How Good is the J-10?

crobato

New Member
u know they can upgrade the electronic of j-10 fair easily, i just don't think j-10 been the front line of PLAAF has inferior electronic component vs FC-1, especially when chinese have access toward both plane electronic components.

Upgrades takes place in terms of set blocks. It does not occur minutely and in small gradients. All the ideas of improvement are collected into a single list, and then implemented into the next block of production. Then the earlier planes are upgraded to meet the new standard.

In the USAF for example, for a while there, the new and export only Block 52 plus actually had electronics that were better than most of the F-16s in the USAF, even though some features were deleted. Only later did the USAF Block 30 to 50s had their upgrades to raise them to that standard.

In the J-10, as far as we know, those that went to the 44th Division was one block, then those that went to the 3rd Division was another block. The ones that went to the 3rd Division may have improvements that the ones in the 44th and the FTTC trials and aggressor group don't have. The most visible is the presence of a new satellite related uplink, which was back fitted into the 44th Division and FTTC jets.

The J-10s that went to the 2nd Division are probably the same block as the 3rd Division machines.

Why the FC-1 has newer electronics? It is because the system was solidified ahead of both the J-10 and the J-11B. Of course if you are basing it on the cockpit alone, the FC-1's glass cockpit certainly makes the cockpit of both the J-10's and the J-11B's half a generation behind. Judging by a cockpit alone is not a conclusive summary that one's systems is better than the other, but generally, what's on the surface tends to reflect what's underneath. But its not just the cockpit alone. The FC-1, at least for the planes numbered 102 and 103 that went to the PAF, now boasts a new shortened nose pitot tube that is multifunctional, compared to the pitot tubes you see on the nose of the J-10 and J-11B. Pitots tend to be on the way of your radar's field of view, so reducing it and removing it entirely is usually desirable. But pitots also have their uses, like measuring the angle of attack of the plane in flight, acting as a lightning rod to protect the radar, and measuring the radar output outside of the radome.

In any case, here are two areas where the FC-1 is ahead. Of course what the FC-1 does not have the satellite uplink, which appears to be PLAAF exclusive only.

Actually the J-10 is due for an electronics makeover to bring it to a new standard. Recently we have seen some pics of J-10s with grey noses, similar to the grey nosed FC-1s in the PAF, but its not clear if the radome is actually grey or its just covers. I surely would like to see a picture of one of these in closeup to verify. Of course having the grey radomes makes the J-10 look more aesthetically appealing but my purpose is to see whether the new shortened pitot is implemented on the J-10's nose.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Recently we have seen some pics of J-10s with grey noses, similar to the grey nosed FC-1s in the PAF, but its not clear if the radome is actually grey or its just covers. I surely would like to see a picture of one of these in closeup to verify.
You could start with a dimension comparison. It may be a physical impossibility to have the same radar set for both planes. (circumference and depth issues)
 

crobato

New Member
I don't think the radar of the FC-1 will be fitted on the J-10's even if it is a bit newer. Well quite a bit, the back end of the KLJ-7 radar is quite small and compact, a major refinement from the KLJ-1 radar first fitted on the J-8IIs.

You're not going to make radome dimensional changes without affecting the airplane's aerodynamics. How the air goes past the nose relates to how the air would enter the canards when then relates to how long the vortices will stay laminated to the airplane and to keep the vortices from disintegrating near the plane. How the air goes past the nose underneath will relate how the air goes into the intake, which is already all carefully measured and determined, and you cannot put deviations into that since that will have repercussions on the engine.

Even if the J-10 gets a new radar, the planar array would have to be the same size as the previous one, and the radome dimensions have to be preserved. The new radar has to be designed to fit in it.

What may change is the material and the frequency selectivity for the radome. If the radome is not painted, then the color of the radome reflects that of its material, and a change in that color may indicate a change in the material, and therefore implies a change in frequency selectivity. And that implies a change in the radar. But this is a series of cause and effect implications that _suggests_ change, but not proof of it.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How the air goes past the nose underneath will relate how the air goes into the intake, which is already all carefully measured and determined, and you cannot put deviations into that since that will have repercussions on the engine.
however, they have dealt with this prev by the retro fit of shockramps. the main issue is going to be the level of power in that set - power = heat = cooling adjustments
 

crobato

New Member
They will have to find ways to cool via the bulkhead behind the radar. The bulkhead will have holes for ventilation.

No matter what, you cannot change the shape of the radome without aerodynamic consequences that will require new wind tunnel testing and flight testing.

I don't see them changing the array and the servos of the radar soon. If there are any changes it will have to be on the back end boxes.

If they plan on electronic scanning in the future, the current servo design would remain frozen, and they will never upgrade to another mechanical array.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
They will have to find ways to cool via the bulkhead behind the radar. The bulkhead will have holes for ventilation.

No matter what, you cannot change the shape of the radome without aerodynamic consequences that will require new wind tunnel testing and flight testing.

I don't see them changing the array and the servos of the radar soon. If there are any changes it will have to be on the back end boxes.

If they plan on electronic scanning in the future, the current servo design would remain frozen, and they will never upgrade to another mechanical array.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I agree with you. My prev comment is about intake management. A redesign of the inlet was not warranted, inflow was remapped via the use of a shock ramp. That indicates a desire to force turbulent and/or compresed air into the engine. Its a bad analogy, but look at it as being equiv to an aerodynamic version of a camshaft. Or as another example, ramping changes the reynolds numbers.

as for the radar, I'd agree that the iterative development for that platform is in processing improvements at the back end. the smarter the software, the more blood you get out of the stone.
 

ejaz007

New Member
Wouldn’t it be better to compare J10 with previous Chinese fighters to better understand the improvements in J10? Comparing it with US/Western or Russian fighters is bit harsh. What I mean is these countries have perhaps more expertise, money for R&D and good export market. The money from export of these fighters is in turn used for future development projects. Comparing J10 with J8 or J7 is perhaps more logical. Then we shall be able to understand the progress of Chinese military aviation industry over the years.
 
Last edited:

wp2000

Member
Well, both should be compared: china's previous planes and other countries modern planes. Only then a more balanced and complete opinion can be drawn.

I would love to see some analysis on J10's development, especially, it has entered the stage of stable production and poised to give us a major upgrade version.
 

ejaz007

New Member
I have found this old article regarding J-10 program. Any comments plz.

Latest Chinese Warplane Flies with US Technology
By David Isenberg - Asia Times 12-3-2


US Technology Appears In New Chinese Warplane Via Israel

The recent unveiling (sort of) of China's first domestically-designed (sort of) fighter jet was the culmination of a long saga of international military-hardware wheeling and dealing that has seen US-designed or -funded high-tech weaponry fall into the hands of potential military rivals.

The showpiece of many years' work, dating back to the late 1980s, recently happened - albeit unobserved - when China confirmed the existence of, but did not unveil, the Jian-10 fighter jet. It had been reported that the J-10 (F-10 being the export version, using North Atlantic Treaty Organization designation) would be shown in public for the first time during the fourth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China 2002) held in Zhuhai in southern Guangdong province from November 4-10, but the plane did not appear.

The J-10 is a multi-role single-engine and single-seat tactical fighter, with a combat radius of 1,000 kilometers. Although billed as a domestically produced fighter, in truth the J-10 could not have happened without the help of other countries, especially
Israel.

The program began in the late 1980s and is thought to be based on an Israeli design. It contains Israeli and Russian avionics, and is powered by Russian engines.

Chinese engineers developed the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel's US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was canceled in 1987, according to the Federation of American Scientists website. The Lavi was based on the US F-16 and built with US$1.3 billion in aid from Washington.

In 1983, when US support for the Lavi commenced, the program was opposed vigorously by the Defense Department, partly because of re-export concerns. An early supporter of the Lavi was George Shultz, then secretary of state in the administration of US president Ronald Reagan. Shultz would later label his advocacy of the program a "costly mistake".

Only in early 1995 did the US government make public its concerns about Israel's Lavi-related technology re-exports to China. David Lari, director general of Israel's Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in an Associated Press interview that "some technology on aircraft" had been sold to China and that some Israeli companies may not have "clean hands".

Yet China's acquisition of the Russian Su-27, after China had attempted for years to develop the J-10 aircraft with equivalent technology to perform similar functions, is seen by some experts as a sign that China lacks confidence in its domestic industrial
capabilities.

Though it has never been certain precisely what specific technologies and systems Israel provided, it was reported that the Jian-10's radar and fire-control system is the Israeli-made ELM-2021 system, which can simultaneously track six air targets and lock on to the four most threatening targets for destruction.

In December 1991, US intelligence officials announced that Israel planned to open a government-coordinated and sponsored "arms office" in China. Given what the Israelis had to offer, and what the Chinese needed, it was most likely that a transfer of avionics and other technologies developed in the Lavi program would ensue, since there was a void in the Chinese avionics and fire-control system capability due to the 1989 termination of a US-Chinese program in response to Tiananmen Square.

China and Israel started collaboration in the early 1980s and full-scale cooperation was under way officially by 1984. As neither China nor Israel was capable of developing the propulsion system required by the J-10, in 1991 China acquired the AI31F turbofan engine from Russia for incorporation into the J-10 fighter. This engine is also used in the Su-27 air-superiority fighter that Chinese acquired from Russia. As the performance of the AL31F engine is significantly better than that of the American PW1120 originally slated for the Lavi, it may be anticipated that the performance of the J-10 will be accordingly enhanced. Built by the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corp, the J-10 attempts to rival current fourth-generation Western fighters. China has inked a 10-year deal with the Russian engine maker SRPC Salut for 300 Al-31F engines for its J-10 program and will begin production of the jets next year.

The plane is said to have capabilities similar to the Su-27, the Russian MiG-29 and the US F-16 fighter jets, but with an estimated cost of less than $10 million, it could rival other jet makers on the international market.

In March 1997, despite official denials from Israeli officials, the US Office of Naval Intelligence in its unclassified "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" restated more strongly than it had the previous year its belief that US-derived technology from the canceled Israeli Lavi fighter was being used on China's new F-10 fighter. It said, "The design has been undertaken with substantial direct external assistance, primarily from Israel and Russia, with indirect assistance through access to US technologies." In fact, according to the annual intelligence report, "the F-10 is a single-seat, light multi-role fighter based heavily on the canceled Israeli Lavi program".

Until it was canceled in 1987, much of Lavi technological development was paid for by the United States. Ironically, the potential capability of F-10 fighters was cited by both the US Navy and Air Force as one of the future threats justifying the expenditure of billions on new tactical aircraft, such as the F-22, F/A-18F, and Joint Strike Fighter. The fact that possibly US-derived technology provided by an ally might be contributing to that potential threat is a delicate subject.

However, this is not the first time accusations of illegal technology have been made. A March 1992 report by State Department inspector general Sherman Funk, "Report of Audit: Department of State Defense Trade Controls", states that alleged Israeli violations of US laws and regulations "cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers ... dating back to about 1983".

The 1992 Funk report was the first time the US government had publicly released evidence that Israel was improperly re-exporting US-origin weapons technology. Israel and some of its US supporters quickly denounced it. So that their work would not be classified - and thus off-limits to the public - the writers of the report referred to Israel only as a "major recipient" of US technology, and misdeeds were not specified in detail. The classified version, of course, did name Israel as well as other states, and it cited instances of unauthorized retransfers, US officials said in interviews.

The Funk report criticized State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for ignoring scores of intelligence reports of apparent violations of Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms regulations retransfer restrictions and for not reporting them to senior officials and Congress, as required by law. Israel denounced the report, especially as its release followed allegations of improper transfer by Israel of Patriot missile technology to China.

In the summer of 2000, the Washington Times reported that a memo circulating inside the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency told analysts they no longer had to gain input from the Defense Intelligence Agency before deciding whether controlled technology should be transferred to Israel. The DIA had compiled evidence that Israel had violated US export regulations by transferring missile, laser and aircraft technology to China.

Subsequently, when Israel tried to sell the Phalcon to India, the US government demanded that Israel limit arms exports. Israel was told that it must inform the US of all weapons transfers to 27 nations regarded as "countries of concern" such as China, India and Yugoslavia.

"Israel ranks second only to Russia as a weapons-system provider to China and as a conduit for sophisticated military technology, followed by France and Germany," stated a report this year by the US-China Security Review Commission, a panel established by Congress to examine security and economic relations between the two countries. "Recent upgrades in target acquisition and fire control, probably provided by Israeli weapons specialists, have enhanced the capabilities of the older guided missile destroyers and frigates" in the Chinese navy's inventory, it said.

The commission cited Israel as a supplier to Beijing of radar systems, optical and telecommunications equipment, drones and flight simulators.

Arms exports have not only played a crucial role in offsetting Israel's trade imbalance but have also performed a key role in furthering its diplomatic efforts. The sale of arms and technology has become one of the most effective techniques to furthering
Israeli goals overseas. The quiet ties with China and India and the growing alliance with Turkey in the 1980s and the 1990s are good examples of strong links based on such cooperation.

The J-10 is hardly the only result of Israeli-Chinese military cooperation. For example, the Chinese F-8, the same type of plane that collided with the US reconnaissance plane last year, is armed with Israeli Python-3 missiles. The Python, adapted from the US ALM-9L Sidewinder missile, has a high degree of US technology. Ironically for Israel, China apparently sold its version of Python-3, called the PL-8, to Iraq.

And, as was widely publicized, Israel was set to sell China the Phalcon, an airborne early-warning radar system, until it was forced by the United States to cancel the deal. The US Central Intelligence Agency also believed Israel was marketing its STAR cruise missile in China. The STAR incorporates sensitive US technology.

And former US officials report that both Israel and the Dutch company Delft made unauthorized sales of US thermal-imaging tank sights to, among others, China. The sights were installed on China's 69 MOD-2 tanks, some of which were sold to Iraq. The United States acquired physical evidence of this transfer after these tanks were used against US marines in the 1991 Gulf War.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Ejaz007;

Its an old article [as you your self have mentioned as well]. We have seen it, read it, been through it over & over & probably have discussed it in the old J-10 threads many a times. Plus the article doesn't have much of a credibility.

(Another thing, provide links with articles you copy/paste)
 

ejaz007

New Member
Since I was not part of that discussion I do not know what was discussed. Besides the purpose of posting this article was to gather any credible information regarding Pakistan’s involvement in supplying F-16 as claimed in the article. Is there any reliable information about that?
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Since I was not part of that discussion I do not know what was discussed. Besides the purpose of posting this article was to gather any credible information regarding Pakistan’s involvement in supplying F-16 as claimed in the article. Is there any reliable information about that?
who cares? is this a bash pakistan thread? This is discussing J-10, not F-16.

And no, that article's author clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone who has followed the J-10 program for more than a few months would know how much Israeli help has been exaggerated in the media.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Since I was not part of that discussion I do not know what was discussed. Besides the purpose of posting this article was to gather any credible information regarding Pakistan’s involvement in supplying F-16 as claimed in the article. Is there any reliable information about that?
Ejaz read Tphaung reply. That is why I said the article is not credible. The writer probably went through some forums to write this article. No field research is possible for J-10 at the moment as China has kept it confidential. The objectives of the article are however to prove that:

1) Pakistan "did" provide F-16 to China for J-10's research.

This never happened. Pakistan only had 35 operational F-16s & US wasnt selling any more. As for the 4 broken down, PAC canabalised it for its own research (to produce spare parts).

You cant go around distributing your own mainstay fighter aircraft, especially when you have limited numbers of it & are not being sold anymore units. So this never happened.

2) China got the Levi blue prints from Israel which resulted in J-10.

The author is trying to prove that China is not capable of producing high-tech fighters on its own. This is not the case. If you go through the Chinese aviation industries' programs & projects from past decade till now, you would see China has come up with many things on its own (Fighters, AWACS, Avionics), out of which many are claimed to be better than that of Russia.
 

Chrom

New Member
1) Pakistan "did" provide F-16 to China for J-10's research.

This never happened. Pakistan only had 35 operational F-16s & US wasnt selling any more. As for the 4 broken down, PAC canabalised it for its own research (to produce spare parts).

.
This doesnt mean what China didnt aquired F-16 for research. You know, may be chinese ingeniers are smart enouth to research F-16 without completely destroying the aircraft in process?
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
This doesnt mean what China didnt aquired F-16 for research. You know, may be chinese ingeniers are smart enouth to research F-16 without completely destroying the aircraft in process?
The American team used to visit regularly, especially just to make sure that Pakistan din't give F-16(s) to China. There are several pics of it on the net. May be you can find some on DT as well.
 

layer3

New Member
The American team used to visit regularly, especially just to make sure that Pakistan din't give F-16(s) to China. There are several pics of it on the net. May be you can find some on DT as well.
This can be backed up with the fact that US would never had offered Pakistan the new Block 52 C and Ds if any F-16 transfer to China had taken place.

Now how good is J-10, this can be determined by the fact that PAF was so impressed by the J-10s performance that it instantly reduced the number of F-16s being purchased from US. So I believe it has some sting.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Anyone know were i can find some decent pictures of the J 10, i've got a few off the net but the selection isn't that great. Any help would be much apreciated.
 
Top