Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[Donatello]

Payload is a paper figure and doesn't tell you anything about the real load capability of a fighter, just like the basic number of hardpoints is useless unless you consider what weight limits or size restrictions they have. The fact is, JF 17 and J10 have the same number of heavy / wet stations, that means BOTH can carry the same number of fuel tanks, C802 anti ship missiles, Raad cruise missiles, 2000lb bombs...
And if BVR truck means, it can load a lot of SD10s, you are mistaken again, because if that would be the case it wouldn't need draggy twin launchers to carry 4 of them in CAP role, again the same load that a JF17 carries in CAP!
The only load advantage with useful loads J10 has is with LGBs, since it has a dedicated pod station, which wouldn't block the centerline station like it does at JF17, but that's it and that's why CFTs or increased internal fuel capacity would be important for a really comprehensive upgrade.

J-10 does not need multiple ejector racks to carry 4 SD-10s....JF-17 does, unless JF-17 lets go of two fuel tanks.

Plus J-10 offers the added advantage of an integrated IRST system, more tail fin volume (for ECM equipment), a bigger nose for a more powerful radar and more range.

The inherent delta wing design allows it to carry more payload than JF-17, Unless JF-17 gets 9 hardpoints, it is NOT sufficiently equipped for a BVR battle.

Let's take this, for a A-A role, JF-17 can use 3 fuel tanks for range, two BVRs and Two WVRs. Jettison fuel tanks before merging and you are set.

For Anti ship role, it can carry centerline fuel tank, two C-802 anti-ship missiles or C-400 carrier killers, two BVRs and Two WVRs. That doesn't leave any space for any external pods like FLIR or ECM pods.

A bigger aircraft gives you more room to play around with.

There is no free lunch!



Money is the issue. Nothing comes for free!

Yes PRC did deliver 60 F-6s for free.

They did deliver them for really really low cost but not free. Plus we paid the price in the form of lost pilot lives. F-6 from China was a crap plane, until PAF requested modifications to it and Chinese gladly accepted since at that point in time, they were still gearing up their aircraft industry and needed outside experience, which PAF gladly gave, provided PAF operated Western aircraft......the Mirage and later the F-16s.

 

[Kompromat]

They did deliver them for really really low cost but not free. Plus we paid the price in the form of lost pilot lives. F-6 from China was a crap plane, until PAF requested modifications to it and Chinese gladly accepted since at that point in time, they were still gearing up their aircraft industry and needed outside experience, which PAF gladly gave, provided PAF operated Western aircraft......the Mirage and later the F-16s.

Lets not forget that Chinese gave those jets to us when we were under sanctions.

 

[Donatello]

Lets not forget that Chinese gave those jets to us when we were under sanctions.

Nope, not forgetting that at all. I don't know where PAF or Pakistan's Armed forces as a whole would be if it was not for China's help. However, there is nothing free. It comes at a cost. F-6 was that one ill-fated program, the jet itself was nothing extra ordinary and we lost countless pilots in plane crashes. It was good PAF retired them as soon as F-7PGs were procured in large numbers.

Now F-7PG is something Pak-China can be proud of.........half a century old Soviet design giving F-16s a run for their money in WVR combat.......and JF-17 the icing on the cake.

 

[sancho]

J-10 does not need multiple ejector racks to carry 4 SD-10s...

Doesn't it?

Chinese J-10 Fighter Jet in Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Configuration

Chinese J-10 Fighter Jet in Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Configuration | Chinese Military Review

The inherent delta wing design allows it to carry more payload than JF-17

As I already showed you, that's factually wrong! You could have simply counted the number of wingstations of both fighters to understand that. Even if the J10 wing would be twice as big, as long as it also has 3 x stations it will carry the same load as the JF 17.

http://s1.directupload.net/images/140130/2t56lo95.jpg

As you can see, for at least 90% of the roles, JF17 would carry the same weapon load as a J10B. The advantages of systems or aero dynamics were never disputed, (which isn't big compared to the expected Block 3 upgrade anyway), but can't justify the unit and operational cost increase for PAF.
Without freeing hardpoints from fuel tanks, the J10 won't have useful load advantages over JF17 as simple as it is!

 

[Pinnacle]

I'm a bit confused. Are we getting J-10A's or J-10B's & when is the delivery expected.

No J-10s anymore, so i think you must give up your hope about J-10s..

 

[Munir]

Doesn't it?

Chinese J-10 Fighter Jet in Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Configuration | Chinese Military Review




As I already showed you, that's factually wrong! You could have simply counted the number of wingstations of both fighters to understand that. Even if the J10 wing would be twice as big, as long as it also has 3 x stations it will carry the same load as the JF 17.

http://s1.directupload.net/images/140130/2t56lo95.jpg

As you can see, for at least 90% of the roles, JF17 would carry the same weapon load as a J10B. The advantages of systems or aero dynamics were never disputed, (which isn't big compared to the expected Block 3 upgrade anyway), but can't justify the unit and operational cost increase for PAF.
Without freeing hardpoints from fuel tanks, the J10 won't have useful load advantages over JF17 as simple as it is!

JF17 is small/light fighterjet. It does not need to go deep inside India nor fly far. Adding more then two BVR would be just adding drag and RCS. Surely you can do but is it needed? It is mostly netcentric warfare. two bvr to get advantage and two wvr to finish the combat. That is the whole idea behind planes like JF17, LCA or even F16. Surely you can show some pics with two BVR but then you do not have wvr... And sometimes they have 4 wvr...The moment you add 4 BVR on your LCA we can start a discussion.

 

[Introvert]

No J-10s anymore, so i think you must give up your hope about J-10s..

Is it true? Can you provide any link for your claim?

 

[That Guy]

Is it true? Can you provide any link for your claim?

Not really any links I can personally give, but senior PAF officials are said to have mentioned that they're no longer interested in the J-10 and are happy with manufacturing and further developing the JF-17 (i.e no money). Not to mention that with the appearance of the J-31, which is said to be an export 5th gen fighter, PAF might be looking for a more capable fighter than the J-10.

So yeah, any way you look at it, the deal is pretty much dead.

 

[fatman17]

forget the J-10B for now. concentrate on consolidating the JFT program - 150 units blk-1-2-3 & work / collaborate with the chinese on the J-21 fighter in the next 7-10 years.

 

[Armstrong]

Payload is a paper figure and doesn't tell you anything about the real load capability of a fighter, just like the basic number of hardpoints is useless unless you consider what weight limits or size restrictions they have. The fact is, JF 17 and J10 have the same number of heavy / wet stations, that means BOTH can carry the same number of fuel tanks, C802 anti ship missiles, Raad cruise missiles, 2000lb bombs...
And if BVR truck means, it can load a lot of SD10s, you are mistaken again, because if that would be the case it wouldn't need draggy twin launchers to carry 4 of them in CAP role, again the same load that a JF17 carries in CAP!
The only load advantage with useful loads J10 has is with LGBs, since it has a dedicated pod station, which wouldn't block the centerline station like it does at JF17, but that's it and that's why CFTs or increased internal fuel capacity would be important for a really comprehensive upgrade.

Bro tell me something, I've asked this around but I haven't really gotten a satisfactory answer as of yet :

Is it possible for a Jf-17 or even a J-10B being made into a BVR Truck (if the load were to allow it) by using those pylons (I think) in which you attach 2-3 missiles at the same hard-point & to keep it flying in Friendly territory with 2-3 normally configured Jf-17s or F-7s or whatever nearby to defend it in case of enemy air-attack & that this BVR Truck networks with an AWAC to serve as, in a way, a long-range Air Defense System sitting on the edge of an engagement firing BVR Missiles at the Enemy if an opportunity presents itself or to dissuade them from coming into Pakistani Territory ?

Sort of like an Airplatform meets a Sniper Rifle type thing !

 

[Luftwaffe]

forget the J-10B for now. concentrate on consolidating the JFT program - 150 units blk-1-2-3 & work / collaborate with the chinese on the J-21 fighter in the next 7-10 years.

Pointless to be stuck in the same generation J-10B/FC-1 are from the same generation atleast in next 3 years FC-1/JF-17 would be. Even if small numbers next generation is the way forward after FC-1/JF-17.

 

[sancho]

JF17 is small/light fighterjet. It does not need to go deep inside India nor fly far. Adding more then two BVR would be just adding drag and RCS. Surely you can do but is it needed? It is mostly netcentric warfare. two bvr to get advantage and two wvr to finish the combat. That is the whole idea behind planes like JF17, LCA or even F16. Surely you can show some pics with two BVR but then you do not have wvr... And sometimes they have 4 wvr...The moment you add 4 BVR on your LCA we can start a discussion.

The size of the fighter, nor range have anything to do with the ammount of missiles being carried. In CAP missions, 4 x EM and 2 x IR missiles are common standard if the fighter can carry such loads next to fuel tanks. J10, JF 17 then would need to carry twin launchers, not ideal but definitely necessary. Please don't make it another vs thread and lets stick to J10 or PAF fighters!

Is it possible for a Jf-17 or even a J-10B being made into a BVR Truck (if the load were to allow it) by using those pylons (I think) in which you attach 2-3 missiles at the same hard-point & to keep it flying in Friendly territory with 2-3 normally configured Jf-17s or F-7s or whatever nearby to defend it in case of enemy air-attack & that this BVR Truck networks with an AWAC to serve as, in a way, a long-range Air Defense System sitting on the edge of an engagement firing BVR Missiles at the Enemy if an opportunity presents itself or to dissuade them from coming into Pakistani Territory ?

If the weight and size limits of the hardpoints would allow such loads, it should be possible, the problem however is the increased drag that such multi pylons create. Not to mention that the AWACS only provides you long range detection, the missile range is less and the no-escape zone even lower, so using them at maximum range would be a waste and might not give a useful hit rate. So the fighter would need to close in and then the weight and drag will be a burden and not an advantage anymore.

 

[Munir]

The size of the fighter, nor range have anything to do with the ammount of missiles being carried. In CAP missions, 4 x EM and 2 x IR missiles are common standard if the fighter can carry such loads next to fuel tanks. J10, JF 17 then would need to carry twin launchers, not ideal but definitely necessary. Please don't make it another vs thread and lets stick to J10 or PAF fighters!



If the weight and size limits of the hardpoints would allow such loads, it should be possible, the problem however is the increased drag that such multi pylons create. Not to mention that the AWACS only provides you long range detection, the missile range is less and the no-escape zone even lower, so using them at maximum range would be a waste and might not give a useful hit rate. So the fighter would need to close in and then the weight and drag will be a burden and not an advantage anymore.

Why no dual launchers on the f16? Which is bigger then JF17 btw...
Your numbers are related to medium weight fighterjets....


Sure you can come with Gripen but those are still drawings.

 

[sancho]

Why no dual launchers on the f16?

Because unlike J10 or JF17, it has 4 x wingstations, which means even with fuel tanks, it can carry 6 x AAMs in A2A and a full set of 4 x AAM in any other role (CAS, SEAD...).

 

[SQ8]

Because unlike J10 or JF17, it has 4 x wingstations, which means even with fuel tanks, it can carry 6 x AAMs in A2A and a full set of 4 x AAM in any other role (CAS, SEAD...).

The J-10 suffers from simply having less wing "span". there isnt any space to fit all of that into the jet. Another design flaw is that it cannot carry AAMs within its fuselage(semi recessed) like the EF or Rafale can. Not sure if that is a gear issue or clearance.

The issue for the JF-17s 2BVR and 2WVR loadout has less to do with carriage issues and more with operational doctrine. The hint to that was clear in the last interview of the JF-17 dep. Project head.. The PAF figures that considering the distance between the operational bases and front line, the type of threat faced.. the probability is that for the JF-17 two BVR systems are enough to launch before it ends up in a merge(if it survives).. and once it survives the merge.. its time to come home and land.

Additinally, the PAF also never flew the full AAM loadout for the F-16s as well, always flying the 4 AAM on wingtip and outer stations and never with a full 6 AAM loadout. The idea was never to have complete air superiority but establish local safe zones from time to time and leave the rest clear.

In either case, the J-10 is most certainly a closed book for the PAF. The window for it came and went, and the funds were never there. Instead , all hands have been pumped into F-16s and JF-17s which will be cornerstone of the fast jet fleet till 2020 or beyond(depending on funds).