this stage of the game.

 

[Red aRRow]

Points taken gf.

 

[srirangan]

>> my personal view is that China will kill the US for joke.

Kill US for a Joke?? OMFG .. What are you smoking?

 

[adsH]

>> my personal view is that China will kill the US for joke.

Kill US for a Joke?? OMFG .. What are you smoking?

Apparently something that makes people see things !!

 

[Soldier]

>> my personal view is that China will kill the US for joke.

Kill US for a Joke?? OMFG .. What are you smoking?

Apparently something that makes people see things !!

Let us know the name so that we can also see clearly just like him.. It is a friendly forum, ain't it bud?

 

[P.A.F]

I have to admit that china will one day take over and be the worlds greatest power.
anyway back to this J-10 topic. i think the j-10 is an excellent achievment for the chinese and it will serve them well.

 

[Red aRRow]

We don't normally have much of a disagreement on things, but I have to say I do on this one.

1) US battle Groups in war .......................................
......................................................................................
Finally, I do like the J-10 , it's an example with potential - I'd be more worried about what comes after it, rather than "it" itself at this stage of the game.

I gave your points some thought and they are valid. However in a China-Taiwan scenario the CBGs should be comparatively grouped closer together in or around the coast of China and/or in the Taiwan Straits. Such a scenario will be putting the CBGs in compromised positions making it easier for PLAN assets to track the carriers.
J-10s, JH-7As (armed with C-803s) and the Moskit fitted Soveremennys (spellings!!) will not be sitting idly. So I guess this image of an invincible carrier battle group is mostly a fantasy. Carriers can and will be attacked/sunk in confrontations with matched enemies.

Coming back to the topic....I think J-10s complimented with well trained pilots should be a good match for aircrafts upto the level of FA-18 Hornets and F-16s. However if matched against Su-30s and/or Eurofighter generation aircrafts, then they would be at a disadvantage.

 

[gf0012-aust]

None of the strike simulations I have seen show a strike force in the straits.

They don't need to expose themselves in that fashion.

The straits can be locked up at either end by nukes. The strike force can stand off.

CVN's aren't invincible, but I can assure you that the scenarios that people talk about in here have been warganed endlessly and the USN does know its limitations.

By the time a CVN is compromised, the boomer response alone would decimate china.

a few pertinent stats:

chinese ASW is not effective,

the chinese do not have sufficient nukes or ssk's to trail every one of the USN's boomers - something that the USSR and the USA did with each other to neutralise the threat

the nuke throw weight of the USN SSKN's alone is greater than Chinas total land based throw weight - that doesn't include the capability of USN surface assets to throw N tipped tomahawks. It also doesn't include their own supersonic missiles which are used to simulate Yakhonts and Brahmos and can still be N tipped (as they were originally)

The loss of a carrier has commonly been accepted as the precursor to responding with a nuke - that was implicitly expressed in the cold war - and it would still stand now.

 

[adsH]

carrier is the Flag ship that carries the mind of the fleet right so technically it should have secret defenses not known by us mere mortals!! shouldn't we take the Fact X (X being "the Unkown defense") when simulating such conflicts.

 

[rick k]

china does process a superior number of aircraft compare to taiwan, but most of that aircrafts are J-6(still numbering around a thousand),J-7(around 2000), J-8s(5 to 8 hundreds) with no BVR capability, the new 3rd generation fighters only makes up a small percentage of the front line fighters, around 200 J-11, 80 Su-30, 30 J-10s. at this point chinese does not process a edge on quality against ROC airforce, although the gap is closing fast.

The PLAAF and PLANAF combined has at most 10 regiments of J-6s still operational. That would be around 250 maximum but is likely to be less than 100. The number of J-7s is right around 1000 and the number of J-8s is between 250-300. The numbers you have for J-11s and Su-30s are very close. 30 J-10s is speculation to the best of my knowledge. I am interested in your source for that info. There have been 10 delivered to the Flight Test and Training Center and that occurred early last year. There could be a regiment of them forming but 30 seems too high. Doubful Chengdu would start right off producing 30 J-10s per year.

The total force of the PLAAF, including bombers and attack planes is in the 2000-2500 range, not nearly the 4000 reported in many sources.