Rare Article on China's Newest Fighter
- Thread starter fltworthy
- Start date
powerslavenegi
New Member
Ha.. Honestly tphuang I do not wish to go into hair splitting semantics but are you denying the fact that Chinese delegation approached Russains to permit the resale of Rd-93's to Pakistan ?(the argument that they got the fact about MRCA tender wrong does not mean that the whole article is false for if that is how you go about infering from news reports then you wont believe any news report ).
Between I am aware that J-10 uses ws-10.Anyways let us not get into engine debate.Everything would be clear when J-10 and JF-17 would be formaly inducted by China's Military.
Anyways was more intrested in the radar that J-10 will be using.Incase the indigenous one is not ready what are the prospective foreign ones which are being given a serious thought ?
Last edited:
The radar is already determined long ago. The J-10 uses an indigenous radar called the KLJ-3, at least for prototypes and early versions. This has been upgraded to the KLJ-7. The radar currently uses a mechanically scanning slotted array pulse doppler with dual sidelob and monopulse. In layman's terms, that should be a pretty average and common type of radar seen in fourth generation fighters today.
This is a rather modular family of radars, that by changing the size of the array, emitter, software and other components, can be made to fit into different aircraft. This concept of a modular radar is clearly inspired from the ELTA M 2032, FIAR Grifo and the Phazotron Zhuk series---all three systems China had access one way or another.
By developing a single radar family, you can quickly adapt a new version to diferent aircraft rapidly. The first in the family was the KLJ-1 (Type 1471)introduced for the J-8H back in 2001 (or was it J-8D in 1999). Then you have the KLJ-3 (Type 1473) and KLJ-7 for the J-10, the KLJ-4 said to be proposed for the J-11B, the KLJ-6E for the J-7G, and possibly the KLJ-6 for the FC-1. There is another version under the PLA designation Type 1492 used on the J-8F, but I have not determined what the factory KLJ number would be.
I don't know what the performance was, but the KLJ-1 is said to be tracking targets at 75km and is capable of simulatneously engaging two targets. Details on the radar of the J-10 is sketchy at best, with 160km maximum search distance and 2-4 simultaneous engagement. Again that's pretty average. Please note that tracking, engagement and search distances are not the same. In terms of range, search comes first, then tracking then engagement. 150 to 160km is fairly average for search, probably amounts to 80km to 100km for tracking. In comparison the GD-53 on the F-CK-1, which is a modified APG-67, has a max search distance of 147km and tracks around 65km. The N001E radar on the Su-27SK is a less sophisticated unit but what it lacks in sophistication, it makes up by brute force, mainly a powerful emitter and a large meter size array. The total search range is roughly about 225 to 240km but the tracking of a 3m2 RCS target is about a 100km.
One myth circulated around the J-10 is that it carries R-77, R-27 and R-73. Which is not true, since there is never a picture of such. Its armament is always Chinese made, thus the radar and FCS should match. The main AAM is the PL-8, the main SARH weapon is the PL-11, and the main ARH weapon is the PL-12. The current version of the PL-8 is like a Python 3 with steroids now adapted to use with HMS. In relation to the Python 4, I like to call the PL-8B, a Python 3.5. The PL-11B corresponds to the AIM-7M Sparrow.
Which brings us to the PL-12, which is potentially the most lethal weapon for the J-10. It kinds of looks like an AMRAAM, but it has sawtooth control fins on the rear that is more similar to the AIM-9X canards. This allows the fins to exert greater control authority with less torque exerted. Some claim that the missile uses the seeker from the R-77, but given the missile's incompatibility with Russian radars, that's seems bunk. Others say that the seeker is by China's LETRI institute, but I seem to believe now that the seeker is by China's NRIET institute, which is also responsible for the KLJ radars as well as the radars on the KJ-2000 Mainring AWACS.
This is a rather modular family of radars, that by changing the size of the array, emitter, software and other components, can be made to fit into different aircraft. This concept of a modular radar is clearly inspired from the ELTA M 2032, FIAR Grifo and the Phazotron Zhuk series---all three systems China had access one way or another.
By developing a single radar family, you can quickly adapt a new version to diferent aircraft rapidly. The first in the family was the KLJ-1 (Type 1471)introduced for the J-8H back in 2001 (or was it J-8D in 1999). Then you have the KLJ-3 (Type 1473) and KLJ-7 for the J-10, the KLJ-4 said to be proposed for the J-11B, the KLJ-6E for the J-7G, and possibly the KLJ-6 for the FC-1. There is another version under the PLA designation Type 1492 used on the J-8F, but I have not determined what the factory KLJ number would be.
I don't know what the performance was, but the KLJ-1 is said to be tracking targets at 75km and is capable of simulatneously engaging two targets. Details on the radar of the J-10 is sketchy at best, with 160km maximum search distance and 2-4 simultaneous engagement. Again that's pretty average. Please note that tracking, engagement and search distances are not the same. In terms of range, search comes first, then tracking then engagement. 150 to 160km is fairly average for search, probably amounts to 80km to 100km for tracking. In comparison the GD-53 on the F-CK-1, which is a modified APG-67, has a max search distance of 147km and tracks around 65km. The N001E radar on the Su-27SK is a less sophisticated unit but what it lacks in sophistication, it makes up by brute force, mainly a powerful emitter and a large meter size array. The total search range is roughly about 225 to 240km but the tracking of a 3m2 RCS target is about a 100km.
One myth circulated around the J-10 is that it carries R-77, R-27 and R-73. Which is not true, since there is never a picture of such. Its armament is always Chinese made, thus the radar and FCS should match. The main AAM is the PL-8, the main SARH weapon is the PL-11, and the main ARH weapon is the PL-12. The current version of the PL-8 is like a Python 3 with steroids now adapted to use with HMS. In relation to the Python 4, I like to call the PL-8B, a Python 3.5. The PL-11B corresponds to the AIM-7M Sparrow.
Which brings us to the PL-12, which is potentially the most lethal weapon for the J-10. It kinds of looks like an AMRAAM, but it has sawtooth control fins on the rear that is more similar to the AIM-9X canards. This allows the fins to exert greater control authority with less torque exerted. Some claim that the missile uses the seeker from the R-77, but given the missile's incompatibility with Russian radars, that's seems bunk. Others say that the seeker is by China's LETRI institute, but I seem to believe now that the seeker is by China's NRIET institute, which is also responsible for the KLJ radars as well as the radars on the KJ-2000 Mainring AWACS.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/
Just had a look on the J-10.
The airintake seems a bit small, which tempts me conclude it is an engine with a very low bypass ratio - if any. It thus might have a good thrust/weight ratio. And it is one one spool it might save a lot of weight by eliminating troublesome mashinery.
But specifik fuel consumption??????
Just had a look on the J-10.
The airintake seems a bit small, which tempts me conclude it is an engine with a very low bypass ratio - if any. It thus might have a good thrust/weight ratio. And it is one one spool it might save a lot of weight by eliminating troublesome mashinery.
But specifik fuel consumption??????
DragonKing786
New Member
@tHS
Nice site it was a good read
Nice site it was a good read
Interesting article at the Chinablog site, but be careful that what you read and what you appear to see, as all may not be quite as it seems.
The picture of the row of J-10s looked a little odd when it was presented on another forum, so I did a little analysis using basic optics, vanishing point etc.
Using the length of the shadows cast by the aircraft I estimated the length of the shadows from the hangars and they are much too short, they should be covering most of the aircraft. My estimate of the position of the hangar shadows is shown in purple. It is slightly simplified as it assumes that the light is directly from behind, but as can be seen from the aircraft shadows, the shadows are very slightly offset away from the viewer. I have also had to make an estimate of the height of the separation walls between each hangar; usually these are about 2.5m high, the view into the first hangar supports this view. Even if the height of the wall were taken as zero the shadows would only be reduced by a few metres.
I am not arguing that the J-10 is not in service nor that the second batch of aircraft have been delivered, my point is that many pictures from China are “improved” and should not always be accepted at face value.
Sorry about the poor quality of the image, I had to print and re-scan.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q173/chrisrobsoar/J-10.jpg
Chris
The picture of the row of J-10s looked a little odd when it was presented on another forum, so I did a little analysis using basic optics, vanishing point etc.
Using the length of the shadows cast by the aircraft I estimated the length of the shadows from the hangars and they are much too short, they should be covering most of the aircraft. My estimate of the position of the hangar shadows is shown in purple. It is slightly simplified as it assumes that the light is directly from behind, but as can be seen from the aircraft shadows, the shadows are very slightly offset away from the viewer. I have also had to make an estimate of the height of the separation walls between each hangar; usually these are about 2.5m high, the view into the first hangar supports this view. Even if the height of the wall were taken as zero the shadows would only be reduced by a few metres.
I am not arguing that the J-10 is not in service nor that the second batch of aircraft have been delivered, my point is that many pictures from China are “improved” and should not always be accepted at face value.
Sorry about the poor quality of the image, I had to print and re-scan.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q173/chrisrobsoar/J-10.jpg
Chris
chrisrobsoar: Very good post.
As I see you have a background in avionics, I have a question to you.
On the picture - on the aeroplane - over the airintake and under the fuselage there seems to be a flat red panel. As aerodynamics would have a keel like structure there - behind what in effect is a splitterplate, there must be a reason for having a flat face.
It seems that - whatever it might be - can only look straight forward at a very narrow angle - about the most inappropiate place for a sensor or illuminator.
What is Your take on that??
It seems like the pictures and "interesting" article - at least to some extend is fabrication. The reason - appart from a tendency of that system to mislead - could there be for lying like this. Any intelligence unit will tear it apart in minutes as some of us have done here. Thus it cannot be an attempt to mislead the other sides military. Is it a ploy to cover up an abysmally desperate situation to their own public?
Just like North Korea is not fooling anybody in the west by their exhibit of goosesteppers - the time spend to achieve that perfection is not spend training driving your tank.
Or are they representing an ace on the table - while holding just deuce seven unsuited?
As I see you have a background in avionics, I have a question to you.
On the picture - on the aeroplane - over the airintake and under the fuselage there seems to be a flat red panel. As aerodynamics would have a keel like structure there - behind what in effect is a splitterplate, there must be a reason for having a flat face.
It seems that - whatever it might be - can only look straight forward at a very narrow angle - about the most inappropiate place for a sensor or illuminator.
What is Your take on that??
It seems like the pictures and "interesting" article - at least to some extend is fabrication. The reason - appart from a tendency of that system to mislead - could there be for lying like this. Any intelligence unit will tear it apart in minutes as some of us have done here. Thus it cannot be an attempt to mislead the other sides military. Is it a ploy to cover up an abysmally desperate situation to their own public?
Just like North Korea is not fooling anybody in the west by their exhibit of goosesteppers - the time spend to achieve that perfection is not spend training driving your tank.
Or are they representing an ace on the table - while holding just deuce seven unsuited?
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5292
Try and compare the intake on this one with the blogspot photo - these plane do not seem to have much in common apart from the general layout.
Try and compare the intake on this one with the blogspot photo - these plane do not seem to have much in common apart from the general layout.
You failed to consider the obvious. That the picture was taken with a wide angle lens and has some wide angle distortion.
I find it funny that some people would overanalyze and look for disproportionate things, when in fact, they can easily be explained with optical illusions and typical photographic distortions.
Please note that this picture was quickly deleted from a number of Chinese websites because this picture would have been considered a detriment to national security and can get people in jail. Already there are reports of aviation spotters having been jailed for this. The particular showing of the unit numbers on the tail is a particular no-no for the PLAAF.
You can find J-10s by the way, in Google Earth.
You are again focusing at irrelevant stuff there. The red stuff isn't part of the plane but rather appears to be part of a brace and is the same color of the engine cover used to plug the engine intake when the plane is at the ground and at rest.
And yes, the plane has a spiltter plate, and inside you have a variable intake ramp.
And no, there is no sensors there. You will see what may be the RWR on both sides of the cockpit underneath the canopy.
And they actually spent more than half a billion worth of buying engines from Russia just to fabricate things? Engines that cannot be used on any current Russian aircraft?
You might as well ask if Google Earth is involved in your conspiracy too, since J-10s are visible in at least two to three locations, despite GE not being updated enough and large parts of China is still in low res satellite photography.
You can actually go down to Chengdu, find CAC, and even see the planes right in the company runaway.
In addition to what I said about you need to look up about the AL-31F/FN, since all that is public information, what makes you think the size of the intake would give you a clue about the bypass ratio? [Of which you can always look up data on the AL-31F directly] You can choose a smaller intake should you prefer to improve the aircraft's acceleration, and general performance in the subsonic range, as well as in lower altitudes, or both. Choose larger intakes if you want peak high speeds, or higher altitudes or both. There are so many variables working here.
DragonKing786
New Member
Well I don't think everyone knows the full abilities of the aircraft, cause all i know it will fire all missiles made in China and it's BVR capable..Hopefully soon more details will be given, and it does look like a promising air-craft...no 1 nation builds the best in everything
The problem of third party articles is that the author themselves try to project their own concept of capabilities into the plane and then see if it lives up to those internal self projects or not.
Hence that is why the article does not make sense to me in many areas.
The bottomline of the J-10 is that it is a light to medium tactical support fighter, intended to do the roles of interception and plain old fighter vs. fighter engagement. With a secondary ground attack role, but then, just about every PLAAF fighter now has this requirement. Nothing more nothing less. No one is trying to compare it with the Typhoon or Rafale both of which are undoubtedly superior in the power and thrust regime.
It is less specific in roles compared to previous designs---J-8II as supersonic bomber interceptor, J-7 as a light point defense fighter, JH-7 as a dedicated strike fighter bomber and the Q-5 as a tactical strike fighter. Instead of having a myriad of designs, the intention is to rationalize all roles into one package. That seems to be the natural outcome of all fighter design evolution in the last two decades.
My gib with the article is that its trying to paint the J-10 as some sort of striker aircraft closer to the F-16C tradition, but I dont' see it that way.
Also I see your analysis of the engine intake to be quite odd. I will have to say though, that having a variable intake is the one thing that it differs from the F-16, whose fixed intakes are optimized for acceleration at below supersonic speeds. When you have a variable intake, it generally means you got an innately high intake volume, then hose it down by ramps to suit the engine at lower speeds and lower altitudes. You open up the ramps to get more supersonic speed. I'm likely to think the J-10, which also has a lower drag canopy, is likely to be faster in supersonic speeds than an F-16. That implies the plane still has a supersonic interceptor function similar to a J-8II.
The article is incorrect when you look it at this vantage point. Strikers tend to have fixed intakes---note the MiG-27 from the MiG-23. Their "office environment" tends to be at lower speeds and lower altitudes.
Hence that is why the article does not make sense to me in many areas.
The bottomline of the J-10 is that it is a light to medium tactical support fighter, intended to do the roles of interception and plain old fighter vs. fighter engagement. With a secondary ground attack role, but then, just about every PLAAF fighter now has this requirement. Nothing more nothing less. No one is trying to compare it with the Typhoon or Rafale both of which are undoubtedly superior in the power and thrust regime.
It is less specific in roles compared to previous designs---J-8II as supersonic bomber interceptor, J-7 as a light point defense fighter, JH-7 as a dedicated strike fighter bomber and the Q-5 as a tactical strike fighter. Instead of having a myriad of designs, the intention is to rationalize all roles into one package. That seems to be the natural outcome of all fighter design evolution in the last two decades.
My gib with the article is that its trying to paint the J-10 as some sort of striker aircraft closer to the F-16C tradition, but I dont' see it that way.
Also I see your analysis of the engine intake to be quite odd. I will have to say though, that having a variable intake is the one thing that it differs from the F-16, whose fixed intakes are optimized for acceleration at below supersonic speeds. When you have a variable intake, it generally means you got an innately high intake volume, then hose it down by ramps to suit the engine at lower speeds and lower altitudes. You open up the ramps to get more supersonic speed. I'm likely to think the J-10, which also has a lower drag canopy, is likely to be faster in supersonic speeds than an F-16. That implies the plane still has a supersonic interceptor function similar to a J-8II.
The article is incorrect when you look it at this vantage point. Strikers tend to have fixed intakes---note the MiG-27 from the MiG-23. Their "office environment" tends to be at lower speeds and lower altitudes.
The photograph is taken with a moderate angle lens. If a wide angle lens had been used we would expect distortion of the vertical features around the edges and the lines to the vanishing point would not be straight, there is no evidence of this.
In any case if the foreshortening if the shadows were due to the distortion cased by the lens, would not the length of the hangars also be affected?
Also any distortion would be smallest towards the centre of the field of view and largest at the edges. You can draw a straight line form the top of the first hangar to the top of the last hangar, there is no significant distortion across the image.
The key here is that the same angle of the sun applies to all objects is the field of view,
The tall hangars (ignoring the sidewall) must cast a shadow at least out as far as the aircraft nose gear.
With some images it is difficult to identify any alterations, but in this image the regularity (repetition of similar objects, the aircraft the hangars, the straight lines) made it easy to pick out the major flaws. There are others (e.g. some objects have no shadows).
I attribute no motive for changing the image, it my just be that they wanted a better picture to make the point and are prepared to make changes that we would not accept in the western press.
May advice is be careful of all images, they can be very convincing (a picture is worth a thousand words), from whatever source, but in particular from China as the message may be regarded as more important that the detail of what is presented.
With regards to plane spotters etc, yes there are many countries where plane spotting is regarded as, a group from the UK was arrested a couple of years ago in Greece.
I have seen the same image (and others showing the banner) on other websites. I have no knowledge that the image was deleted from Chinese websites, but assume your statement is a fact; perhaps it is an indication that the message was intended for external consumption.
Have another look at my mark-up, wide angle lens do not produce the sort of distortion necessary to foreshorten the shadows of the hangar. Follow the argument and make your own judgement.
Chris
I agree with crobato, this is not a sensor. Being red it is likely to be a remove before flight cover, perhaps to an auxiliary air door or a ram air scoop.
I do not argue that the J-10 has not been produced nor even deployed, only that some PR images are enhanced to promote the fundamental message.
Chris
Both C's good points.
It is not the run of the mill spotters photo - believe me I've looked at a few - the quaility is much to high for that - to high all together in fact.
It is an official photo, giveaways:
1. The very formal table with what appears to be officials adressing a large crow out side the picture - or having a teaparty on a windswept apron.
2. The red garnishments on the base of the pitot tube.
3. If you try and enlarge the photo rather much you'll se there is less information of object in the foreground than in the distant background.
4. Even given the postulate that these fighters are brand new, they don't exhibit any detail in enlargements, not the tiniest irregularity - except that the numbers are roughly in sequence.
5. As to shadows: The shadows inside the "hangars". there is sunlight over halfway inside the hangar.
I'm no expert but this is photoshopped.
I won't go into more detail; but that airintake belies credulity.
It is not the run of the mill spotters photo - believe me I've looked at a few - the quaility is much to high for that - to high all together in fact.
It is an official photo, giveaways:
1. The very formal table with what appears to be officials adressing a large crow out side the picture - or having a teaparty on a windswept apron.
2. The red garnishments on the base of the pitot tube.
3. If you try and enlarge the photo rather much you'll se there is less information of object in the foreground than in the distant background.
4. Even given the postulate that these fighters are brand new, they don't exhibit any detail in enlargements, not the tiniest irregularity - except that the numbers are roughly in sequence.
5. As to shadows: The shadows inside the "hangars". there is sunlight over halfway inside the hangar.
I'm no expert but this is photoshopped.
I won't go into more detail; but that airintake belies credulity.