Chinese J-10 fighter jet in televised drama Jane Macartney in Beijing Engine failure forced one of China’s most advanced fighter jets to make an emergency landing. In a rare move, the normally secretive People’s Liberation Army allowed state television to report the incident and even provided footage of the jet as it struggled to remain balanced in the air (click here to see the video). Diplomats said that the incident underscored the problems the PLA has had developing an engine for the fighter. "They will be very disappointed by this,” one said. The J-10, which China has taken about 20 years to make, was on a training exercise with deputy regiment air force commander Li Feng at the controls. He tried to exercise a tricky manoeuvre at an altitude of 4,500 metres when the engine failed, state media reported. Realising the the jet could lose power at any time, he requested permission to return. Related Links * China arrests monks after missing lama protest * Lockdown in Tibet as Chinese police brace * Time for China and Tibet to listen to each other Stiill seven kilometers from the airfield, the engine stopped and the jet began to lose altitude at a rate of 25 metres per second. The pilot succeeded in gliding the fighter onto the runway without power. The rear parachute also failed, but he succeeded in bringing the fighter to a halt after taxiing for some 1,400 metres down the runway. The entire landing took 104 seconds, state television said. The success of the pilot may have influenced their decision to broadcast the landing. One aviation expert said that the skill of the pilot should not be underestimated. He said: “A fighter jet glides like a soggy brick.” It was the first reported incident involving the J-10 since it was unveiled with great fanfare before an international audience at the Zhuhai air show in southern China last November. It received several impressive reviews of its performance at the time. Vladimir Karnozov, a Mosco-based aerospace journalist, wrote a blog calling the J-10 the real deal. He said: “The pilot did none of the show tricks like post-stall or tail slide or pitch-back, but turns were very tight, initial rate of turn very high. It was clear there is a lot of potential in this airplane to achieve the same maneuvers more quickly. “ However, diplomats said question marks still hung over the plane, which has taken some 20 years to develop. Most involve its engine. All the J-10 fighters built so far are believed to be powered by a single Russian-built turbofan engine, the AL-31F. Diplomats said that there had been problems adapting the plane and the engine to fit, adding that the use of a Russian engine could affect Chinese plans to sell the jet overseas. China already has an order for 40 of the fighters from Pakistan. They said that China was keen to install its own engine in the aircraft but so far this had not been possible. Chinese media said last year that the PLA had finally developed an indigenous turbojet engine called the WS-10A, or "Taihang", as it is known commercially, and had started installing it in the J-10. Chinese-made engines are currently used in the twin-engine J-8, which is based on the design of the Russian Sukhoi-15 fighter, but these are still being adapted to the far more rigorous demands of a single-engine jet. The Chinese engine is believed to take twice as long as the Russian one to reach the same level of performance: the lag of up to one minute could mean the difference between life or death for a pilot needing to restart his engine or eject. The aviation expert said: “These single-engine fighters are often known as widow-makers.” Experts said that China was apparently still trying to adapt its domestic engines to power the J-10. Its programme faces additional urgency since the PLA may be keen to use fully homemade fighters once it builds its own aircraft carrier. Several senior officers have indicated China’s construction of such a group is now only a matter of time. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5961023.ece
Here's some images and videos of the advance jet fighter yo!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeuON3eGA0o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkCwAfQskq0&feature=related
despite being the most advanced fighter in china's history, it's not much more advanced that an old 20-30 year old saab viggen. still got a long way to go before being able to take on an F-14, 15, 16, the old 18, hell, a rafale and mirage, much less the new 18, 22 and 35 series. 22 is sex.
Not much more advanced than the Saab Viggen? I suggest you to do some research. The J-10A is not a obsolete fighter. If you compare it to F-22 and F-35 it sadly is. But on the other hand, look at what the Europeans and most countries are acquiring:Rafale, EF2000, F-16s, F-18, Grippens, F-2, LCA. J-10A probably is inferior to the Rafale and EF2000, but not by a long shot...and it probably will give the f-16,F-18, F-2 and Grippen a run for its money and its well beyond the capabilities of India's LCA, and the J-10 is more maneuverable than the f-16. By the way, the Chinese are already testing the J-10B, should be done in the next few years. The J-10B has few visible changes: with DSI, redesigned nose(possible AESA/PESA radar), formation light, optical radar, holographic HUD, redesigned belly fins, and MAWS next to chute pod. Fighter jet tech wise, China is doing a amazing job, she is not very far behind the Europeans. The Russian's invited China to join their 5th generation program, China has no interest. This shows how confident China is with their own 5th generation program. Here are some sneak shots of the new J-10B.
yeah, only the nose probe was totally damaged from the crash landing. Here's the full video if you're interested. Be more interesting if I understood Mandarin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8JbbGEkKDE&feature=player_embedded
The PLA Air Force (and BTW, much of the world's air forces) fails to achieve an overwhelming superiority when pitted against the US's (arguably the world's most effective air force) because of training. This is aside from the technical specs and avionics suite, and many air power aficionados fail to fully appreciate this. While engine plant design may have importance (like say, with race cars), it is undeniable that the ultimate arbiter on the race track is the driver and pit crew. So too, with air power; the final and most important factor is the pilot and system of support he flies with. One of the PRC's long standing problems is with overall training flight time. While select pilots and crew dogs of some units may get additional hours, most PLAAF personnel are generally limited in their number of actual in air training hours. Russian pilots too, suffer from an acute lack of air time, when compared to their US counterpart. Further, the US military's top gun program (which they encourage every pilot to go through) practices adversarial encounters with potential enemy forces, using the enemy's tactics and at times, the actual planes that an opposer may have. They also do this simultaneously and across multiple air frames with varying mission ordnance, with different airborne controllers, so that movements are already well coordinated and easily flexible. Thus, individual air frame specs may allow amateur air power fans crowing rights. But whether an air force is actually an overall effective combat power rests much more on other traditional issues of training and preparedness. In essence, having a great plane without a great pilot and great system of support is meaningless. The revolutionary Iranians discovered this when they took over the seventy seven F14 Tomcats left from their overthrow of the Shah. Despite it being one of the best fighter planes of all time, they were not able to realize its full combat potential in all their years of war with Iraq. Sidebar: As for the video? What a joke. Instead of just describing the air crash, it was an long and tiresome edit of multiple file footage clips (even one flying over desert sand dunes, LOL...) that repetitively showed things that had nothing to do with the story. The clincher was the onset of triumphant music at the moment that the plane touched down (did it bring a tear to your eye too?). CCTV had gotten so used to stitching things together for their propaganda purposes that they don't even know what real news footage is supposed to look like anymore. :rolleyes2:
wow o.o you guys know a lot about these stuff lol, do you work in that field, or is it just interest?
First thing: What the hell?! You are just one crazy mothafoker, misleading idiot. Stop misleading innocent people you self-hating white azs kisser!! hahaha Ok, ok.. jokes is over. yes, you are right. A good example of it would be the Korean War. The one had the tactical advantage obviously whipped their opponents' big fat azs back to the other end of the yard LOL
You're still with this "us versus them" simple mind set? Excuse me, then. There's little sense in even discussing anything of substance with you then.
New Chinese J-10 multirole Fighter variant sighted By Ted Parsons 23 March 2009 Chinese web pages have featured photos of a new variant of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-10 multirole fighter that appear to confirm a spate of late December 2008 web reports on this same aircraft, with some accounts noting it has already been test flown. This single-seat variant differs from the initial single-seat J-10 model in that it appears to feature a revised engine inlet, consistent in design with the diverter-less supersonic inlet (DSI) featured on the latest version of the Chengdu FC-1 lightweight multirole fighter. Reminiscent of the DSI modification first tested on a Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 30 in 1996, this modification saves weight and improves specific engine power and stealth. It also cleans up the J-10's previous complex inlet configuration, which was reportedly prone to vibration. China's research on DSIs dates back to the late 1990s, with Chengdu's 611 institute for aerospace design having been assisted by government-funded research at the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jd...0323_1_n.shtml
Dude, no idea what you are talking about, don't be so sensitive. I merely gave a prime good example lol
