Rare Article on China's Newest Fighter

[fltworthy]

In case anyone missed it, Combat Aircraft just ran a two-part series on China's air force modernization

An historical overviews:
Combat Aircraft, Vol 7, No 8, Sept 2006
http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=49503

And a focus article on China's J-10 figher:
Combat Aircraft, Vol 7, No 9, Nov 2006
http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=51326

Given how rare it is to find good material on anything connected with the Far East (or anything not in America or Europe, for that matter), this is a rare find.

If the J-10 is even close to being as potent of an all-around fighter as this article claims it to be (range and payload well in excess of an F-16), then China will have finally closed the gap between being a Cold War, versus a modern, multirole air force.

Well worth reading.

 

[Ths]

Where did they find a useable engine?
Boasting claims are quite usual.

 

[tphuang]

Where did they find a useable engine?
Boasting claims are quite usual.

it's called an indigenous development. Ever heard of WS-10A?

 

[LancerMc]

I read the article today. It is pretty comprehensive but like the articles says many of the true details are still hidden, and a lot of the information given is a quess. So the information has to be taken with a grain of salt, but by fair it is the most comprehensive article I have read about the J-10.

 

[Ths]

I haven't had access to the article; but the background for my question is that developing an aircraft engine is by far the hardest part.

AFAIK: It takes very advanced metallurgi - I haven't heard of ceramics being to successfull - and maybe someone more knowledgeable about chinese research isn't surprised, but the sudden quantum jump in knowledge and ability to produce those tricky substances makes me sceptical.

As I've said so often: to wrap aluminium around an engine is comparatively easy, but developing an engine - that is something VERY different.

Take the F-14: I know I will offend a few people; but due to a clonker of an engine, Grumman had to use every aerodynamic trick in the book - and made a maintainance nightmare. The Tomcat could do the job of securing the task force from long range bombers - just.

 

[crobato]

Maybe you should check the Zhuhai air show this November. The WS-10A engine is now being shown in a public exhibit. Early this year it was certified and the engine has become public in official websites as the Taihang (Chinese engines are named after mountain ranges). This follows three other designs, the Kunlun (a turbojet) for the J-8II, the Qingling (based on the Spey) for the JH-7A, and the WS-11 for the JL-8s.

Maybe it is a surprise to you---but the Chinese have been trying to develop engines for decades now. This is not to say this is a troublesome process, the metallurgy you said is among them. For their trouble and failures, they have not given up and they have been persistant. Recently they are coming up with more concrete results. The Chinese does have crystal blade techs (actually been a few years now) and has gone public with it.

 

[wp2000]

I haven't had access to the article; but the background for my question is that developing an aircraft engine is by far the hardest part.

AFAIK: It takes very advanced metallurgi - I haven't heard of ceramics being to successfull - and maybe someone more knowledgeable about chinese research isn't surprised, but the sudden quantum jump in knowledge and ability to produce those tricky substances makes me sceptical.

As I've said so often: to wrap aluminium around an engine is comparatively easy, but developing an engine - that is something VERY different.

Take the F-14: I know I will offend a few people; but due to a clonker of an engine, Grumman had to use every aerodynamic trick in the book - and made a maintainance nightmare. The Tomcat could do the job of securing the task force from long range bombers - just.

Then you really should read that article first, because it may have answered some of your doubts.

This is article is by far the most comprehensive one in western world about J10. Although some conclusions are way off mark, it still an excellent effort.

 

[Ths]

I tried to get to it by the links, but I'm not a subscriber - so...

 

[kams]

I tried to get to it by the links, but I'm not a subscriber - so...

You may read a summary of the article from WAB:
This month's edition of "Combat Aircraft" features what has to be the first, detailed article to discuss the projected size and expected capabilities of China's Chengdu J-10 fighter:
http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/ca...ducts_id=51326

Drawing on photographic evidence, leaked information, and engineering analysis, the new article makes a convincing argument that the J-10 is more than just another pretty face.

To summarize some some of the major arguments:

* Like any multirole fighter-bomber, the J-10 was developed with a bias towards fulfilling certain roles. Based on the overall dimensions of the airplane, and its projected dry weight, fuel capacity, and payload capacity, the J-10 appears to have been biased in favor of the air-to-ground role rather than the air-to-air role.

* As such, the J-10 is most easily compared to the Block 50/52+ versions of the F-16, rather than to some of the Eurocanard fighters such as the Typhoon or Rafale.

* By virtue of its relatively low wing loading (and canard configuration), the J-10 can be expected to have exceptional instantaneous turn capabilities. Its thrust loading, however, is relatively modest, meaning that most Western fighters would have an advantage in terms of acceleration.

What strikes me about this comparison, is that it is reminiscent of the old MiG-15 / Sabre match-up, or of the advantage that the MiG-21 had over most Western fighters of its day. The J-10 appears to be similarly poised to deliver a painful surprise to any inexperienced pilot who attempts to engage it in a turning manuever, but is vulnerable in other areas of its envelope.

* In the air-to-ground role, the capabilities of the J-10 are expected to be truly impressive. It is projected to possess both a payload capacity, and range that put to shame many similarly sized, or even larger airplanes:

"When measured as a multirole, attack platform rather than as a purely air-to-air fighter, the potential for the J-10 to alter the strategic equation in the Far East should become readily evident. In terms of its maximum payload capability, the J-10 is projected to have a maximum weapons load in excess of 9,500-kg (19,850-lb), when outfitted with bombs and missiles for a short-range attack mission. This compares to a maximum payload of 4,000-kg (8,820-lb) for the similarly sized MiG-29S, or 8,000-kg (17,640-lb) for the much larger Su-30."

Statistics for the J-10 were quoted as follows:

Length ........................ 16.5 m
Height ......................... 6.0 m
Wing Span ..................... 11.3 m
Gross Wing Area ............... 45.5 sq m
Empty Weight .................. 9730 kg
Max Internal Fuel ............. 4470 kg
Max Take-Off Weight .......... 24650 kg
Max Thrust ................... 125.5 kN


For the J-10 to have merited an investigative article of this detail is truly a coming-of-age for the Chinese aviation industry.

 

[Ths]

Thank You kams, very much appreciated:

It translates to about unity at 50% fuel - which (according to gf-0012) is about the same as the Tomcat - which has newer been sprightly in that department and Mirage 2000. As Dame Edna say: I feel a song coming along: That could be the ingenious development. And might be the marketing basis for the french - as they have argued volubly for the lifting of the trade ban. That might very well be the product China really wants.
Pity they cant get it: They might get a competent engine supply; but not excellent. There are very few that can build excellent engines (occationally - as there has been some dogs among them as well): P&W, GE and RR - whatever they be called this week.

It might have an good instantaneous turn rate; but speed is liable to bleed of rapidly and leave it "dead in water". Plus a canard will let it lift off with a considerable load; but it really cuts into range at high weights, as the vortices from the canard will chop centerlift of the wing - a common problem with canard. The Draken had the same characteristic: It lifted slightly more than the Supersabre, but couldn't carry it nearly as far; but at a pinch it was a better dogfighter than the F-100.

The max weaponsload does indicate lack of PGM.

All in all more realistic - sound to me like a Phantom +. Not a bad plane; but nothing for the hyperbole.

 

[tphuang]

Thank You kams, very much appreciated:

It translates to about unity at 50% fuel - which (according to gf-0012) is about the same as the Tomcat - which has newer been sprightly in that department and Mirage 2000. As Dame Edna say: I feel a song coming along: That could be the ingenious development. And might be the marketing basis for the french - as they have argued volubly for the lifting of the trade ban. That might very well be the product China really wants.
Pity they cant get it: They might get a competent engine supply; but not excellent. There are very few that can build excellent engines (occationally - as there has been some dogs among them as well): P&W, GE and RR - whatever they be called this week.

It might have an good instantaneous turn rate; but speed is liable to bleed of rapidly and leave it "dead in water". Plus a canard will let it lift off with a considerable load; but it really cuts into range at high weights, as the vortices from the canard will chop centerlift of the wing - a common problem with canard. The Draken had the same characteristic: It lifted slightly more than the Supersabre, but couldn't carry it nearly as far; but at a pinch it was a better dogfighter than the F-100.

The max weaponsload does indicate lack of PGM.

All in all more realistic - sound to me like a Phantom +. Not a bad plane; but nothing for the hyperbole.

ths, I'd rather not lecture you on everything, so my suggestion is that you do a background check on the plane. Including read a little on what some of the American publications would say about it. They are not exactly accurate, but probably more believable for you.

 

[Ths]

Uhuh...

 

[crobato]

Plus a canard will let it lift off with a considerable load; but it really cuts into range at high weights, as the vortices from the canard will chop centerlift of the wing - a common problem with canard.

Only when you're turning and reaching a high alpha, then that would be a problem, but if the plane is in a state where it has to commit to ACM, it's not likely to be carrying bombs and other payload, wouldn't it? Besides that problem you described is more apt if the canard is close to the center wing or when there is not enough seperation between canard and the main wing. Compared to the Lavi, the distance of the canard to the center wing has been lengthened. In addition to that, the canards have a dihedral layout, which further distances the canard and the main wing, and makes sure these vortices are more likely to flow over the fuselage rather than the main wing. The impact is increased turbulence drag against the fuselage, which is why the J-10's fuselage seems so carefully designed, and why the plane has a high stabilizer.

The empty weight cannot be taken at face value, since it is not official, and copied from different speculation in the web. It does not seem to align with aircraft that I would consider as points of reference.

Lavi --- 7,000kg, slightly smaller dimensions than the J-10.
F-16C --- 8500-8800kg. This is what the PLAAF is modeling the specs after and the these planes actually have heavier engines than the J-10.
FC-1 --- This is an excellent example of the same company's handwork, so it;s likely the construction methods are similar. But this sibling of the J-10 only weighs 6400kg.
J-8II --- This plane is comparably last generation in construction to the J-10. Longer, it has two engines and has a wider wingspan. But empty it's only 9200kg.

In addition to that, the plane's payload and internal fuel figures quoted is a bit high.

The J-10 is not currently meant as a striker. The JH-7A already has this role, including PGM delivery. As a matter of fact, the J-10 has yet to have a photograph with rocket pods and bombs revealed in the net. It does not mean it cannot be so, since the sibling FC-1 has been displayed in expos with a model layout that includes a laser targeting pod and LGBs, like in Zhuhai 2006 right this very moment.

The J-10 is assigned to previously J-7 and J-7E regiments, not Q-5 regiments. This is a clear indication again the plane is meant for primary A2A roles, and not A2G roles. In fact the trials regiment in the FTTC is also tasked with the air defense of Beijing.

 

[Ths]

Well there is no doubt there is a need for an interceptor in China.
Ever since Nixon "opened China up" it has been fairly clear that US overflight over China could be done with relative impunity.
I was - at the time - clear that the US interest in using Chinese air space was to take out the ICBM siloes along the transsibirian railroad. This gives two problems today:
1. There is little doubt China must have hated suffering that scenario; but there was little they could do about it.
2. To operate with impunity in chinese air space means also that the USA can operate AGAINST China - if they choose to.

The development is interesting, as it seems that the Chinese shopping for Russian materiel was perhaps less than successfull - and not cheap.
Furthermore Chinas interests are coincidental with Russias - and trading one dependency for another is rarely a step forward.

It will be interesting what the US countermove will be.
My guess is that money will be found to purchase 20 - 40 B-2. Because as I said J-10 is a Phantom+ at decent interceptor with a nice range, that will - if build in numbers - make life hard and possibly short for the B-52.
Not a bad chinese move, as they will probably be alot cheaper than building the replacements for the B52.

From a Chinese perspective it is a deft payback to the USA for the pressure being laid on China through high oil prices and the constant badgering to do something about the balance of payment deficit (US) and condescending tone concerning the unability to control North Korea (if ever there was a pot calling a kettle black! What about keeping Japan on a shorter leash?). This one the USA will just have to take. A lot of interceptors cannot be construed as a move against Taiwan.
Simultaneously the move towards purchasing weapons from France is a clear indication that Russia is not a solution.

Let's see if we don't get a solution over North Korea!

Very good and constructive - and instructive post - crobato!

 

[powerslavenegi]

Well speaking of engines this is straight from Horse's mouth.

Dont know what Russians would do,but surely indicates that Chinese indigenous engine is not ready.

 

[crobato]

The WS-10A is already certified, the problem is that the demand is higher than the supply. You se, the engine also has to supply the J-11s and not just the J-10s. Now those J-11s will have to use up two engines each...

Another is that the Chinese may already have committed by intent to purchase 300 engines at least from the Russians. That means even if the Chinese engine is ready, the Chinese still has to fulfill that commitment.

I don't really think the J-10 fills the role of Phantom like interceptor. That role is already filled up by the J-8II, which roughly resembles the Su-15 Flagon in role and looks. I would describe it somewhere between a Phantom and MiG-25 in its role focus, meaning in terms of speed, high altitude performance, maneuverbility or lack of such. The plane has a decent TWR at unity with the latest WP-13B engines, decent sized radar (bigger than a Phantom and slightly bigger than a MiG-29), easily accessible and large space for accessories and ventilation of such.

China has a large number of these fighters, like 300 to 400, and the younger airframes among them appear to be in the process of being upgraded with a new radar that lets them use the PL-12 active radar guided missile. In addition, a new variant capable of using the PL-12 called the J-8F is in limited production.

 

[tphuang]

Well speaking of engines this is straight from Horse's mouth.

Dont know what Russians would do,but surely indicates that Chinese indigenous engine is not ready.

Well, from the fact that it mentionned Russia has already won the 126 MRCA tender should tell you that the writer is quite clueless. And no, the engine used on JF-17 is not the same as the engine used on J-10. WS-10A is definitely ready, it's already certified, shown in Zhuhai airshow, AVIC 1 already announced that its mass production has started. I honestly don't know what more needs to be said for people to believe that this engine is ready.

 

[Ths]

Crobato good post.

 

[Ths]

Anybody know the time between overhauls of Chinese engines???

 

[tphuang]

Anybody know the time between overhauls of Chinese engines???

well, WS-10A is still in the infancy of its life cycle, so they are still sorting out problems. But, China eventually expects its time between overhaul to be better than AL-31, but not as good as F110 or F100.