Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project

[Austin]

shiphone , Do you have any good video link that should J-10 flying qualities in details , Turns , Loops etc

What is the future of J-10 program variants, blocks getting developed.

 

[shiphone]

Austin?...the same Austin from BR forum?...,nice to meet you, LOL

----------------
there were some threads about J10 project in China Watch sub-forum and one in Military Aviation sub-forum...
I would update some youtube video in this thread-- Chengdu J-10 'Vigorous Dragon...two was taken by a Japanese Airshow fan on AirshowChina 2010..J-10 was official revealed to the public in Dec 2006 .another video by a famous chinese military forum member on Airshowchina 2008 should be the first one recorded by a civilian openly.I would upload it later.
----------------
using your accustomed standard , we thought J10 had three blocks and four varients already:
Block 1 : J10---production period:2003-2007
Block 2: J10A and J10S(two seater)---production period:2007--
Block 3: J10B---the production began in the second half of 2012, the related thread :Chinese J10B roll out!

A further upgraded semi-stealth variant with CFT (J-10C?) was rumored to be under development but no information is available.

-------------
sorry for OT...and J10 thread links provided, if any further discussion necessary...

 

[ersakthivel]

J-10 is not an exact copy of cancelled Lavi but Israel consultants worked secretly with Chinese to develop an aircraft based on Lavi experience , Ofcourse Israel were helping Chinese in other projects which was cancelled after US expressed unhappiness and threatened to cancel aid to Israel.

So though J-10 shares many design attributes of Lavi for the reason mentioned above but its not an identical aircraft.

I have yet to see any video which demonstrates J-10 in a comprehensive manner like say we see for F-16 or Mig-29 since J-10 is in production ....the Jury is out on how good the J-10 is both in flying qualities and avionics/radars/sensors

See Dasault also worked as consultants in LCA project. But the LCA has a cranked delta wing , along with different air intake scheme and a different TWR, and a totally different weight class. That is what called consultancy.

but look at J-10, It shares many identical design features with the Lavi and belongs to the same weight class. that is passing on the same design aspects of Lavi by israleis. Unlike dassault the israelis have no fighter production experience. SO it is quite common sense to assume that they simply passed on the same identical design features rather than doing consultancy.

Are you sure there were no fly by wire problems with J-10?

 

[ersakthivel]

Please ...although I have put you on my ignore list for quite while, after reading your BS claiming about J10 illusory FCS problem for some times, I have to do some correction job once again here...

there was no so called such FCS problem in J10 development,and all seven J10 Prototypes had no accidents during the test fly period(1998-2003). the FCS designer -- Yangwei has been promoted to the Chief Designer of J10S ,FC-1 and J20 projects...once again, you'd better get the fact correct first and flooding the thread with loads of imagination without source won't contribute to the discussion...

the accident you mentioned took place on Apr 22 2010(right 3 years ago),costed the life of the famous Ex-test pilot--Xie Fengliang, also the commanding officer of PLAAF 9th Fighter Div...but it was a human error accident due to pilot's overconfidence and lack of the full understanding of J10 flying character before jumping to some complicated acrobatic maneuver.

---------------------------------
back to your LCA and AMCA topic please...put other projects aside ,especially those you totally have no idea....

I am not writing my own pet thesis here, about stuff I have no idea , unlike some of your friends.

Since you have put me on the ignore list you can ignore the following links as usual.

Some question regarding the J-10 development history !!

In 1997, 3 planes are tested (02-04), with the 04 being called the J-10. At the end of 1997, the 02 is destroyed and the pilot is killed in a crash.

Also, one of the 8810 system integraiton engineers goes to the US to defect to the CIA; he carried with him many secrets of the J-10 project, but after defecting, his briefcase with the documents disappeared, and the FBI asked him to recount from memory the information. He asked for protection, but one week later, was run down by a truck with no license plates, and was killed.

http://air-attack.com/page/42

The Lavi based airframe had to be significantly modified, because the Chinese could not use the P&W 1120 engine, due to the US arms export ban to China. The larger and much heavier Russian AL-31 engine was then installed, but it requires 40 per cent more air flow.

First flight of a J-10 prototype reportedly took place somewhere in 1996, but a fatal accident in 1997 further delayed the program. A faulty fly-by-wire system is believed to be the cause of the incident. It took two years before the J-10 had a successful test flight.

www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20100506.aspx

 

[Mariner HK]

Two engine Tejas Should be our Goal than AMCA . We have to make some adjustment in design of MK2 to achiev it.Why we cant do that I really dont know.We always sticks with Light .. helicopter or AC. When we can make Apache 64 or Rafale by ouself

 

[Mariner HK]

 

[Mariner HK]

We should be able to achive AMCA Tejas in short period of time.Even before Rafale can deliver its 1 Aircraft after 4 years of Deal Ink. Our forces must be told to live with what we have. Like all other Super Powers did.No one can be perfect without many mistakes .We should know Pros of Indian Made weapons and Use it rightly.Rather just Dumbing our Money in some Foriegn Country.In return they fund our enemy.Rafale is Not no:1 fighter in the world Yet its Frontline fighter of France. We should develop.Our future fighter from trails of TEJAS. Even AMCA TEJAS with few modification and 5th gen feature.Its every possible than creating a whole new A/C

 

[shiphone]

once again it indicates your ignorance ....

=====================

, It shares many identical design features with the Lavi and belongs to the same weight class.

Lavi General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 14.57 m (47 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 8.78 m (28 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.78 m (15 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 33.0 m² (355 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,031 kg (15,500 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,991 kg (22,025 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,277 kg (42,500 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney PW1120 afterburning turbofan, 91.5 kN (20,600 lbf)

please,not again...Lavi is at the same class as JAS39, FC-1,and LCA.
J10 is a 9 tons class fighter(empty weight:8.84 tons, normal take-off weight 12.4 tons, MTOW: 19 tons) with a 12.5 tons engine...

similarity and differences

===================

In 1997, 3 planes are tested (02-04), with the 04 being called the J-10. At the end of 1997, the 02 is destroyed and the pilot is killed in a crash.

in the past chinese fighter development history before Project J20, all 02 PT is for the static force tests only,you won't see any flying FC1 PT02, J10S PT1022,and J10B PT1032

here we go... the first pic of crashed' PT02' ...LOL

the so called crashed J10 02PT never had a engine and flied. and when the static force test was over, it was shipped to Beijing and was turned to a Statue standing in front of the headquarter of AVIC group...

=================

First flight of a J-10 prototype reportedly took place somewhere in 1996, but a fatal accident in 1997 further delayed the program.

the date of maiden flight was Mar 23 1998...

 

[Austin]

See Dasault also worked as consultants in LCA project. But the LCA has a cranked delta wing , along with different air intake scheme and a different TWR, and a totally different weight class. That is what called consultancy.

but look at J-10, It shares many identical design features with the Lavi and belongs to the same weight class. that is passing on the same design aspects of Lavi by israleis. Unlike dassault the israelis have no fighter production experience. SO it is quite common sense to assume that they simply passed on the same identical design features rather than doing consultancy.

Are you sure there were no fly by wire problems with J-10?

Well Israel does have some experience producing fighter atleast from Lavi project which was a sucessful fighter in its own right until pressure from US killed the program ....which the Israel designer saw as set back and were unhappy about it.

Ofcourse there is no doubt that Israel designer who had worked on cancelled Lavi project had helped the Chinese engineers immensely in Designing the Airplane with most features similar to Lavi while differing in some aspect like Intake , J-10 to me looks to be slightly bigger ( looks more chubbier )with a slightly bigger nose.

So i wouldnt say they just passed the design and chinese printed it to specification , the changes are good enough for J-10 to go through Wind Tunnel testing to fine tune it and Israel would have greatly helped there too ..perhaps even the Russians as they use AL-31 Engines so most certainly TSAGI would have validated fine tuned the J-10 design ..thats my thinking.

As far as LCA goes the design goal were different and even then LCA first went to BAe and then to Dassult .i saw LCA design which also included Canard Wing type but finally they went for Cranked Delta Wing ....Obviously Dassult huge experience with Delta wings design would have infulenced the final output and perhaps even the american who had supplied the engine.

I dont know about J-10 FBW problem , may be it had one since FBW has been problem for even western aircraft manuf who have tons of experience ... Also FBW problem is also a good indication that J-10 design had some changes over Lavi since if they had blindly copied it they would have experience less issue with FBW proven on Lavi.

The good thing for us is FBW of Tejas has been proven rock solid over the years that it has flown with no single incident attributed to FBW .....may be we Indians are really good with S/W codes

 

[shiphone]

No one is saying that any fighter that crashes is useless. I wrote about J-10 here just to stress the point that no FCS FBW fighter will arive at service as a completely finished product, and to say that all fighters have issues that needs to be iorned out. But even with a spotless safety record the Tejas is being tarred with a broad brush about it's reliability with God knows what intentions.
So saying that to be validated 100 technical parameters will bog the Tejas down is same as saying that these crashes will stall the operation of J-10s in PLAF. As the problems of j-10s are going to be fixed , in the same way those 100 parameters can easily be validated in Tejas during the subsequent flights prior to FOC nothing needs to be added on it . that's what the FOC is for.

I could understand your feelings and thoughts well. but it's quite funny to use the nonexistent example or faked history to support your points...the article you quoted is full of baseless statements. I don't think you could tell others the so called J10 story based on that BS, and I would correct every single mistake with loads of first hand historical materials in my hand...
----------
if you want to use the J10 FBW system development history (or chinese FBW development)as a reference ...I do suggest you to learn the history of other 3 test planes:

J8ACT ---the flying testbed of FBW system...crashed in 1991

J8II ACT ---the replacement of J8ACT and retired in early 2000s

K8BW --- another FBW testbet. still in service at CFTE

before the J10 Project ,the R&D work of FWB tech has been carried on for a long time ,most of the J10 FCS development job was done even not on the J10 PTs ,but the on-ground simulators and other flight testbeds...the story is quite complicated and what you claimed is never close to the truth..

 

[Rahul Singh]

:faceplam:

BVR isn't part of IOC. BVR is part of FOC.

Why is it that I always have to discuss with people who don't know shit?

The Mig-29KUB will have no radars. This does not mean it is not useful. The trainers cannot use the carriers, so they don't need to fight. Neither KUB nor LCA trainers are fully capable fighters. Trainers are meant to be cheap as they fly the most.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-165.html#post488240

Its pretty amazing you can brag so much without looking into mirror? Are you not the same person who started whole conversion on your assumption that Mig-29KUBs don't carry MMR? Amazingly withour bothering to correct yourself you went on so long until following was posted to face.

-----
With such attitude on display it becomes necessary to expose what our expert in reality knows.-

Ok, perhaps that was an overstatement. Sure, most of the things you write is not wrong, except that they are irrelevant. For example, the question HAL investing money in R&D, and where it goes. Just go back and read what you wrote there? All fart and no shit.

Confuse, obfuscate, and complicate - that is your way of arguing.

You would still be innocent if you did things out of ignorance, but apparently, you are more into deliberate twisting of facts, and deliberate comprehension disability.

OT

He once started a debate saying Mig-29KUBs don't have a radar and carried on his useless assumption untill it was posted to his face.

That's the level of his expertise!

 

[ersakthivel]

I could understand your feelings and thoughts well. but it's quite funny to use the nonexistent example or faked history to support your points...the article you quoted is full of baseless statements. I don't think you could tell others the so called J10 story based on that BS, and I would correct every single mistake with loads of first hand historical materials in my hand...
----------
if you want to use the J10 FBW system development history (or chinese FBW development)as a reference ...I do suggest you to learn the history of other 3 test planes:

J8ACT ---the flying testbed of FBW system...crashed in 1991

J8II ACT ---the replacement of J8ACT and retired in early 2000s

K8BW --- another FBW testbet. still in service at CFTE

before the J10 Project ,the R&D work of FWB tech has been carried on for a long time ,most of the J10 FCS development job was done even not on the J10 PTs ,but the on-ground simulators and other flight testbeds...the story is quite complicated and what you claimed is never close to the truth..

there are many versions of fly by wire. Fly by wire simply means the pilot pulls the stick and his effort is converted into electrical or digital signals and the hydraulics of control surfaces obey the signal.That's all.

the british tried fly by wire in jaguar . the french tried it on old Mirage-IIIs.

So there is nothing wrong in china trying the same tech in J8II ACT ---the replacement of J8ACT and retired in early 2000s and mastering it.But what is the most challenging effort is to use this fly by wire tech with full digital FCS along with complicated control laws to control the flight behavior of a DYNAMICALLY UNSTABLE FLIGHT PROFILE PLATFORM LIKE TEJAS.

IMHO the prototypes you mentioned above are stable flight profile fighters meaning that they oppose the pilot's effort to maneuver the fighter and naturally return to the level flight once the pilot eases the stick.if you have any evidence to the contrary do post.Now the whole world knows china and india mastered the FCS of unstable flight profile with J-20s , J-10s and tejas flying.


Why I mentioned those crashes were the difficulty of developing the system opposed to the shrill cry of Tejas is obsolete. that's all.There is no guarantee set in stone that no fighter developed by ADA will pass through the flight test program without a crash.And if other design houses crash a few they are just inferior.

So FCS and Fly by wire based on control laws for those stable flight profile is not demanding.Jf-17 belongs to this clause.it will add some residual performance of course. But it can never make a stable flight profile fighter to equal the unstable flight profile fighters.

But dynamically unstable flight profile deltas which tend to veer off in all directions if the control surfaces are not maneuvered many times in a single second is another cup of tea.

Control laws and fully digital FCS for these fly by wire system takes years to develop and validate. if you have any doubts just refer to the fligth test period of RAFALE with how many prototypes.

Tejas belongs in this clause.Since the J-10 which had cropped delta wing with some unstable flight profile which needed analog FCS it is only natural that j-10 which too had such cropped delta will need complex CLAWS and FCS controlled fly by wire .
program.

it is difficulties in this area that many sources in the net attribute to several J-10 crashes , and the crashes of two grippen NG prototypes, which I mentioned. Any way other than net reports I don't have any other proof whether the second prototype crashed due to fly by wire issues or due to static load testing as you mentioned.

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project - The New Indian Express

The AMCA project, for which the IAF provided the final Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR) in April 2010, may be taken up at a later date, sources said. But that will still be far away in the future.

India will buy Rafale planes from the French Dassault Aviation as part of its 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA); in the tender there is a provision to buy another 63 as a follow-on order. That apart, India is working on the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) in collaboration with Russia. With the final agreement on the design and development of the FGFA three months away, India will get at least 140 FGFAs for induction by 2027. Considering that most of the capabilities of AMCA will be covered by the MMRCA and FGFA planes, the revival of the AMCA will be a well thought-out one, sources said.

Why I am doubting this article is it has some very inconvenient statements,

But that will still be far away in the future.

1.Means it is postponed indefenetly,How can a project for which funding is released after hectic rounds of consultation can be put off far away into future?

Considering that most of the capabilities of AMCA will be covered by the MMRCA and FGFA planes, the revival of the AMCA will be a well thought-out one, sources said.

2.AMCA will be significantly more stealthier than the FGFA which has poor stealth specs like exposed engine blades covered by radar blockers , which is a 1980s design concept and will have a far larger RCS than the AMCA,

Only after knowing about these home truths of the hastily put together FGFA whose primary aim is to serve the Russian export sales to third world market and not aimed at achieving the same stealth as F-22, the IAF changed the ASR of the AMCA to be more 100 percent stealth from the lesser stealth design prepared earlier by ADA.

Infact it is yet to be known whethe the FGFA will have a lesser RCS than the J-20 or not. SO AMCA is not an esoteric theory prject to be pursued in leissure time , I suppose. IAF and Indian NAvy depends upon the timely arrival of the AMCA to have any hope of matching the chinese.

Because the chinese can produce a large number of j-20s, because it is produced in home. But being a hugely expensive multi million dollar price tag carrying import FGFA numbers in IAf can never match the j-20 therby cementing IAF's inferior force structure forever.

3. Also it is like asking your 4th std studying son to sit at home because your 12 th standard studying elder son is not scoring high marks.

4. Already the AMCA ASR spent ten years in the IAF HQ before arriving at the ADA table.(The chinese would have built the entire J-20 in ten years for the comparison) and , if the project is postponed far off in the future the the revised ASR for AMCA will need another decade in the air conditioned IAF office to mature!!!.


So the news report seems like some sort of planted paid news , so typical of DDM.

 

[p2prada]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-165.html#post488240

Its pretty amazing you can brag so much without looking into mirror? Are you not the same person who started whole conversion on your assumption that Mig-29KUBs don't carry MMR? Amazingly withour bothering to correct yourself you went on so long until following was posted to face.

-----
With such attitude on display it becomes necessary to expose what our expert in reality knows.-


OT

He once started a debate saying Mig-29KUBs don't have a radar and carried on his useless assumption untill it was posted to his face.

That's the level of his expertise!

Ok, gee. Big deal. I stand corrected on this.

Its funny how people try to prove my other points wrong just because I am wrong once in a while.

The same with the T-90 thread where Sayare pointed out that we have a tender out for an AC.



8000+ posts and I was wrong in two parameters.

Is it because you believe I am some insurmoutable mountain? Thanks. I am flattered.

 

[ersakthivel]

how about only large fighters can carry longer range BVrs, and dodging when Grippen Ng was the one to recieve Meteor , same as RAFALE(and another weak defence that grippen NG won't use it to it's full range)

and

and american long range BVrs cannot receive mid course correction from any surrogate craft,other than the launching craft,subsequently proved wrong with link from the missile maker itself saying otherwise,

and

wing loading is a parameter concerned with passenger aircraft,while it is listed as one of the most important parameter which measures the lifting capacity of the fighter,

and ,

tejas cannot operate in combination with SU-30 MKI in mixed group fighter group,and proved wrong when IAF used the same tactics in Su-30 MKi , Mig-21 group in red flag exercise,

and

a couple of MIg-21s will wipe out a squadron of Tejas fighters with 120 km range detection and tracking radar,

and,


primary role of Tejas is to escort the legendary Jaguars with a thrust to weight ratio of 0.64,

and ,
T-90 with faulty electronics and without the vital air conditioning was fit to meet the army GSQR in 2005 , while ARJUN which too was at the same condition was not fit, Infact even today T-90's eligibility to fight in the summer heat of india is suspect considering the tender for AC floated by the IA.

list can go on and on....

 

[Rahul Singh]

Ok, gee. Big deal. I stand corrected on this.

Its funny how people try to prove my other points wrong just because I am wrong once in a while.

The same with the T-90 thread where Sayare pointed out that we have a tender out for an AC.



8000+ posts and I was wrong in two parameters.

Is it because you believe I am some insurmoutable mountain? Thanks. I am flattered.

There's it drops again....Do you read the very first line of the post you just quoted? Oh i get it you were busy picking you jaw off the floor.. Thank me!!

 

[p2prada]

There's it drops again....Do you read the very first line of the post you just quoted? Oh i get it you were busy picking you jaw off the floor.. Thank me!!

Like I said, I don't mind being wrong.

Anyway, this was my first time seeing that post of yours. I had taken off for a few days. If you read the post from Venkat just above yours in the link you posted you will have proof of it. I am not making excuses, just stating that I learnt the KUB has a radar from a different source at a much later date and not from you.

Anyway, thanks for providing the source. It is rather reliable and my first time seeing it.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Like I said, I don't mind being wrong.

Anyway, this was my first time seeing that post of yours. I had taken off for a few days. If you read the post from Venkat just above yours in the link you posted you will have proof of it. I am not making excuses, just stating that I learnt the KUB has a radar from a different source at a much later date and not from you.

Anyway, thanks for providing the source. It is rather reliable and my first time seeing it.

I could not also see why i was not notified about this quote. Anyway there is nothing wrong in being wrong but there is every bit wrong when you brag over it with words which are stupidly annoying.