China Military Watch

[Kanson]

As far as air superiority goes, trustworthy sources from the PLA indicate that even the J-10A is far superior, so I suppose it's logical to assume that the J-10B is even more so. Then again, we're back to the "credible proof" thing. You'll never get credible proof of the J-10 vs. Su-27 comparison, not in any way, so you're certainly free to believe what you want.

J-10A far superior? even without IRST which Su-27 has? Only now J-10B is spotted with IRST. Yet we don't know the capabilities of IRST in J-10B. Is the spec listed? So without even knowing the specs, i find it funny to see claims that J-10B and even J-10A is superior to Su-27?

What is the meaning of superior for chinese? Are they chauvinist to claim whatever they have is superior?

[shiv]

What is the meaning of superior for chinese? Are they chauvinist to claim whatever they have is superior?

]

Kansonji - while I was searching for PLAAF attrition news earlier today I came across a Chinese statement that in China engagements between the J-10 and Su 27 showed the J-10 far better. This is information from China - a country that only releases information that shows Cina and Chinese stuff in a good light. I would take that with a truckload of salt - or maybe the Chinese never really learned how to fly or maintain the Su 27 seeing the number of reported accidents.

Meanwhile Google says there has been at least one, maybe two J-10 crashes reported this year.

Dishonesty and bluff may be designed to cause doubt and fear in an adversary - but after a while it becomes ROTFL and adversaries learn that the dishonest entity has much to hide.

[shiv]

Ok here is the J-10 superior news item. Read it all - it is interesting
http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-conven ... mix-13248/

According to reports in the Chinese media, the J-10 and Flanker have met several times in mock combats, with the J-10 reportedly coming out on top in most engagements. This indicates not only its superior flight control system, but also highlights the capabilities of the aircraft’s indigenous avionics. However, the Flanker scores well in terms of range/load characteristics.

[shiv]

Photos of J-10 crash on 2007 on here
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -down.html

Note the laughable photoshop of the tail number

[shiv]

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... ashes.html

10 May 2010 8ak: On April 13, in the port city of Tianjin about 130- KM away from Beijing, China showed off its 4th Generation J-10 aircraft to military attaches of about 50 countries it could possibly export to. 9 days later as per Strategy page reports it was running to cover up the 2nd crash of the J-10 fighter that became public in the last two years.

The 22 April crash became public because a senior colonel had died in the crash and the funeral became too big to keep the story hushed. The news report also claims that the design of the 200-odd J-10s produced has not worked out as desired by its developers.

The crash and doubts over its design also comes as a set back to Pakistan, which was hoping to buy 36 J-10 in a deal worth US$1.4 billion has also been concluded reports China's English Peoples Daily. In the past it has exported fighter aircraft to Iran, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan. However, the pitfalls of reverse engineering without paying royalty and truly understanding the technology are high accident rates, a fact that China has hushed up with its lack of media freedom.

The first flight of the J-10 begun took place in 1998. It is the most advanced 4th Generation aircraft to be built by China. However, Fighter-Planes.com reports the development of J-10 has proven to be torturous. The prototype was rumoured to have first flown in 1996, but the project suffered a serious setback in late 1997 when the 02 prototype lost control and crashed, as the result of certain system failure, presumably with either the FBW system or the engine.

If the reports pertaining to the faulty design of the fourth generation fighter are serious enough, it will put the Chinese plans to replace the obsolete J-7 fighter and Q-5 attack aircraft in a limbo. With 2,000 combat aircraft China has the 3rd largest air force in the world.

[shiv]

More on the J-10 from strategypage
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatri ... 00506.aspx

The Pride Of China Crashes And Burns
May 6, 2010: For the second time in three years, it was revealed that one of China's J-10 fighters crashed. There may have been more. The two crashes that are known were initially kept quiet. News of these mishaps escaped only because of special circumstances. The most recent loss (on April 22nd) killed its pilot, who was a senior colonel. That rank and reputation led to a big funeral, attracting a lot of military and political officials. That made it difficult to conceal how the colonel died. The 2007 crash was in a rice paddy in the rural northeast. The wreckage was not immediately removed, and eventually someone with a cell phone camera and an Internet connection came along, and the pictures got out. It is believed that there have been more crashes, which have been kept from the public. Nearly 200 J-10s have been built so far, but the design has not worked out as hoped.

The J-10 began development in 1988 and first flew in 1996. The J-10 is based on the abandoned Israeli Lavi (an improved F-16) project. The J-10 initially used a Russian engine (the AL-31F, the same one used in the Su-27), and was to have used Israeli electronics. But the United States leaned on the Israelis to back off making the Chinese air force too lethal, given the probability of American pilots possibly having to fight the Chinese air force some day. The Chinese developed their own avionics, based on Russian equipment. But this did not work out well. The J-10 is also now using a Chinese copy of the Russian AL-31F engine, and the poor reliability of this engine appears to have been the cause of several accidents.

The J-10 looks something like the American F-16, and weighs about the same (19 tons). Like the F-16 the J-10 has only one engine. The J-10 turned out to perform poorly in air-to-air combat. In response, the Chinese have been reconfiguring some of them as a fighter-bombers (the J-10C). This two seat version can carry over four tons of bombs and missiles and has been equipped with a fire control system for delivering missiles and smart bombs. The J-10C will have a weapons officer to concentrate on hitting things on the ground.

China is seeking export sales for the J-10, selling the aircraft as an "F-16 replacement", but for half the price. This is not going well, because there are so many used F-16s for sale, at less than what new J-10s cost. Despite all that, the Chinese are quite proud of the J-10, as it is the first high performance jet fighter designed (albeit with Israeli plans) and built in China.

[Kanson]

Shiv saar, you are hitting the bull's eye consistently

>>It is a boast "Ah we have got blahblah blah" but there is no confidence to be open about that blahblahblah

Very true.

[Kanson]

Ok here is the J-10 superior news item. Read it all - it is interesting
http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-conven ... mix-13248/

According to reports in the Chinese media, the J-10 and Flanker have met several times in mock combats, with the J-10 reportedly coming out on top in most engagements. This indicates not only its superior flight control system, but also highlights the capabilities of the aircraft’s indigenous avionics. However, the Flanker scores well in terms of range/load characteristics.

May i ask, if J-10 is so good, why copy manufacture the Su-27/33 design in the name of J-11 and then in J-15? Why not have navalized J-10?

[chand]

deleted.

[shiv]

All those craps, shits or doubts have happened before when J-10 was hidden from the public. Now, in the end of 2010, all goes like that once again.

Indeed - and the doubts have still not gone away.

Just search Youtube or Liveleak and see how many minutes of unique footage is available for the LCA, The F-22 and J-10 and it is easy to see why nobody can take Chinese claims seriously. That is because the Chinese started the J-10 with the same nonsense that they are doing for this gen 5 fighter. Publishing blurry pics, starting rumors and doing dramabazi by getting a comlade party worker to "reveal too much" by publishing some picture - waiting a few days and then "censoring" it and removing the picture - like woman having a pre-planned wardrobe malfunction so you can say "I saw the boob, but only for a short while and I will now watch with interest in case she shows it again" That is after all what the Chines are trying to achieve. This works once or twice. But when it is done every time the Chinese end up looking stupid and unimaginative.

I mean it was all very well when the entire world was brought up with fairy tales about the inscrutable Chinaman who would hide his thoughts and had oh so clever mentors like Sun Tzu etc - but the plodding Chicoms have carried a good thing too far. They are trying to show everything as a great mystery which has deep hidden wisdom and fearsome power. After a stage it gets boring and after that it's laughable.

[DavidD]

According to reports in the Chinese media, the J-10 and Flanker have met several times in mock combats, with the J-10 reportedly coming out on top in most engagements. This indicates not only its superior flight control system, but also highlights the capabilities of the aircraft’s indigenous avionics. However, the Flanker scores well in terms of range/load characteristics.

May i ask, if J-10 is so good, why copy manufacture the Su-27/33 design in the name of J-11 and then in J-15? Why not have navalized J-10?

If the F-16 is so good, why do the Americans still make the F-15 and vice versa? If the Su-27 is so good, why do the Russians still make the Mig-29 and vice versa? The answer is that they're aircrafts of different classes. While they have some overlapping functions, they tend to specialize in different areas. For example, the J-10 will never have the range or the payload of the much larger Su-27/J-11. It's unlikely that they'll be able to equip radars that are as big and advanced either. However, they're very good air superiority fighters and they're also much cheaper so you can field them in bigger numbers. It's not an either-or situation for the J-10 and the Su-27/J-11, the PLAAF needs both to form a high-low mix.

As for the J-15, there are a couple of factors. First, the reliability requirements for a carrier based aircraft is higher, so the twin-engined J-15 would carry less risk. Also along the theme of risk-reduction, the Su-27 has already been navalized and China has in possession a prototype of the Su-33, so developing the analogous J-15 carries far less risk than navalizing the J-10.

[DavidD]

J-10A far superior? even without IRST which Su-27 has? Only now J-10B is spotted with IRST. Yet we don't know the capabilities of IRST in J-10B. Is the spec listed? So without even knowing the specs, i find it funny to see claims that J-10B and even J-10A is superior to Su-27?

What is the meaning of superior for chinese? Are they chauvinist to claim whatever they have is superior?

I'm not gonna get into the which is superior argument. As mentioned, there's no conclusive proof one way or another. However, as for the IRST, while it's a helpful system I don't see it as a game changer as far as the J-10 vs. Su-27 is concerned. Both have large enough of a RCS(especially the old Su-27's) for your run-of-the-mill radar to track and target.

[DavidD]

Sorry Sir. I am also an "aviation journalist" who is as well known as Karnozov and I have my own views, a critical eye for aerospace claims and a state of the art BS meter.

"Turn rate" and "climb rate" etc look amazing in isolation but they need to be actually timed, or at the very least compared with something else. In the absence of that it is hot air.

Excellent! I've always wanted to have some hard, math-based analysis of the J-10's performance, but I've had a great deal of difficulty finding them. It seems like I've finally found someone who can do such analysis, so shiv, would you please, PLEASE share with us the results of your calculations?

How fast is the J-10's turn rate and climb rate, at what speed, at what altitude, and at what temperature? You sound very certain of the J-10's performance, so I'd love to hear your expert aviation journalist quality analysis.

[Cosmo_R]

"They've made remarkable progress in the development of their arms industry, but this progress shouldn't be overstated," said Vasily Kashin, a Beijing-based expert on China's defense industry. "They have a long tradition of overestimating their capabilities."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 88_pf.html

[shiv]

Excellent! I've always wanted to have some hard, math-based analysis of the J-10's performance, but I've had a great deal of difficulty finding them. It seems like I've finally found someone who can do such analysis, so shiv, would you please, PLEASE share with us the results of your calculations?

How fast is the J-10's turn rate and climb rate, at what speed, at what altitude, and at what temperature? You sound very certain of the J-10's performance, so I'd love to hear your expert aviation journalist quality analysis.

You get aviation journalist quality analysis every day from me on here - to match or exceed that of people like Karnozov.

Here is one such anal-ysis. The funniest bit is that Chinese prostitutes (Pakistanis) think the LCA video has been speeded up. Shows how much worry a Karnozov quality analysis gives them. This video is the Indian equivalent of the idiot-blurry picture of J-20 or whatever. Meaningless but designed to cause "takleef"(irritation/discomfort). Is this supposed to be Sun Tzu's tactic? "Infuse doubt and strike fear into the enemy!"

Oh I almost forgot: J-10 and FC-1 videos from Zhuhai November 2010. Zhuhai is 7 meters above sea level and average day temp in November is 23 deg C. LCA video from Feb 2007 Bangalore. Bangalore is 920 m above msl and average Feb daytime temperature is 24 deg C

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX4W-goLSIo

[Singha]

"make them afraid of shadows, burn the reeds, let the smoke cause confusion, mislead, hide your true intent, smile, sharpen knife under kimono...." the blurry crap thats supposed to be "proof" is on those lines

[DavidD]

Excellent! I've always wanted to have some hard, math-based analysis of the J-10's performance, but I've had a great deal of difficulty finding them. It seems like I've finally found someone who can do such analysis, so shiv, would you please, PLEASE share with us the results of your calculations?

How fast is the J-10's turn rate and climb rate, at what speed, at what altitude, and at what temperature? You sound very certain of the J-10's performance, so I'd love to hear your expert aviation journalist quality analysis.

You get aviation journalist quality analysis every day from me on here - to match or exceed that of people like Karnozov.

Here is one such anal-ysis. The funniest bit is that Chinese prostitutes (Pakistanis) think the LCA video has been speeded up. Shows how much worry a Karnozov quality analysis gives them. This video is the Indian equivalent of the idiot-blurry picture of J-20 or whatever. Meaningless but designed to cause "takleef"(irritation/discomfort). Is this supposed to be Sun Tzu's tactic? "Infuse doubt and strike fear into the enemy!"

Oh I almost forgot: J-10 and FC-1 videos from Zhuhai November 2010. Zhuhai is 7 meters above sea level and average day temp in November is 23 deg C. LCA video from Feb 2007 Bangalore. Bangalore is 920 m above msl and average Feb daytime temperature is 24 deg C

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX4W-goLSIo

I'm disappointed shiv, I thought you were going to offer a far less superficial analysis. What were the speeds those airplanes were flying at? What percentage of the engine power were those planes using in making those turns? After all, it's much tougher for a faster flying aircraft to make a tight turn, no? If we're making superficial comparisons, why don't you use this video instead, note the 1:05 mark:



By my calculations, the J-10 made the 180 degree turn in less than 5 seconds, while the LCA made the same turn in about 8 seconds. So can we say that the J-10 turns 60% faster?

[Kanson]

I'm not gonna get into the which is superior argument. As mentioned, there's no conclusive proof one way or another.

Good! Next time if you want to make this "superior" and "far superior" argument come with specs.

However, as for the IRST, while it's a helpful system I don't see it as a game changer as far as the J-10 vs. Su-27 is concerned. Both have large enough of a RCS(especially the old Su-27's) for your run-of-the-mill radar to track and target.

By your argument, i think Su-27 should not have any IRST.

As for the J-15, there are a couple of factors. First, the reliability requirements for a carrier based aircraft is higher, so the twin-engined J-15 would carry less risk. Also along the theme of risk-reduction, the Su-27 has already been navalized and China has in possession a prototype of the Su-33, so developing the analogous J-15 carries far less risk than navalizing the J-10.

if Chinese go to the extent of copy manufacture Su-33, why not better develop twin engine J-10 straight away as they consider it as superior to Su-27?

If the F-16 is so good, why do the Americans still make the F-15 and vice versa? If the Su-27 is so good, why do the Russians still make the Mig-29 and vice versa? The answer is that they're aircrafts of different classes. While they have some overlapping functions, they tend to specialize in different areas. For example, the J-10 will never have the range or the payload of the much larger Su-27/J-11. It's unlikely that they'll be able to equip radars that are as big and advanced either. However, they're very good air superiority fighters and they're also much cheaper so you can field them in bigger numbers. It's not an either-or situation for the J-10 and the Su-27/J-11, the PLAAF needs both to form a high-low mix.

Why China which feels J-10 is "far superior"(your words) to Su-27 and much cheaper than Su-27 insist on inducting more and more Su-27 and its variants (Su-30MKK/J-11/Su-33 and now Su-35) than J-10? i mean what are the numbers of Su-27 variants present in PLAAF against J-10? The numbers speak for itself.

[aniket]

how will the navalised j 10 or su 33 or even the j 15 perform wen it is intercepted by the su 30 mki or navalised tejas

[shiv]

By my calculations, the J-10 made the 180 degree turn in less than 5 seconds, while the LCA made the same turn in about 8 seconds. So can we say that the J-10 turns 60% faster?

That was a very impressive turn indeed.

[DavidD]

I'm not gonna get into the which is superior argument. As mentioned, there's no conclusive proof one way or another.

Good! Next time if you want to make this "superior" and "far superior" argument come with specs.

However, as for the IRST, while it's a helpful system I don't see it as a game changer as far as the J-10 vs. Su-27 is concerned. Both have large enough of a RCS(especially the old Su-27's) for your run-of-the-mill radar to track and target.

By your argument, i think Su-27 should not have any IRST.

As for the J-15, there are a couple of factors. First, the reliability requirements for a carrier based aircraft is higher, so the twin-engined J-15 would carry less risk. Also along the theme of risk-reduction, the Su-27 has already been navalized and China has in possession a prototype of the Su-33, so developing the analogous J-15 carries far less risk than navalizing the J-10.

if Chinese go to the extent of copy manufacture Su-33, why not better develop twin engine J-10 straight away as they consider it as superior to Su-27?

If the F-16 is so good, why do the Americans still make the F-15 and vice versa? If the Su-27 is so good, why do the Russians still make the Mig-29 and vice versa? The answer is that they're aircrafts of different classes. While they have some overlapping functions, they tend to specialize in different areas. For example, the J-10 will never have the range or the payload of the much larger Su-27/J-11. It's unlikely that they'll be able to equip radars that are as big and advanced either. However, they're very good air superiority fighters and they're also much cheaper so you can field them in bigger numbers. It's not an either-or situation for the J-10 and the Su-27/J-11, the PLAAF needs both to form a high-low mix.

Why China which feels J-10 is "far superior"(your words) to Su-27 and much cheaper than Su-27 insist on inducting more and more Su-27 and its variants (Su-30MKK/J-11/Su-33 and now Su-35) than J-10? i mean what are the numbers of Su-27 variants present in PLAAF against J-10? The numbers speak for itself.

You're completely missing my point. My point was that you CANNOT say that the J-10 is "far superior" with any sort of credible proof, but you've already decided that that's what I meant to say and that's affecting your interpretation of every argument I've made. Some of your questions do merit some healthy discussion, but I won't bother until you stop twisting my words.

[DavidD]

By my calculations, the J-10 made the 180 degree turn in less than 5 seconds, while the LCA made the same turn in about 8 seconds. So can we say that the J-10 turns 60% faster?

That was a very impressive turn indeed.

It is, but I don't for a second believe that the turns made by the LCA and the JF-17 in that comparison video is the best they can do. None of us have any idea just how hard the pilots are pushing their planes and under exactly what conditions they're making those turns. They need to perform their best when they're training and when they're selling, but otherwise it's really not that important. Here's a short clip from the Serbian MOD's website on the J-10's performance in an attempt to win their contract, it shows a fairly impressive takeoff and I guess a decent 360 degree roll:

http://www.mod.gov.rs/PHPFotogalerija/v ... ivanje.flv

It's really short, but you wanted some more different J-10 vids and I just figured that you probably haven't seen this one yet.

[ravar]

Am I 'imagining' things here?

Regarding the J10 video posted earlier,

Check out the images at a margin of 3 seconds starting at 1.08s and then at 1.11s.
There is a remarkable change in the hue of the background blue colour of the sky to more darker shade.

At 1.08s


At 1.11s


Does the colour of sky change like this so drastically over in such a short space?

Also, please have a look at the transition frame between 1.10 and 1.11 very very carefully.
Maybe, I am wrong and looking at things with an additional filter than necessary?

[JE Menon]

I don't know if this has been linked here before - a blog by someone named Arjun Subramanian on PLAAF capabilities:

http://subramanianarjun.wordpress.com/2 ... -analysis/

[shiv]

They need to perform their best when they're training and when they're selling, but otherwise it's really not that important. Here's a short clip from the Serbian MOD's website on the J-10's performance in an attempt to win their contract, it shows a fairly impressive takeoff and I guess a decent 360 degree roll:

http://www.mod.gov.rs/PHPFotogalerija/v ... ivanje.flv

It's really short, but you wanted some more different J-10 vids and I just figured that you probably haven't seen this one yet.

The J-10s roll is fast in all displays. This video again shows the J-10's ability to pitch up abruptly - an action that is seen performed by the Su-30 MKI or MiG 35 at the start of a Cobra or a Kulbit. Looks very impressive. The LCA currently comes nowhere near this as it is not cleared (as far as I know) for higher angles of attack and the flight control software keeps it restricted until that part of the envelop is opened.

[DavidD]

Am I 'imagining' things here?

Regarding the J10 video posted earlier,

Check out the images at a margin of 3 seconds starting at 1.08s and then at 1.11s.
There is a remarkable change in the hue of the background blue colour of the sky to more darker shade.

Does the colour of sky change like this so drastically over in such a short space?

Also, please have a look at the transition frame between 1.10 and 1.11 very very carefully.
Maybe, I am wrong and looking at things with an additional filter than necessary?

I think you're overanalyzing things a bit. If they can doctor the video to make the plane look realistic, they can probably doctor the sky much easier. It's probably mostly just a case of looking at different parts of the sky(the sky closer to the horizon would look hazier).

[DavidD]

Here's a clearer pic posted by an usually reliable poster literally just minutes ago:


I listed a few criteria I use to judge a pic's reliability, this one only satisfies one of them in that it's posted by someone reliable, so I'm not totally convinced yet. But, I'm going to sleep soon so I figure I'll just share it now. I'll be back later to hopefully clarify if it's a real pic!

[vishal]

Military strength eludes China, which looks overseas for arms
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Extract: The reason for the economic and seasonal cheer is that these factories produce fighter-jet engines for a wealthy and voracious customer: China. After years of trying, Chinese engineers still can't make a reliable engine for a military plane.
::
::
This persistent dependence on Russian arms suppliers demonstrates a central truth about the Chinese military: The bluster about the emergence of a superpower is undermined by national defense industries that can't produce what China needs.
::
::
An engine China made for its Su-27 knock-off would routinely conk out after 30 hours whereas the Russian engines would need refurbishing after 400, Russian and Chinese experts said.

[shiv]

Here's a clearer pic posted by an usually reliable poster literally just minutes ago:

Same image via photo editing software:

Red star with yellow border on tail

[sarabpal.s]

Mock up or just Ps,

More probably a mock up for eye only

[shiv]

Mock up or just Ps,

More probably a mock up for eye only

It has red star with yellow border on the tailfin. It may be the PAK-FA or some Russian maal. Comlade will need some yeals in rabol camp for this loss of face.
PLAAF tail marking:


Russian Air Force Tail marking

[shiv]

Here's a clearer pic posted by an usually reliable poster literally just minutes ago:

Same image via photo editing software:

Red star with yellow border on tail (For Larger image click below)
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... h-2010.jpg

This is some Russian stuff with some photoshopping. The starboard tailfin looks suspicious - wrong angle and size.The red star is unmistakable and I surprised the Chinese photoshop artist missed that in his eagerness to provide a better image.

But the damage is done.

[wrdos]

let's wait and see

[Gerard]

Military strength eludes China, which looks overseas for arms

[Austin]

Here's a clearer pic posted by an usually reliable poster literally just minutes ago:

That picture has been posted before i think in keypubs , this is a known reliable fake.

[Raghavendra]

'Chinese military’s capabilities overstated' http://www.zeenews.com/news676668.html

[Singha]

per my reliable RAW paid chinese spotters they took inputs from Yak141 also and apart from being able to outperform the raptor it is also VSTOL capable
http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/modl_yak ... 141_27.jpg

[shiv]

let's wait and see

I've seen it all now. The front end is the Raptor. The musharraf is the PAK-FA (probably). This is precisely why people go ROTFL at Chinese claims. I think the Chinese are a great people but they are stuck with buffoons as leaders in that Communist party, and the PLAAF is part and parcel of the power structure. That system cannot allow honesty to upset its power structure. Sorry. Wrong thread.

[chand]

Well, i believe this one is true , but it really looks like a Mig-25 or maybe just me. At last, china's 5th will appear in some way sooner or later. To avoid eating your own words, "wait and see" is definitely a better strategy other than refuse or approve.

[Victor]

The tail fins look like they are all-moving but that cannot be because the root is visible too, as if it is being attached, so the photo is consistent with a mock up.