LCA VS J-10 (Closed)

[Aussie Digger]

Re: LCA VS J-10

The current generation of western fighters Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, Super Hornet etc have all been in development since the early 80's. Some of these are already in need of a technology refresh. There's a principle which states that computer processing power will double every 12 months, I can't recall the name of the principle off hand, perhaps gf can help? The F-22, widely considered the most modern of all new generation fighters has on board computers that are only roughly equivalent to desktop computers that were available years ago. I've read that to upgrade the computers in the F-22 will cost hundreds of millions if not billions (US) to achieve. Even when this is achieved processing power will have again improved no doubt. Comparing LCA to the JF-17 is rather unfair in my view. The LCA has been under development for nearly as long as the "Western" Fighters, but has yet to even proceed to low rate initial production. The JF-17 is even further behind, as I understand it. I really can'tr see the point of comparing platforms when the design of one isn't even "set in concrete" yet. How does anyone know the LCA's radar will bbe better than the JF-17 or whatever when that radar hasn't even been decided yet? I also read an article in Airforce Monthly a while back that was fairly critical of the entire LCA program an even went so far as to suggest that the whole program may be abandoned in favour of Mirage 2000's. This article stated that even if significant design hurdles were overcome and despite the obvious effort that has gone into the aircraft, at the end of the day, the IAF would only receive an "average" combat aircraft in terms of it's overall level of capability and might not be worth the effort of pursuing any further...

 

[adsH]

Re: LCA VS J-10

The current generation of western fighters Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, Super Hornet etc have all been in development since the early 80's. Some of these are already in need of a technology refresh. There's a principle which states that computer processing power will double every 12 months, I can't recall the name of the principle off hand, perhaps gf can help? The F-22, widely considered the most modern of all new generation fighters has on board computers that are only roughly equivalent to desktop computers that were available years ago. I've read that to upgrade the computers in the F-22 will cost hundreds of millions if not billions (US) to achieve. Even when this is achieved processing power will have again improved no doubt. Comparing LCA to the JF-17 is rather unfair in my view. The LCA has been under development for nearly as long as the "Western" Fighters, but has yet to even proceed to low rate initial production. The JF-17 is even further behind, as I understand it. I really can'tr see the point of comparing platforms when the design of one isn't even "set in concrete" yet. How does anyone know the LCA's radar will bbe better than the JF-17 or whatever when that radar hasn't even been decided yet? I also read an article in Airforce Monthly a while back that was fairly critical of the entire LCA program an even went so far as to suggest that the whole program may be abandoned in favour of Mirage 2000's. This article stated that even if significant design hurdles were overcome and despite the obvious effort that has gone into the aircraft, at the end of the day, the IAF would only receive an "average" combat aircraft in terms of it's overall level of capability and might not be worth the effort of pursuing any further...

AD those are valid points but the reason that the system cycles ie development, takes a long time is because they can afford to take a long time. And competitors should have the same development time so basically all of the equipment are in sync with each other. Oh tech changes every 6 months apparently. and i think what you were saying about hardware being updated there is a solution that i saw the RAAF implementing it. they chose software upgrades method (I think one of the very first ones to use that) instead of Hardware upgrades. so if you update software and introduce new cleverer Algorithms you can achieve better efficiency. And in the same time introduce newer functions the thing you said about JF-17 would have an older avionics well i am sure the platform the basic aircraft started there design cycles along time ago, but the Avionics came from an Italian firm, they developed the onboard computer software and other avionics systems and they were designed a few years back. the same is with LCA it had its avionics designed a few years back i would think avionics are the last thing that gets designed don't you ? if they say its 3rd generation we have no reason to not believe them. While supporters of the LCA try and claim LCA may be becoming some sort of competitor of the F-22 and the EF2000, at least I don’t think the people that make them believe that is the case.

 

[darklegent]

Re: LCA VS J-10

Looking at the arguement of MIL - Standard computers on-board I wud like to put forth a question as to what is the processing speed between the onboard memory and the main processor (computer term wud be FSB or Front side bus speeds).

 

[adsH]

Re: LCA VS J-10

Looking at the arguement of MIL - Standard computers on-board I wud like to put forth a question as to what is the processing speed between the onboard memory and the main processor (computer term wud be FSB or Front side bus speeds).

is that processing spead ! or the transfer spead i think on normal computers i have seen 1 gHz FSB but thats on the new Mac G5

"Bandwidth to burn
The Power Mac G5’s ultra-high bandwidth system architecture features up to 1GHz frontside bus — one on each processor — for maximum throughput. And a point-to-point system controller lets data move directly between subsystems, without affecting processor function."
http://www.apple.com/powermac/

Do look at the Virginia tech universities super computer its made out of over a thousand dual 2 ghz Mac G5 man its fast and cheap !!! third ranking fastest super computer and just under $5 mill its cheap

http://www.apple.com/hardware/video/virginiatech/

 

[umair]

adsh, the avionics for the PAF JF-17 are not of italian(FIAR) origin.PAF is going for THALES tech for the Thunder, of which 90%+ is compareable to modern fighters.

 

[adsH]

adsh, the avionics for the PAF JF-17 are not of italian(FIAR) origin.PAF is going for THALES tech for the Thunder, of which 90%+ is compareable to modern fighters.

interesting good insight thumbs up for that correction. i was under the impression they were going for the custom designed Italin avionics, the new thales french avionics would mean the AC would be very capable.

 

[ipfreak]

LCA VS J-10

wow ... now we r going to see "dog fights" here ...

 

[BruteGorilla]

Re: LCA VS J-10

Comparing LCA to the JF-17 is rather unfair in my view. The LCA has been under development for nearly as long as the "Western" Fighters, but has yet to even proceed to low rate initial production. The JF-17 is even further behind, as I understand it. I really can'tr see the point of comparing platforms when the design of one isn't even "set in concrete" yet. How does anyone know the LCA's radar will bbe better than the JF-17 or whatever when that radar hasn't even been decided yet? I also read an article in Airforce Monthly a while back that was fairly critical of the entire LCA program an even went so far as to suggest that the whole program may be abandoned in favour of Mirage 2000's. This article stated that even if significant design hurdles were overcome and despite the obvious effort that has gone into the aircraft, at the end of the day, the IAF would only receive an "average" combat aircraft in terms of it's overall level of capability and might not be worth the effort of pursuing any further...

You should check the history of J-10

`original' J-10 which allegedly was a paper project attempted during the 1970s. It has been speculated that China would develop a swing-wing fighter copied or derived from the MiG-23 and with capabilities similar to the F-111. The project never materialized. Sometime in 1987-88, the Lavi project was re-christened the J-10 or Project 10 at Chengdu Aircraft Company (CAC). As the PRC requirement was somewhat different from the Israeli requirement, the project underwent a complete redefinition. The first prototype of the J-10 is believed to have flown in 1996 and long period of testing followed. The first production model flew in June 28, 2002.

It has standard design and is not as complex as LCA tailless compound delta design. The LCA idea was born in 1983. full-scale engineering development (FSED) Phase I was sanctioned by the Government of India in June 1993.On 4th January 2001, LCA flew for the first time.Phase II of LCA programme was sanctioned by the Government in November 2001. 6 prototypes are ordered.As of Apr 19,04 The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) is likely to get an order for producing 40 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas, from the Indian Air Force (IAF). That includes included 32 fighters and eight trainers. (hence Mirages are not going to kill LCA).

I have not bothered posting links as its avaliable on Google. Check the developental history. Two J10's crashed while testing. There are more reports of J-10 crashes (Google again). LCA has an immpecable flying record.

 

[adsH]

Re: LCA VS J-10

Comparing LCA to the JF-17 is rather unfair in my view. The LCA has been under development for nearly as long as the "Western" Fighters, but has yet to even proceed to low rate initial production. The JF-17 is even further behind, as I understand it. I really can'tr see the point of comparing platforms when the design of one isn't even "set in concrete" yet. How does anyone know the LCA's radar will bbe better than the JF-17 or whatever when that radar hasn't even been decided yet? I also read an article in Airforce Monthly a while back that was fairly critical of the entire LCA program an even went so far as to suggest that the whole program may be abandoned in favour of Mirage 2000's. This article stated that even if significant design hurdles were overcome and despite the obvious effort that has gone into the aircraft, at the end of the day, the IAF would only receive an "average" combat aircraft in terms of it's overall level of capability and might not be worth the effort of pursuing any further...

You should check the history of J-10

`original' J-10 which allegedly was a paper project attempted during the 1970s. It has been speculated that China would develop a swing-wing fighter copied or derived from the MiG-23 and with capabilities similar to the F-111. The project never materialized. Sometime in 1987-88, the Lavi project was re-christened the J-10 or Project 10 at Chengdu Aircraft Company (CAC). As the PRC requirement was somewhat different from the Israeli requirement, the project underwent a complete redefinition. The first prototype of the J-10 is believed to have flown in 1996 and long period of testing followed. The first production model flew in June 28, 2002.

It has standard design and is not as complex as LCA tailless compound delta design. The LCA idea was born in 1983. full-scale engineering development (FSED) Phase I was sanctioned by the Government of India in June 1993.On 4th January 2001, LCA flew for the first time.Phase II of LCA programme was sanctioned by the Government in November 2001. 6 prototypes are ordered.As of Apr 19,04 The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) is likely to get an order for producing 40 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas, from the Indian Air Force (IAF). That includes included 32 fighters and eight trainers. (hence Mirages are not going to kill LCA).

I have not bothered posting links as its avaliable on Google. Check the developental history. Two J10's crashed while testing. There are more reports of J-10 crashes (Google again). LCA has an immpecable flying record.

i can't believe your actually comparing J-10 with LCA you guys fo have a vivid imagination sometimes i wonder if you guys hallucinate allot tailless complex structure doesn't mean your LCA can beat every aircraft in the world LCA was a failure and still has problems and is still unlikely going to make its 2015 dead line. J-10 has not crashed these are rumor spread by ill wishers of the project give me an official source where they say that the J-10 has crashed J-10 has been designed in complete secrecy while LCA is off the blend of off the shelf components. so there is no way you can say that LCA would be better. Every chinese aircrafts to you guys seems to be basically a mig2X design well thahhh its an aircraft it has two wings air inlets and tail !!!!!!!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: LCA VS J-10

It was "Moore's Law" that I was referring to earlier, it states that computing power will double every 3 years. The LCA will not be in the same class as F-22 or Eurofighter, or SU-30, Super Hornet or Rafale, for that matter. The LCA is being designed as a second tier light strike fighter. It won't have the performance envelope or avionics capability to match any of the aforementioned aircraft. This is not an insult to the designers. THEY have designed it this way. The SU-30 (and possibly Mirage 2000-9) are meant to be the high end of the hi-lo mix. The LCA is designed to fill the "low end". It will lack performance (compared to the other fighters I mentioned) specifically because it's not being designed to compete on equal terms with those aircraft.

 

[BruteGorilla]

Re: LCA VS J-10

Comparing LCA to the JF-17 is rather unfair in my view. ..........., the IAF would only receive an "average" combat aircraft in terms of it's overall level of capability and might not be worth the effort of pursuing any further...

You should check the history of J-10

`original' .............avaliable on Google. Check the developental history. Two J10's crashed while testing. There are more reports of J-10 crashes (Google again). LCA has an immpecable flying record.

i can't believe your actually comparing J-10 with LCA you guys fo have a vivid imagination sometimes i wonder if you guys hallucinate allot tailless complex structure doesn't mean your LCA can beat every aircraft in the world LCA was a failure and still has problems and is still unlikely going to make its 2015 dead line. J-10 has not crashed these are rumor spread by ill wishers of the project give me an official source where they say that the J-10 has crashed J-10 has been designed in complete secrecy while LCA is off the blend of off the shelf components. so there is no way you can say that LCA would be better. Every chinese aircrafts to you guys seems to be basically a mig2X design well thahhh its an aircraft it has two wings air inlets and tail !!!!!!!

I am surprised with your post too.
1) I don't understand why we cannot compare a 4th gen aircraft with another 4th gen aircraft? Just because its got something to do with china, dosen't mean you can't compare an Indian aircraft with it. Give me the reasons why it cannot be compared. Don't give me HTML statements.
2) By making a tailess design is more complex task. I never said that it beats all the aircrafts in the world. All I am pointing out is that China took more time in developing an eqvilent fighter inspite of rip off of a conventional design from Israel.
3) LCA just flew , how is it a failure. Just check the dates of projects, it has got an excelent record.Better than J-10.
4) just that chinese don't post crash news, it dosen't mean that it hasen't crashed. Check Janes for crashes. Don't let me spoon feed you.
5) LCA is off the shelf? I can tell you J-10 is off the shelf from Israel. There are atleast 5-6 countries where we have collaberated for LCA parts/testing which can tell you that its not off the shelf.
6) Every Chinese aircraft except FBC and J-10 is a MiG-2x derivative. FBC and J-10 happen to be copy of different aircrafts.

Aussie Digger, I agree with you. The Avionics are just going to be a little better.

 

[adsH]

Re: LCA VS J-10

hey i am not saying LCA would turn out to be a dump India has spent alot of resources building it and alot of hard work!! but what i am saying is that LCA is not as good as J-10. Even the US believes it can beat an F-15 and believe me the US takes no pride in saying there stuff is inferior to any ones. they even go to the lengths, hiding these sentiments but here they couldn't hide the facts. Actually the Chinese claim it was built to defeat the F-16 (Taiwan F-16) but the US is not buying that !!! basically because they know that the F-15 are on there way out and F-16 are still a current fighter!! to them F-15 is old and F-16 have still got market value

so Brute mate LCA is good but not as good as 4th gen Mirage 200 or 2005 or the SU 30 which will be in the IAF inventory. cheer up !!! i never said JF-17 was as good as a F-16 block 50 or something!!

 

[Revival_786]

Sorry a little off topic but how big of the difference is there between the block levels in the F-16?

 

[BruteGorilla]

Re: LCA VS J-10

hey i am not saying LCA would turn out to be a dump India has spent alot of resources building it and alot of hard work!! but what i am saying is that LCA is not as good as J-10. Even .........claim it was built to defeat the F-16 (Taiwan F-16) but the US is not buying that !!! basically because they .....F-16 have still got market value

so Brute mate LCA ..........be in the IAF inventory. cheer up !!! i never said JF-17 was as good as a F-16 block 50 or something!!

adsH,
1) thanks for "mate" status.
2) I would still like to se a proper comparission for your claim

but what i am saying is that LCA is not as good as J-10.

. Because i believe the opposite. But i want to hear you first.
3) Let me give you some basic facts
a) Not much is known of J-10. b) LCA is not deployed yet and is under going tests. No info on that too c) Tell me about Taiwan F-16's and Mirages. We have complete specs on them and they are awesome.

 

[adsH]

Re: LCA VS J-10

hey Brute i have the specifications fot the Taiwanese F-16 they have been portrayed to appear like F-16 block 20 but infact they are just as good as the israeli new block 50 read this.

Alitle off the topic but this is what the Chinese designed the J-10 for the Taiwan AF

There F-16 fleet consists of 146 AC
There Mirage 2000 about 57 which was 58 when one of there Mirages crashed because of a pigeon that got sucked into the vent. The IDF are 128 and F-5 are 128 and the F-104 90+

About there F-16 fleet well they started receiving there F-16 around in 2000

Mod Block QTY Serial Delivered
F-16A Block 20 120 6601/6720 1997-2001
F-16B Block 20 30 6801/6830 1997-2001

The F-16 are basically F-16 Block 150Cus built to MLU specifications but designated Block 20. By the start of 1997 5 aircrafts were formally handed over to Taiwan and the Total cost of the deal was 6 billion Dollar

The Block 20's have the improved Westinghouse AN/APG-66(V) 2 fire-control radar (157 ordered), AN/APX-111 IFF, ALR-56M advanced radar warning receivers, and the AN/ALE-47 chaff/flare dispensers. The F-16's will be equipped with AIM-7M Sparrows, AIM-9S Sidewinder and AGM-65 Maverick missiles.

The cockpit is similar to that of Block 50 aircraft, with night vision goggle compatibility, modular mission computer, GPS, Honeywell LCD color displays, and wide-angle HUDs. All ROCAF F-16's are powered by F100-PW-220 turbofan engines. It is worth noting that these F-16's will retain their in-flight refueling capabilities.

Instead of Westinghouse AN/ALQ-131 ECM pods, Taiwan chose Raytheon AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods (80 ordered). The contract which includes 80 pods, plus support equipment and spares, represents the first foreign sale of the AN/ALQ-184, and is worth over $100 million.

There has been a long standing dispute with the US over various modifications to the F-16 such as integrating the local TC2 BVR missile and HF2 anti shipping missile. So far, the US has not allowed any modifications to be made.

On June 3rd, 1998, the US Department of Defense announced that it is willing to provide Taiwan with 28 Pathfinder/Sharpshooter navigation and targeting pods.The deal is worth approx. US$160 million. Lockheed Martin Electronics & Missiles of Orlando, Florida will deliver 20 Sharpshooter targeting pods and 20 Pathfinder navigation pods for integration on Taiwan's fleet of F-16 aircraft by October 2001. Taiwan will become the 10th foreign customer to select Lockheed Martin's LANTIRN night vision system for its fighter aircraft. Pathfinder and Sharpshooter are derivatives of the LANTIRN system, which Lockheed Martin initially developed for U.S. Air Force F-15E and F-16C/D fighters.


Now about J-10 yo are right not much is known about he AC but this is what is officially known

J-10 Fighter Aircraft


NAME


PLA Official Designation: Jianji-10 or Jian-10 (J-10)

Westernised Name: F-10



CONTRACTORS


Chengdu Aircraft Industry Co. (CAC)

611 Aircraft Design Institute



PROGRAMME


The Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) J-10 is a single-seat single-engine multirole fighter aircraft with general performance matching aircraft such as France Mirage 2000 or U.S. F-16C/D. After over fifteen years of development since 1988, the aircraft is now ready to enter the PLAAF and PLA Naval Aviation service.






The J-10 prototype in test flight, carrying two PL-8 SRAAM mockups


Work on the J-10 began in the 1980s as a counter to the Soviet fourth-generation fighters the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker. The original mission was air superiority, but the end of the Cold War and changing requirements shifted development towards a multirole fighter to replace the Shenyang J-6, Chengdu J-7, and Nanchan Q-5, which dominate the air fleets of the PLAAF.


The original design of the J-10 was based on the cancelled Israel Aviation Industry (IAI) Lavi lightweight fighter. China and Israel started collaboration in the early 1980's and full-scale co-operation was underway by 1984. After the 1987 cancellation of the Lavi programme, its design was taken over by the CAC, and the IAI carried on with the development of avionic equipment.


The J-10 differs from the Lavi mainly in the primary mission carried out by the aircraft. The Lavi was originally designed as a short-range air support and interdiction aircraft, with a secondary mission of air superiority, while the PLAAF is interested in replacing its large fleet of outdated J-6 and J-7 fighters, for which air superiority capabilities remain a top priority while the air-to-ground attack capability is of secondary importance. In addition, the Lavi project had included many elements that Israel could not develop by itself, and China cannot obtain these key technologies from the US.






J-10 prototype No.1013 in the low visibility grey/blue camouflage painting scheme


The J-10's development has experienced some serious difficulties due to the Fly-By-Wire (FBW) and engine problems, which resulted in the loss of the No.2 prototype aircraft and its test pilot in 1997. The CAC engineers had to face some major re-design work, which caused a major setback in the J-10's development. Later the revised FBW software was successfully tested on a Shenyang J-8IIACT technical demonstration aircraft, and Russians also agreed to offer its Lyulka Saturn AL-31F turbofan engines for incorporation into the J-10.


The maiden flight of the J-10 took place in 1996. By 1998 a total of six prototype aircraft had been built for various tests and evaluation. Some estimates project that the as many as 300 aircraft will be produced for the Chinese air force, although reports suggest as few as 30 aircraft will have been built by 2005. In addition, according to the sources from the CAC, a two-seater fighter-trainer variant of the J-10 is currently being developed.


ROLES


Air-to-Air: Interception of enemy aircraft in a defensive operation, or grasp of air superiority over enemy regions by using both "beyond-vision-range" (BVR) and short-range air-to-air missiles (AAMs)

Air Interdiction (AI): Low- or medium-level attacks using guided and unguided ammunitions

Anti-Ship Attack: Attack surface ships using the air-launched anti-ship missile







J-10 prototype seen at CAC's test site


VARIANTS


Basic variant single-seat, single-engine fighter

Two-seater fighter-trainer (J-10B?)

Twin-engine navy variant capable of taking-off/landing on aircraft carrier (J-10C?)



INVENTORY


According to the latest reports from a Chinese official media, a type of new fighter aircraft has entered service with a PLAAF unit based in east China, implying that the J-10 has completed initial flight tests. It is estimated that in addition to the original 6 prototype aircraft, at least another 10 aircraft have been built for operational test and evaluation (OT&E) phase in combat units.


DESIGN FEATURES


The J-10 has a rectangle belly air intake, with low-mounted delta wings, a pair of front canard wings, a large vertical fin, and two underfuselage fins. The design is aerodynamically unstable, to provide a high level of agility, low drag and enhanced lift. The pilot controls the aircraft through a computerised digital fly-by-wire system, which provides artificial stabilisation and gust elevation to give good control characteristics throughout the flight envelope.






J-10 prototype No.1003 in the grey painting scheme of early years


COCKPIT


The J-10's cockpit is fitted with three flat-panel liquid crystal multifunction displays (MFDs), including one colour MFD, wide field-of-view head-up display (HUD), and possibly helmet-mounted sight (HMS). It is not know whether the HMS is the basic Ukrainian Arsenel HMS copied by China's Luoyang Avionics, or a new helmet display featured briefly at the 2000 Zhuhai air show.


The pilot manipulates the J-10 by the 'Iron Bird' flight-control system, a quadruple (four channels) digital fly-by-wire (FBW) based on the active control technology tested by the Shenyang J-8IIACT demonstrator aircraft. The pilot will also be aided by advanced autopilot and air data computer.






J-10 No.1013 prototype in flight test. The first production variant J-10 is said to enter service by 2005


RADAR


Several options are available for the J-10 fighter. These include the Russian Phazotron Zhuk-10PD, a version of the system in later Su-27s, with 160 km search range and ability to track up to six targets. Israel has offered its Elta EL/M-2035 radar for competition. In addition, China has also developed its own design JL-10A, which might be assisted by Russian technology.


For low-level navigation and precision strike, a forward-looking infrared and laser designation pod is likely to be carried F-16-style on an inlet stores station. A Chinese designed pod similar to the Israeli Rafael Litening was revealed at the 1998 Zhuhai air show.


POWERPLANT


The single-seat, single-engine J-10 is similar in size to the Lockheed Martin F-16C/D. The initial batch J-10s are going to be powered by 27,500 lb-thrust (120 kN) Russian Lyulka Saturn AL-31F turbofan, the same power plant also being used by Chinese air force Sukhoi Su-27s and Su-30s. Some report indicated that 100 AL-31F engines with features specially designed for the J-10 have already been delivered to China in early 2001.


China is also developing its own WS-10 turbofan power plant, and it could be fitted on the later versions of the J-10. According to the U.S. intelligence, the J-10 might be slightly more manoeuvrable than the U.S. Navy's F-18E/F Super Hornet fighter aircraft.






Although the J-10 prototypes are powered by a Lyulka Saturn AL-31F turbofan engine, it was reported that the operational J-10 will be fitted with an indigenous design


WEAPONS


The fixed weapon on the J-10 fighter is a 23 mm internal cannon.


The J-10 has 11 stores stations - six under the wing and five under the fuselage. The inner wing and centre fuselage stations are plumped to carry external fuel tanks. Fixed weapon is a 23-mm inner cannon hidden inside fuselage.


In addition to the PL-8 short-range infrared-guided air-to-air missile reportedly derived from Israeli Rafael Python-3 technology, the J-10 could also carry Russian Vympel R-73 (AA-11) short-range and R-77 (AA-12) medium-range missiles equipped by Chinese Flankers. It may also be fitted with indigenously developed PL-11 or PL-12 medium-range AAM for BVR combat.


For ground attack missions, the J-10 will carry laser-guided bombs, YJ-8K anti-ship missile, as well as various unguided bombs and rockets. Some missiles currently under development such as the YJ-9 ramjet-powered anti-radiation missile may also be carried by the J-10.






The indigenous helmet-mounted sight (HMS)


UPGRADE


According to the sources inside the CAC, a two-seater fighter-trainer version of the J-10 is currently under development. It is expected that this variant, possibly designated as J-10B, will roll out in near future.


It also projects that a twin-engine naval variant of the J-10 might be fitted on China's first aircraft carrier.


An all-aspect vectored-thrust version of the AL-31F was revealed for the first time at Zhuhai Air Show 1998, leading to speculation that this advanced engine may wind up on the J-10, potentially conferring phenomenal manoeuvrability.


China might also be considering upgrading the J-10 with more advanced phased-array radar from Russia or Israel to improve its combat capabilities.






Once entering service, the J-10 will become the backbone of the Chinese air force


SPECIFICATIONS


Crew: 1
Dimensions: N/A
Weight: N/A
Max Speed: Mach 1.2 (sea-level) or Mach 2.0 (high altitude)
Range: Combat radius over 550 km Service
Ceiling: N/A
Max Climb Rate: N/A
G Limit: N/A

adshH

Sources
Global security
F-16.net
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/aircraft/fighter/j10.asp

 

[dabrownguy]

Re: LCA VS J-10

LCA has a double delta wing configuration with no tailplanes or foreplanes and features a single vertical fin. The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites, and titanium. It's design has been configured to match the demands of modern combat scenario such as speed, acceleration, maneuverability and agility. Other features of the design include Short takeoff and landing, excellent flight performance, safety, damage-tolerant design, reliability and maintainability.

According to current estimates, the LCA will cost about $17-$20 million and efforts are being made to bring down the cost to $15 million. At this price the LCA has considerable bang for buck value. In comparison, a Su-30 fetches $35 million per piece for Russia, while France's Rafale cost $70+ million.


It integrates modern design concepts and the state-of-art technologies such as relaxed static stability, flyby-wire Flight Control System, Advanced Digital Cockpit, Multi-Mode Radar, Integrated Digital Avionics System and a Flat Rated Engine.

Around 70% of the jet is to be made in India itself. The rest will have to be imported for sometime. No mistake must be made with regards to LCA's modernity and design. It is truly advanced and has all the necessary equipment and more.

A naval carrier based version of LCA is also being developed. This version will feature a strengthened undercarriage and sturucture, additional leading edge control surfaces (in the area where the wing joins the fuselage) and lowered nose for better visibility. News reports suggest that US help has been sought for the LCA Navy. The 8th and 9th LCA prototypes built will be Naval version.

Among the most significant breakthrough is the use of advance carbon composites for more than 40% of the LCA air frame, including wings, fin and fuselage. Apart from making it much lighter, there are less joints or rivets making the aeroplane more reliable. Fatigue strength studies on computer models optimise performance. National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) has played a lead role. Materials include Aluminium - Lithium alloys , Titanium alloy and Carbon compositites. Composities for wing (skin , spars and ribs ) fuselage (doors and skins), elevons, fin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear doors.

The skin of the LCA measures 3 mm at its thickest with the average thickness varying between 2.4 to 2.7 mm. BAe was consulted. The fin for the LCA is a monolithic honeycomb piece. No other manufacturer is known to have made fins out of a single piece. The cost of manufacture reduces by 80 per cent from Rs 2.5 million in this process. This is contrary to a subtractive or deductive method normally adopted in advanced countries, when the shaft is carved out of a block of titanium alloy by a computerized numerically controlled machine. A 'nose' for the rudder is added by 'squeeze' riveting.

A striking feature of the LCA is its small size. It is much smaller than even the JAS-39, which a ~1m longer. An effort was made to reduce the number of individual composite parts to the minimum and hence keep the plane light.


The use of composites results in a 40 per cent reduction in the total number of parts (if the LCA were built using a metallic frame): For instance, 3,000 parts in a metallic design would come down to 1,800 parts in a composite design. The number of fasteners has been reduced to half in the composite structure from 10,000 in the metallic frame. The composite design helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Though the weight comes down by 21 per cent, the most interesting prediction is the time it will take to assemble the LCA -- the airframe that takes 11 months to build can be done in seven months using composites.

When lightning strikes the LCA, four metal longerons stretching from end to end, afford protection. In addition, all the panels are provided with copper mesh. One out of five is 'bonding' bolt with gaskets to handle Electr-Magnetic Interference. Aluminum foils cover bolt heads while the fuel tank is taken care of with isolation and grounding.

LCA is expected to be highly maneuverable by virtue of its double delta wing and relaxed static unstability of its Fly-By-Wire system.

Flight Control and Software and Other Avionics
The LCA uses advanced digital fly-by-wire technology which essentially employs computers to optimise the aircraft's performance. Foreign companies were consulted. Infact, LCA avionics were first flight tested on a US F-16XL.

Witout the automatic flight control, the LCA will not be flyable, due to the Delta wing's inherent instability. As more and more flights are conducted, the software is updated to allow the aircraft to do more complex maneuvours.

To combat the threat of obsolescence in the LCA Programme, a concerted effort has been made to introduce an Open-architecture Avionics system which permits hardware scalability and upgradability to state-of-the-art technology levels with reusability of the software.

LCA Avionics architecture is configured around a three bus system (MIL-STD-1553B) in a distributed environment. The heart of the system is a 32-bit Mission Computer (MC) which performs mission oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration / redundancy management and in-flight system self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for mission computer software.Accurate navigation and guidance is realised through RLG based Inertial Navigation System (INS) with provision for INS / Global Positioning System (GPS) integration. Jam resistant radio commumication system with advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) environment. In the EW suite, Electromagnetic and Electroptic receivers and jammers provide the necessary "soft-kill" capability.


The digital FBW system of the LCA is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x10-7 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link.

For maintenance the aircraft has more than five hundred Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), each tested for performance and capability to meet the severe operational conditions to be encountered.


Mission Computer(MC): MC performs the central processing functions apart from performing as Bus Controller and is the central core of the Avionics system. The hardware architecture is based on a dual 80386 based computer with dual port RAM for interprocessor communication. There are three dual redundant communication channels meeting with MIL-STD-1553B data bus specifications. The hardware unit development was done by ASIEO, Bangalore and Software Design & Development by ADA.
Control & Coding Unit (CCU): In the normal mode, CCU provides real time I/O access which are essentially pilot's controls and power on controls for certain equipment. In the reversionary mode, when MC fails, CCU performs the central processing functions of MC. The CCU also generates voice warning signals. The main processor is Intel 80386 microprocessor. The hardware is developed by RCI, Hyderabad and software by ADA.
Display Processors (DP): DP is one of the mission critical software intensive LRUs of LCA. The DP drives two types of display surfaces viz. a monochrome Head Up display (HUD) and two colour multifunction displays (MFDs). The equipment is based on four Intel 80960 microprocessors. There are two DPs provided (one normal and one backup) in LCA. These units are developed by ADE, Bangalore
Mission Preparation & Data Retrieval Unit (MPRU): MPRU is a data entry and retrieval unit of LCA Avionics architecture. The unit performs mission preparation and data retrieval functions. In the preparation mode, it transfers mission data prepared on Data Preparation Cartridge (DPC) with the help of ground compliment, to various Avionics equipment. In the second function, the MPRU receives data from various equipment during the Operational Flight Program (OFP) and stores data on Resident Cartridge Card (RCC). This unit is developed by LRDE, Bangalore.
USMS Electronic Units: The following processor based digital Electronics Units (EU) are used for control and monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance.
Environment Control System Controller (ECSC)
Engine and Electrical Monitoring System Electronics Unit (EEMS-EU)
Digital Fuel Monitoring System Electronics Unit (DFM-EU)
Digital Hydraulics and Brake Management System Electronics Unit (DH-EU)
V/UHF Equipment: V/UHF equipment is a secure jam resisant airborne radio communication set which provides simplex two way voice and data communication in the VHF and UHF frequency bands. This unit is developed by HAL, Hyderabad.
Multi Function Keyboard (MFK): MFK is an interfce for pilot dialogue concerning certain selected equipment of Avionics system. It comprises LCD panel, alphanumeric keys, push buttions for power ON / OFF and LEDs indicating power ON / OFF status of certain Avionics equipment. This unit is developed by BEL, Bangalore.
Head Up Display (HUD): HUD is of conventional type with a Total Field of View (TFOV) of 24 degrees circular. A Change Coupled Device (CCD) based camera is mounted on the HUD for recording purposes. HUD dsplays various navigation and weapon related data. This unit is developed by CSIO, Chandigarh.
Colour Multi Function Displays (MFDs): LCD based colour MFDs hava a useful screen area of 125 mm x 125 mm. They have soft keys around their periphery for interaction with the systems. This display provides various aircraft system pages and navigation pages in addition to RADAR & FLIR display.

Digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System is another advanced feature of LCA. The unstable configuration of LCA demands a highly efficient Integrated Flight Control System (IFCS) to fly the aircraft. Control law resident in the flight control computer synthesises inputs from pilot's stick and rudder pedals with flight parameters from inertial and airdata measurements to generate commands to the actuators that move various control surfaces. The design of the control law is evaluated susing real-time flight simulator for acceptable flight handling qualities. The IFCS ensures stability, agility, manoeuvrability and carefree handling over the entire operating envelope of LCA. The Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) is the heart of IFCS, and uses a quadruplex redundant system to achieve high reliability and safety.

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) activity is an integral part of the Software development process. From requirement specification to final testing, IV&V ensures correctness, consistency, completeness and adherence to MIL standards of the software.

The flight control system along with all the associated software is tested and validated at the iron-bird rig.

The Cockpit

Its new-generation glass cockpit has the latest avionics systems for pilot comfort and efficiency. No tangle of dials and switches. Multi-function digital displays provide information of all vital parameters with the click of a button. Critical information is flashed on the head-up display. Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and NAL were major partner in these developments.


Two Multi Function Displays present required information to the pilot. Critical information required in close combat situations is flashed onto the Head Up Display. Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) concept ensures availability of every control needed during a critical combat situation, right under the fingers of the pilot. The Environmental Control System (ECS) is designed to give a high degree of comfort to the pilot and to provide adequate cooling to all onboard electronic systems. The compressed air for pressurisation of cockpit, radar and fuel tank is also supplied by ECS.

ADA has also tied up with India's National Institute of Design (NID), Ahemdabad to bring in the elements of ergonomics and modular design. The aim is to help build the aircraft in such a manner that it has more standardised units or dimensions allowing increased flexibility. The NID design team for this project will be lead by Dr S Ghosal who is the director of NID's Bangalore centre.

Weapons


The LCA has a choice of seven pylons three under each wing and one under its fuselage to carry a wide range of armoury. It is designed to be a precision launch platform with air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground weapons, including laser guided bombs. A total of 4000 kg can be carried. Plenty of work to be done. It is expected that the R-73 (AA-12 Archer) will be integrated into the PV-1.

LCA will be armed with a Gasha Gsh-23mm gun. The R-73 will be directed by a Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) ensuring quick action. It is not clear what medium range AAMs it will carry - the IAF currently operates the Matra Super 530D, R-27RE1 and RVV-AE(R-77) BVR missiles. The choice depends a lot on the radar, unlike dogfight missiles which are usually heat seeking. For example, IAF has integrated both Magic-2 and R-60MK with the MiG-21. A range of weapons, from Russia, West or India will be made available.

A total of 7 hardpoints will be available: 3 on each wing plus one under the fuselage.

As the name itself suggests, LCA's delivery capacity will not be high compared to say the Su-30, but it can carry as much as the MiG-2ML, which the IAF's primary Close Air Support (CAS) fighter. Hence even with LCA's multi-role capability the IAF will need a 'bigger' fighter - the Su-30MKI Super Flanker has already been picked as its frontline fighter for the first Quater of the 21st Century (Su-30MKI Info and pictures).

Radar
The multi-mode radar is to take care of detection, tracking, terrain mapping and delivery of guided weapons. The track-while-scan feature keeps track of multiple targets (maximum 10) and also allows simultaneous multiple target engagement. Pulse-Doppler gives the look-down shoot-down capability. Ground mapping feature, frequency agility and other ECCM techniques make the radar truly state-of-the-art.

The antenna is a light weight (less than 5 kg), low profile slotted waveguide array with a multilayer feed network for broad band operation. The salient technical features are: two plane monopulse signals, low side lobe levels and integrated IFF, and GUARD and BITE channels. The heart of MMR is the signal processor, which is built around VLSI-ASICs and i960 processors to meet the functional needs of MMR in different modes of its operation. Its role is to process the radar receiver output, detect and locate targets, create ground map, and provide contour map when selected. Post-detection processor resolves range and Doppler ambiguities and forms plots for subsequent data processor. The special feature of signal processor is its real-time configurability to adapt to requirements depending on selected mode of operation.

To be jointly developed by State owned HAL and Electronics Radar Development Establishment (ERDE) the project has run into major delays and cost escalations.

Two Avro aircraft - HS748M have been modified for the purposes of testing the radar. The idea of doing these tests on an Avro is that these planes can fly for a longer time and hence collect a lot more data.

PV-2 is planned to be equipped with the Radar and Fire Control System (FCS).

http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-lca.html
lets compare
weapons
J-10 has more hardpoints about 4 more. The 4 harpoints are probabily not missile carriers as they are small so I think they use it for bombs? LCA has 7 harpoints and 1 extra hardpoint for pods. Both carry a wide variety of missiles and both have HMS.
Cockpit
I never have seen the J-10 cockpit but I have seen the LCA's cockpit and it is completley digital with no dials and stuff. It also has 3 MFD screens.
Speed
J-10 Mach 2 and more manurable in subsonic levels
LCA Mach 1.8 more manuavrable and sonic levels.


I'll finish this later.

 

[adsH]

Re: LCA VS J-10

I found this Picture of the J-10 Cockpit looks impressive but very complicating
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/displayimage.php?pid=2705&fullsize=1


i think it looks more like a manual, Picture like the one that u get with ur car it has numbers next to every switch and display i wonder if there is a list somewhere!!

Can some one look at the cockpit and tell what exactly is in the J-10 i know there are quiet afew brilliant people here!!

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Re: LCA VS J-10

i seen dis topic on other defense forums for way too many times. dis debate is pointless, u juz can't judge which aircraft is better unless u c their real combat performance.
although more ppl think J-10 is better cuz it's already in service and upgrades r underway, LCA is still in testing. personally, i think both planes performance is quite close, but J-10 seems to have more rooms for upgrades, LCA's nose is small n hard to fit large radars.

 

[BruteGorilla]

Re: LCA VS J-10

adsH,

1) As you have pointed out J-10 is merely equivalent to (as per Chinese or as per rumour) F-16 C/D. I can believe it to a certain extent because it basically Israeli electronics in it (but commercial not Israeli original specs). Also Russian engine among other things. But giving to the fact Chinese made it, i would seriously doubt the quality and precision. One of the reasons Chinese keep their projects secret is because they don't want outsiders to know how bad they make stuff.
2) taiwanese F-16 and Mirages are cutting edge proven tech.

Pathfinder-X

although more ppl think J-10 is better cuz it's already in service and upgrades r underway, LCA is still in testing.

I agree with you. And this is the most pathetic excuse to project J-10 as better plane.

dabrownguy
Awaiting your analysis.

Revival_786

Sorry a little off topic but how big of the difference is there between the block levels in the F-16?

there are structural differences between f-16 A/B wrt C/D. Electronics are always more updated as blocks go higher. Initial F-16 A/B didn't have upgradability features. Block 60 is again a litle bit different of structure and way ahead on electronics. If you want specifics. i can tell.

 

[Revival_786]

Thanks a lot - fire ahead