China to lift veil on its J-10 .

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 23

China could display its J-10 fighter aircraft for the first time at the Zhuhai airshow in November, according to Chinese officials speaking during Singapore's Asian Aerospace exhibition this month.

Built by the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation, the J-10 attempts to rival current fourth-generation Western fighters.

A single-engine, single-seat design, the multi-role J-10 will represent a significant capability advance for the People's Liberation Army Air Force, which will operate it alongside its future fleet of Russian-built and licence-manufactured Sukhoi Su-27SK interceptors.

Likely armaments for the design include a number of systems from Israel and Russia as well as licence-built Chinese weapons.

Taiwanese intelligence sources say the J-10 prototype is genuine

Attachments:
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3c9778f3b3ed7855.jpg

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-03-02 AT 07:10 PM (GMT)]that'll be great. I like to know it's exact size since i think it's underpowered (compare to current 4th gen fighters) and the original optimum engine choice is possibly for the AL-41 (maybe in the future). That'll be interesting. Many sources are reluctant in my opinion to put the aircraft length over 50ft, while i think it's ~52-54ft long (without the probes :-) ) and that'll be ~5ft longer and proportionally larger than the F-16. could be wrong of course.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,409

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

Having the veil was a lot of fun. The J10 was probably the first fighter to be uncovered or 'scooped' in the Internet. One poor guy's Chinese military enthusiast website got shutdown because of it though. Most of the photos were shot by tourists, especially the ones with the flying prototypes. The 'official' looking one that appears in the post by the way, was probably scanned off from a Chinese language military enthusiast magazine which anyone can easily buy off the streets in Hong Kong.

As for the weights, the AL31FN engine (or Chinese WP15) could probably weigh more than the PW1120 originally meant for the Lavi, but these engines are also more powerful. (PW1120 over 25,000lbs reheat vs 27,560lbs for the AL31F and 26,730lbs.) Because of the size of the AL31F, the fuselage had to be lengthened, the airframe and structure had to be modified.

Here are some comparison empty weights of the various canard fighters

Lavi = 7,031 kg
Grippen = 7,400 kg
Rafale C = 9,400kg
Eurofighter Typhoon = 10,995 kg

Length will not tell you much by the way about the weight of the craft:

Lavi = 14.57m
Grippen = 14.1m
Rafale C = 15.27m
Typhoon = 15.46m

There is a tremendous weight difference from the 47 feet of the Lavi to the 52 feel of the Typhoon that is not explained by the mere five feet difference. For that matter, the Grippen is heavier than the Lavi while being physically longer. I should add that the nozzles of the AL31F pretty much stick out farther than the PW1120.

I would certainly doubt that the J10 would be in the same weight class as the Rafale or Typhoon since it's a single engined fighter. It looks to me that approximately the J10 should be around the 7,100 to 7,500kg class, and ain't going to weigh more than 8,400kg. I would find it quite a stretch that using the AL31F and with structural changes for that engine would cause the a fighter based on the Lavi at 7,000kg, to add another 1,400kg to 8,400kg. In comparison to previous Chinese fighters, the J10A is being speculated to be using composites heavily (just as the Lavi), and that technology has been acquired from the West.

Note that the Grippen has an 18,000lbs engine with reheat. Because of the twin engines, the Rafale and the Typhoon has a combined thrust that puts them way beyond this class (150kn for the Rafale (roughly 37,000lbs) and 190kn for the Typhoon, or 40,000lbs of thrust) so there is no point using the Rafale and Typhoon in the comparisons. These two planes simply belong to a different weight/thrust class, but we will compare them to the projected J10B instead.

The F16 with PW F100 engine is about 8,433kg (23,000lbs reheat) and with the more powerful GE F110 engine, about 8,581 kg (28,000lbs reheat). The F16 is truly a dense plane.

Comparisons to the F16? The F16A block 15OCU is probably the best performer of all F16s, despite the more powerful engines of the Block 52 (29,000 lbs reheat.) That's because the -16C/D versions added considerable weight and therefore wing loading without any increase in wing area. The Taiwanese Block 20 F16s belong to the Block 15OCU group with all the MLU updates, which makes them one of the best F16s available in any airforce today. Block 52s are not exactly common F16s either, and in Asia, Singapore and South Korea only operates them. Block 60 F16 has this new 35,000lbs GE engine, but then it's also even more loaded (such as the bigger fuselage fuel tanks), so any performance gained with greater power is absorbed by the greater weight---while the wing area remains the same and thus, wing loading continues to increase. In fact, the Japanese F16 variant, the F2, has considered this into the mix with a new and larger wing.

Before the project was terminated, the Lavi was tested to have better performance and agility than the F16s currently in service with the Israeli air force, which are F16As at that time. If the J10 performs roughly like the Lavi, that would still be impressive (the additional power of the AL31F would balance for its additional weight).

How much the J10 is derived from the Lavi is subject to speculation. Israel has been selling arms and technology to the Chinese for years, and you can point to the PL8 AAM which is based on the Python 3, and the laser technology used on the Laser Defense System on the T98 tanks. Given that the Lavi was a great financial burden to the Israelis, there is an obvious financial benefit of selling the tech to China. There is the political motivation as well---the Israelis were not happy about its cancellation, and the fact that the US is also selling to the Arabs, especially F16s. (While the Israelis will be getting a latest customized variant, the F16I, the UAE is getting the Block 60.)

The political cost of getting Israeli help on the J10 would mean that the J10 would not be exported to many of China's Middle East customers. Even Pakistan, a Moslem country, would be doubtful, and the Russians would not like some of their techs in the J10 being passed to the Pakistanis as that would surely raise Indian objections. It is perhaps for this reason why Pakistan continues to press on the FC-1 project.

There is still active rumors about a twin engined J10B, intended for the PLAN or a projected carrier. The latest news I get from the CMF is that Russia has licensed the RD93 (variant of the RD33 engine used on the MiG29) for production to China, so it can effectively politically wash its hands from any Indian objections with the sale of such engine for the FC-1. The same engine may be targeted for the J10B.

Such as fighter, with twin RD93s, can produce a fighter with 36,000lbs combined thrust with reheat, and a weight class about that of the Rafale due to the weight of the two engines. How such a fighter would look can be rather interesting. Will it have something like the split intake of the EF2000? The current J10A has a squarish EF2000 type intake. Or will it have the side F22 like style intakes seen in the FC-1, which uses the RD93.

The last issue is whether the plane will finally have TVC. I have gotten at least three reports that the AL31FN might be TVC, and a full swivel TVC at that. The clear prototype picture seen here in the first post, seems to have that 3D TVC engine with its massive nozzle blades. The Russians have rather aggressive trying to sell TVC to the Chinese, including a big exhibit on the engine in the Zhuhai air show. Naturally, the Russians can charge more for the TVC AL31 compared to the non TVC ones so there is an obvious profit motive to this.

According to this article,

http://www.kanwa.com/english/981210d.html

Saturn/Lyulka are trying to heavily push the AL31FP for the domestically produced Chinese SU27s, which can amount to a 200 engine order. The J10A order is even bigger, with 300 engines.

But the Chinese is heavily divided on the TVC issue. Opponents say it adds cost and complexity, while the benefits are only small. The Russians have been pushing TVC on the SU30MKK, but the Chinese dropped that idea, at least for the initial shipment of SU30MKK.

However, the Chinese did order another 40-45 bunch of SU30MKK, and we really don't know if these are actually up to the full SU30MK standard, which the Russians have already cemented before that deal was made.

As you can see from a typical discussion thread on the CMF, the Chinese are suspicious and skeptical over the Russian optimistic claims on this TVC issue:

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/archive/211347.shtml

(The Russians and the Chinese tend to have a peculiar car salesman vs. customer relationship---one is overly optimistic and wishful, and the other, scrupulous and skeptical.)

Recently however, the SU37 prototype has been downgraded back to the SU35 standard, without the TVC, and the SU30MK sales brochures have also removed any references to TVC. Thus there are indications that the Russians may be subtly pulling back from this issue without making it look embarrassing.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 475

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

Downgraded to Su-35? hmm that one is a tough quote..

there are 10 or 11 Su-35 models..of which they're all sorta different than each other.especially avionics. That MAKS2001 site posted here claims that the avionics improvement allowed them to not need the moveable engines no more

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 23

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-03-02 AT 05:17 PM (GMT)]here is couple more pics

It is obiusly much large than F16, probebly also alows it to carry more weapon's weight and fuel,it also probebly have longer operational range than f16 too.

Please comment!

[http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/WBird_AirFMonthly_J10_…]
[http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/WBird_AirFMonthly_J10_…]
[http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/WBird_AirFMonthly_J10_…]
Attachments:
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3c98c29e8293721b.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3c98c2c282a6e3a1.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3c98c2fe8341560a.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3c98c38a842acf96.jpg

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,409

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

The plane does not appear to be much larger than an F16--the F-16 is about 49+ feet, while the J10 appears like 51-52 feet, similar to a Eurofighter, and the Lavi from which this plane is based from, is about over 47 feet. Length is not an indicator of weight, as I have mentioned.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 570

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

I posted this on the acig forum, but got no response so far:

"I am wondering about one thing. With all this talk about the J-10 desing being so similar to the Lavi, there is one big difference: the design philosophy of the Lavi was to start with a two-seater, and work to a single-seater from there, so that the two-seater would have at least the minimal capabilities the air force requested. On the J-10 it seems that this path was not followed. Is there a certain reason for?"

Perhaps somebody here has got an idea?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 23

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

The Lavi was designed to be a fighter with ground attack ability first and with air superiority ability second, like the SU30. With the J10 is the other way around, air superiority first in mind and ground attack second. The J10 is really nothing like Lavi in function The chinese is just using some of it's tech to help the devolopment of J10.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

Yehe, that second post, first picture...that's an earlier wooden mockup right? Sure looks like it's smaller in the mockup and the tail is just 100% F-16. Nothing wrong with that, but it's an interesting indication that the yaw stability was poorer than the preliminary design stage, hence the difference of the wooden mockup and the other more recent pictures.
Crobato, why do you keep on insisting that the length is not a indicator of weight at all? Using a few assumptions, you'll see that it's very closely related to weight. First of all, let's assume that the J-10 is currently AA optimized. That would mean a lighter airframe than an AG optimized one (based on trends of others). Then you can assume that, based on trends of AA aircraft only, the weight is proportional to size with a proportionality constant. But size is proportional to length and span. Because the J-10 has a delta of ~50-60 degrees, there's nothing special there in terms of aspect ratio compared to the Lavi, Rafale, EF2000, even an F-16 (low swept delta). The next assumption will actually further that claim. You have to assume that the Chinese aerostructure technology is as advanced as those used on the Lavi or the Gryphon. If not that's going to add some extra weight. At best, let's assume same level of technology. Then, the J-10 at your quoted 52+ft is going to weigh more than an F-16, in fact i'm not that optimistic that it'll only weigh slightly more. The problem i have is i remember a posted Chinese newspaper source indicates it at ~46-48ft? If that's true, then the TWR is fine. As to the PW1120, i thought it only delivers ~20,000lbf? If my assumptions are correct, they either have their eye on the AL-41 or something indigenous (which i rather doubt). I remember they got turned down for the AL-41 technology for now and doesn't it bother you that the engine nozzle/rear fuselage doesn't really seems to fit that well? Unless it's for the widely known problem with that engine in that the heat release at the tail pipe is more than western fighter engines. The problem with the Lavi was it's size, and without external tanks, it doesn't fly too far that's why it's intent is to replace the A-4. As comparison of Lavi to the F-16, it's rather obvious that after ten years of F-16 experience, the Lavi (which is pretty much an American designed plane) is going to be all around inferior or parity? As to using up Israeli money, i thought the Lavi was funded almost fully by American tax payer's dollars (my dollars!). Maybe the Israelis were pissed because they added the little amount of their money and wasn't able to make a profit out of it...go figure.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,409

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

I gave you an example already. The Grippen is shorter than the Lavi and yet has a higher empty weight. In fact the F16 has a higher empty weight than the Lavi, even though both are of the same length. The Japanese F2 is shorter than the Typhoon but has a higher empty weight.

Go figure. The numbers are available for your perusal.

The AL31FN order for the J10As is confirmed by both Kanwa and Jane's. So it's clear that this is the engine destined for the J10A. I wonder why you bought up the AL41, which is still in development.

If you see the AFM article on the J10A, you will see a picture of the AL31F with extended rear nozzle blades. You figure out why it's a poor fit on the rear of the J10 1006 prototype, mainly because the rear nozzle needs room to swivel for variable thrust vector control.

That's an all aspect TVC engine they showed at Zhuhai which the Saturn Lyulka wanted to sell to the Chinese.

Now this:

http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw061501.html

"China to buy Russian engines for F-10 fighters June 15, 2001 PARIS, Jun 14, 2001 (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) - - The command of the Chinese army decided to equip its F-10 fighter planes with the Russian AL-31FN engines, a member of the Chinese delegation at the international airshow in Le Bourget told Tass on Thursday. He said the Chinese army is to receive over 300 such planes in the coming ten years. The serial production of the fighters is to begin in 2003. However Russia will supply several dozen of the engines in the coming two years.

The AL31FN engine will highlight the display of the Salyut enterprise in Le Bourget. The company is the main producer of AL31F engines for Su-27 and Su-30MKK fighters exported to China.

The AL31FN engine will make F-10 a supermanoeuvrable plane thanks to a new thurst control. It will have no analogues in South-East Asia, according to the Chinese representative."

As a note:

Just because I suspect that J10_1006 prototype may have TVC engines, does not mean the final product would for reasons you can debate.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,409

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

>The Lavi was designed to be a fighter with ground attack
>ability first and with air superiority ability second, like
>the SU30. With the J10 is the other way around, air
>superiority first in mind and ground attack second. The J10
>is really nothing like Lavi in function The chinese is just
>using some of it's tech to help the devolopment of J10.

A close examination of the J10 reveals enough differences to indicate the plane is not a copy.

1. Rudder is much higher and bigger.

2. The intake is squarer and uses a Mirage 2000 like intake cone inside.

3. The canards have a different sweep.

4. The nose is longer and droops like a Flanker.

5. The pilot does not seem to sit as high as in the Lavi.

6. The Lavi has missiles on the wingtips, the J10 does not.

7. The body is longer.

This may suggest that the plane may use the Lavi as a design inspiration, but not as a copy. But the J9 looked like a Viggen too, and the J8, like the SU-15 T5 prototype.

This does not mean the Israelis didn't assist on the project. How did the Chinese get a digital quadraplex FBW (same like the F16) in the first place? When the first J10 prototype lifted on the air on March of 1998, the Russians didn't even sell anything to the Chinese that had a digital quadraplex FBW. MiG only worked with the Chinese for an FBW system but that's an analog type for the FC-1.

When the US was assisting the Israelis on the Lavi, that meant access to the F16's FBW and all the software code. Did the Israeli's passed this aspect of US taxpayer's money to the Chinese?

Sleep on that.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

Crobato, nobody said length Must be a weight indicator, but that's simply a trend. Sure, you can be off a bit, but the trends of a certain type of aircraft usually fits pretty well. That's well known in aerospace engineering and provides a very very good first weight estimation, along with engine size, wing type, and construction materials. As to the AL-41, that's because "i" see the J-10 as underpowered, and we'll see what happens.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 6,409

RE: China to lift veil on its J-10 .

>Crobato, nobody said length Must be a weight indicator, but
>that's simply a trend. Sure, you can be off a bit, but the
>trends of a certain type of aircraft usually fits pretty
>well. That's well known in aerospace engineering and

I'm not sure how I see it. The F2 is 50 feet and weighs 12000kg. The Typhoon is 52 feet and weighs 10,990kg empty.

Figure it out.

>provides a very very good first weight estimation, along
>with engine size, wing type, and construction materials. As
>to the AL-41, that's because "i" see the J-10 as
>underpowered, and we'll see what happens.

If it is underpowered, well, I guess the Chinese would have to be stuck with 300 of these AL31FN engines.

Most likely if it was underpowered, they would go to the J10B, which has two RD93s (each engine about 18,000lbs of thrust reheat).

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 269

>The Lavi was designed to be a fighter with ground attack
>ability first and with air superiority ability second, like
>the SU30. With the J10 is the other way around, air
>superiority first in mind and ground attack second. The J10
>is really nothing like Lavi in function The chinese is just
>using some of it's tech to help the devolopment of J10.

A close examination of the J10 reveals enough differences to indicate the plane is not a copy.

1. Rudder is much higher and bigger.

2. The intake is squarer and uses a Mirage 2000 like intake cone inside.

3. The canards have a different sweep.

4. The nose is longer and droops like a Flanker.

5. The pilot does not seem to sit as high as in the Lavi.

6. The Lavi has missiles on the wingtips, the J10 does not.

7. The body is longer.

This may suggest that the plane may use the Lavi as a design inspiration, but not as a copy. But the J9 looked like a Viggen too, and the J8, like the SU-15 T5 prototype.

This does not mean the Israelis didn't assist on the project. How did the Chinese get a digital quadraplex FBW (same like the F16) in the first place? When the first J10 prototype lifted on the air on March of 1998, the Russians didn't even sell anything to the Chinese that had a digital quadraplex FBW. MiG only worked with the Chinese for an FBW system but that's an analog type for the FC-1.

When the US was assisting the Israelis on the Lavi, that meant access to the F16's FBW and all the software code. Did the Israeli's passed this aspect of US taxpayer's money to the Chinese?

Sleep on that.

some good arguments on why J-10 is not lavi

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

some good arguments on why J-10 is not lavi

Oh come one and does not make a fool out of Yourself. I know there are many idiots out there claiming the J-10 = Lavi and that is plain stupid as well.
However no-one with the slightest bit of common sense and esp. in mind of the facts can ignore that they are some sort of brothers. Surely more evolved than the F/A-18A-D to the F/A-18E/F but probably comparable to the evolution from the original YF-17 to the latest Super Hornet.

Deino

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Oh come one and does not make a fool out of Yourself. I know there are many idiots out there claiming the J-10 = Lavi and that is plain stupid as well.
However no-one with the slightest bit of common sense and esp. in mind of the facts can ignore that they are some sort of brothers. Surely more evolved than the F/A-18A-D to the F/A-18E/F but probably comparable to the evolution from the original YF-17 to the latest Super Hornet.

A claim J-10 = Lavi is not idiotic. The fact is the J-10 would look exactly as Lavi if China had a possibility to procure PW1120 or F100 engines. But they didn't. So they went for the closest available solution which was the Al-31FN - 34 in longer, 10 in larger in diameter and over 600 lb heavier - but also almost 7,000 lbf more powerful (AB setting). That required a complete rework of the lightweight Lavi - elongated and beefed up structure, completely new air inlet ducts and powerplant attachment points, modified bleed management and air-conditioning ducting system, enlarged fuel tanks, modified fuel lines and hydraulic systems, stronger landing gear, everything had to be adapted for the monster which is the Saturn engine compared to the PW1120. That is why, in the end, the J-10 looks visibly different from the Lavi, but it is still the same pedigree.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

but it is still the same pedigree.

...i.e. both aircraft have the same pedigree - the General Dynamics F-16.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

BS... Regd. aerodynamic layout, there is virtually nothing that connects these two. Lavi shares some solutions with the Viper bcs it, too, was largely designed by General Dynamics (Israelis were not able to pull it thru alone).

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

...was largely designed by General Dynamics (Israelis were not able to pull it thru alone).

That is exactly what I'm saying. IAI got a lot of help from GD - the Chinese in turn, got a lot of help from IAI (it's alleged).

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

A claim J-10 = Lavi is not idiotic. The fact is the J-10 would look exactly as Lavi if China had a possibility to procure PW1120 or F100 engines. But they didn't. So they went for the closest available solution which was the Al-31FN - 34 in longer, 10 in larger in diameter and over 600 lb heavier - but also almost 7,000 lbf more powerful (AB setting). That required a complete rework of the lightweight Lavi - elongated and beefed up structure, completely new air inlet ducts and powerplant attachment points, modified bleed management and air-conditioning ducting system, enlarged fuel tanks, modified fuel lines and hydraulic systems, stronger landing gear, everything had to be adapted for the monster which is the Saturn engine compared to the PW1120. That is why, in the end, the J-10 looks visibly different from the Lavi, but it is still the same pedigree.

Sorry, but that claim is pathetic ! You note Yourself it uses a larger engine with a wider diameter ?? ... and still say it is a copy, a clone??

Maybe we should check what definition for clone we use, but for me a copy is a 1:1-copy and so it is none. Even if You upscale a Lavi You don't match the J-10.
And the fact that it would probably if, if, if is still not a reason to call it a copy.

I agree that the J-11-series is a clone of the original Su-27SK even if much refined, the same with several other Chinese types, but the J-10 is simply not a copy.
Again I don't deny any relations, any direct connections in its development ... but at least per the definition I gave above it is not.

In the end I can agree with You: "the J-10 looks visibly different from the Lavi, but it is still the same pedigree." Exactly what I said in my comparison with the YF-17 development to the F/A-18E/F ... and no one would call the Super-Hornet a copy of the Cobra ?? Or am I wrong?

Deino

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 3,854

clone: a person or thing regarded as identical to another.

Calling the J-10 a clone of the Lavi is simply wrong.

If China cannot procure the F100 then by definition it is a different aircraft because practically everything had to be redesigned for the larger Al-31. That's not even counting the redesign needed for the lack of access to US parts.

In the end, there are probably no exchangeable parts between J-10 and Lavi otherwise its progress would have just as easily been blocked by the US. It is stupid to think of it as a "clone."

The Lavi serves as a model for the planform and possibly as a dataset. But the lack of access to US/western parts means even if China had the entire set of blueprints it cannot reproduce the Lavi as a clone. The only time you can get exact clones are ToT like the J-11 and the Z-9.