What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

ghilzai

FULL MEMBER
Dec 27, 2012
1,926
-7
1,928
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
But again we would have an option of third party engine, as China will be using russian engines in case its own engine doesnot come up at par ...with china importing bulk of engines and russian earning $$ the later will have no problem ...similar to rd-93 russia is more than willing to provide even an upgraded version .....

Another option is the shenyang using its own engines on j-11s and j-15s so may be they can come up with a variant with more thrust for a twin engine stealth fighter
Sorry mani for the ignorance, but wasn't j10 touted to be better then f16 block 52, if am not wrong Dodnt the paf official state the f16 will not be the most advance plane in its inventory.

How has this changed?.
 

Luftwaffe

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2008
9,561
8
8,397
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Another option is the shenyang using its own engines on j-11s and j-15s so may be they can come up with a variant with more thrust for a twin engine stealth fighter
Well Think PAF can live with RD series for a decade before replacing them and so far russians have no problem. Funny thing is chinese testing RD on J-31 and WS/AL-31 on J-10 it clearly shows Chinese engines have failed to deliver or are not on par with even russians engines, and I would not believe if someone comes here saying mass scale engines are in development there is no proof looking at AL-31 orders and RD orders and RD being used on J-31 and AL on J-20 seems the right engines would not be ready before 10 Years. We should gladly pay more to russians for better RD series and just invest in JF-17s when it comes to eastern platform.

Now we don't want to wait for Chinese to experiment with RD on J-10 and maybe russians might not agree to it even though good dollars are offered to them, russians are not that fools either.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
33,450
344
67,549
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Couple of things being missed by folks here.
Is how the air-staff requirement of an Airforce has to be fluid when it comes to changes within the scenario the country is facing at that time.
When the ASR for the JF-17 was first drawn out it was much like the F-16, Light fighter with a maximum focus on cost effectiveness. Being able to deploy BVR weaponry and provide token CAS. This was in the mid-90's to early 2000's.
The jet flew and there was growth potential beyond what was expected and the ASR evolved along with it.

The same happened for the Entire force ASR: there was supposed to be the light fighter , the "middle weight strike fighter" and the Long range high performance interdiction and air superiority asset.
Each role had its demands, one had fulfilling the need to protect PAF and critical Pakistani assets round the clock at the highest performance/cost ratio , the other had the latter's role along with Softening up the enemy's offensive backbone so that a reprieve could be sought and time could be bought for diplomacy. The last role required an aircraft to be capable of taking the fight deep within enemy territory and be able to survive the best the enemy could throw at it to complete the desired mission.
This role could range from attacking C4I center's to going after HVAAs.

Back in the early 2000's the Chinese had given the PAF the complete possible growth potential for the J-10 including any twin engines derivatives/cost etc. The PAF liked the idea of an improved J-10 then, with that budget that it had and it fit the strike mix .. not perfectly.. but acceptably to meet its core requirements.(Ideally the PAF wanted either the EF or the Rafale).
Come today's budget crunch and the rapid advancement in what was available for the JF-17. The PAF realized that it while it may not meet its early ASR's set out before, the JF-17 offered the potential to be laden with enough avionics and diverse weaponry at a lesser cost than it first assumed that would give it enough capabilities to compensate for the loss of the J-10 and take the load off the close range offensive punch from the F-16 fleet.
The F-16 fleet then takes on a greater role as the deep interdiction and strike force with the ability to be survivable just enough to complete their mission(even if it is one way).
 

SomeGuy

FULL MEMBER
May 5, 2010
413
0
224
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Ai8!!!! The F-16's B-52 weapons package is superior to the newer generation R-77 and about three different versions of long range BVR's that China possesses along with Su-30....that can detect the F-16 on a foggy day from about 145 KM's??? I leave that up to you. I have no doubt in the jamming and avionics QUALITY part of the deal that the US is far superior. But to say that the SU-30 with its long range radar, tvc engines and about three different long range to mid range BVR's....it's superior to the Pakistani F-16's B-52 is a far fetched. The AMRAAMS given to Pakistan are three generations before the current one. And their range is also somewhat limited when compared to the latest R-77 and other Russian BVR's. Just remember that. The USAF F-16's B-52's WILL ALWAYS be superior to what the Chinese have. Not the Pakistani ones. They are a dumb down version if you will.
Sir,

So you believe the Su-27's and Su-30's in the PLAAF are more than capable of matching F-16 Blk-52s, correct?

You also believe the J-10A is far inferior to F-16 Blk-52s, correct?

Then how do you explain the fact that in PLAAF air combat exercises, J-10A completely dominates the Su-27 and Su-30's?

Seems the J-10A might not be as inferior as you may wish to believe.
 

Viper0011.

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 15, 2011
7,259
26
9,943
Country
United States
Location
United States
Sir,

So you believe the Su-27's and Su-30's in the PLAAF are more than capable of matching F-16 Blk-52s, correct?
You also believe the J-10A is far inferior to F-16 Blk-52s, correct?
Then how do you explain the fact that in PLAAF air combat exercises, J-10A completely dominates the Su-27 and Su-30's?
Seems the J-10A might not be as inferior as you may wish to believe.
Mr. you are incorrect on all the above statements. Reread what I wrote. I wrote 'modified' SU-27 and Su-30's (which, once modified, are in the same league of being Su-30 and not Su-27 anymore). Then, I also mentioned the BVR advantage....the Russian jets come with multiple BVR missiles and long ranges too. Almost all of them are longer range than the F-16-B52 Pak has with AMRAAM's (C5). That's a disadvantage in a real BVR scenario (but it has no implications in India and Pakistan's scenario due to the 0 distance pretty much and shared borders).

J-10A's been winning some simulations but I've also seen articles how it's been getting a kick in the belly too by J-11's and J-16's. So...depends on how you use it (mission profile) and the pilot, as I am assuming all 4 - 4.5 gen jets now a days offer similar avionics capability (American would always be a notch up and more durable and higher quality though). I never called J-10 inferior. J-10A is the initial version. J-10B should be about 80-90% similar to Euro-Canards. So....that's a direct competition to the F-16 B-52 and B-60's....even 80-90% of those. I think China will take about 5-10 more years to go head on with Western technology and quality. So till then, expect some quality limitations from them
 

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
28,972
84
34,487
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Don't you people Think at one point you want JF-17 to upgrade bring in new Block and increase the numbers in the inventory on the other hand you people favor F-16s to be procured this is the exact confusion inside PAF and that is how money is wasted decide what you want take one and leave other and stop fooling around. If PAF want to make something out of JF-17 then sacrifice getting more F-16s and invest heavily in JF-17s.

Now that we are hearing JF-17s coming in more blocks would be equally good as J-10B that is what I questioned a year back and people were bashing me when I said what significant advantage would be between J-10B and FC-1 block III. People can't even keep up with FC-1/JF-17s and we want another headache J-10B. I also questioned if JF-17 Blk III as people call it would have some major changes then why didn't PAF initially invest more it was no big deal when investing $500M PAF could have invest a couple hundred more from the start JF-17 should have been J-10/F-16 equivalent there would have been no look forward to J10s. Will PAF ever learn right management.


the problem is that at this time we can only speculate what the capabilities of the Blk-2,3 will be. PAF has only alluded to these in interviews of ACM's and such. we dont know the exact parameters.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,326
160
53,024
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Don't you people Think at one point you want JF-17 to upgrade bring in new Block and increase the numbers in the inventory on the other hand you people favor F-16s to be procured this is the exact confusion inside PAF and that is how money is wasted decide what you want take one and leave other and stop fooling around. If PAF want to make something out of JF-17 then sacrifice getting more F-16s and invest heavily in JF-17s.

Now that we are hearing JF-17s coming in more blocks would be equally good as J-10B that is what I questioned a year back and people were bashing me when I said what significant advantage would be between J-10B and FC-1 block III. People can't even keep up with FC-1/JF-17s and we want another headache J-10B. I also questioned if JF-17 Blk III as people call it would have some major changes then why didn't PAF initially invest more it was no big deal when investing $500M PAF could have invest a couple hundred more from the start JF-17 should have been J-10/F-16 equivalent there would have been no look forward to J10s. Will PAF ever learn right management.


Hi,

They would never learn---when this organization is being run and managed by incompetent people---nothing progressive and pro active can be expected----.
 

TAC

FULL MEMBER
Nov 25, 2007
135
0
231
I also questioned if JF-17 Blk III as people call it would have some major changes then why didn't PAF initially invest more it was no big deal when investing $500M PAF could have invest a couple hundred more from the start JF-17 should have been J-10/F-16 equivalent there would have been no look forward to J10s. Will PAF ever learn right management.
Thats like saying why did U.S. bother to make F-16A/B --- why didn't they just make the C/D. It is normal to upgrade in blocks in line with a maturing platform - nothing to do with management. Regardless - that's better discussed on JF-17 thread.

Hi,

They would never learn---when this organization is being run and managed by incompetent people---nothing progressive and pro active can be expected----.
Has the U.S. learnt from their 'mistake' of making F-16A/B first and only then investing in F-16C/D or are they also still 'incompetent people' not able to do anything 'progressive' or pro active??
 

Luftwaffe

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2008
9,561
8
8,397
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Thats like saying why did U.S. bother to make F-16A/B --- why didn't they just make the C/D. It is normal to upgrade in blocks in line with a maturing platform - nothing to do with management. Regardless - that's better discussed on JF-17 thread.
Thankyou you took time to read but you completely missed the point, If JFT was a J-10/F-16 equivalent project you wouldn't be wasting your time and waiting on J-10BXYZ think broadly this is what happened when plans go wrong like French refusal remember? good you people should you people are living in fools paradise. My point is IF JFT is/will be going through incremental upgrades Blocks and all your money and time is focused on JFT you don't need to jump for J-10 and waste your money and time on another platform. I don't have to remind you how much trouble JFT project is going through specially financially so pray tell me why do you want to waste $40M each and 40-45M over the life time costs on each airframe.
 

Luftwaffe

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2008
9,561
8
8,397
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...e-invested-more-j-10s-rather-than-jf-17s.html

There are very distinctive advantages of j10 and if money was not the problem we wont be upgrading jf17 above and beyond the cost effective bracket rather would be going for j10
If there are distinctive advantages then PAF should have gone for J-10s from the start even J-10A was a fine start perhaps like RD Engines PAF could have approached for AL-31 Engines do we have any initiative at all, this is the scope of our thinking.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
33,450
344
67,549
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thankyou you took time to read but you completely missed the point, If JFT was a J-10/F-16 equivalent project you wouldn't be wasting your time and waiting on J-10BXYZ think broadly this is what happened when plans go wrong like French refusal remember? good you people should you people are living in fools paradise. My point is IF JFT is/will be going through incremental upgrades Blocks and all your money and time is focused on JFT you don't need to jump for J-10 and waste your money and time on another platform. I don't have to remind you how much trouble JFT project is going through specially financially so pray tell me why do you want to waste $40M each and 40-45M over the life time costs on each airframe.
That is quite close to what is going on. If you can compensate for not having the J-10 by having better JF-17s then that is a good approach.
For all things considered, Pakistani posters should consider the J-10 procurement a lost cause.
 

TAC

FULL MEMBER
Nov 25, 2007
135
0
231
Thankyou you took time to read but you completely missed the point, If JFT was a J-10/F-16 equivalent project you wouldn't be wasting your time and waiting on J-10BXYZ think broadly this is what happened when plans go wrong like French refusal remember? good you people should you people are living in fools paradise. My point is IF JFT is/will be going through incremental upgrades Blocks and all your money and time is focused on JFT you don't need to jump for J-10 and waste your money and time on another platform. I don't have to remind you how much trouble JFT project is going through specially financially so pray tell me why do you want to waste $40M each and 40-45M over the life time costs on each airframe.
No disrespect to you - but you are quite right - I do not understand your point. The jf-17 was designed to be a cheap as possible and as cutting edge as possible. I do not see what has changed. First JF-17's came in 2007 as block 1 and we are yet to see the first block 2. And frankly what we are expecting in block 2 is not very fantastical in terms of upgrade. Just because it is being upgraded in blocks does not mean that someone has now suddenly decided it should match a J-10B or F-16C/D. The block upgrades are a normal feature of almost every fighter you can think of - J-10A to J-10B, F-16 block 15,30,40,52,60, Mirage 2000 to Mirage 2000-5/8 etc etc etc. This is a normal process as a platform matures and does not mean that all these countries were incompetant because they weren't smart enough to develop the later models first.

Also worth remembering that all this talk about JF-17 being upgraded soooooo much that there will no longer be any need for a J-10B type is nothing more than speculation by members on forums like this and should be seen in that context. The last official word from PAF was that there remained a requirement for a J-10 class fighter and that PAF's 'contract' for the J-10 with China was 'intact' and that the type would be aquired around the 2014-15 timeframe after required improvements to the type had been made.

That is quite close to what is going on. If you can compensate for not having the J-10 by having better JF-17s then that is a good approach.
For all things considered, Pakistani posters should consider the J-10 procurement a lost cause.
I agree that Pakistan will have better JF-17's with each block - but this was expected from the outset. In my opinion these improvements are not designed to compensate for not buying the J-10.
 

TAC

FULL MEMBER
Nov 25, 2007
135
0
231
If there are distinctive advantages then PAF should have gone for J-10s from the start even J-10A was a fine start perhaps like RD Engines PAF could have approached for AL-31 Engines do we have any initiative at all, this is the scope of our thinking.
J-10A is a heavier class fighter, more expensive to buy and operate - does not realy fit with what PAF wanted from the JF-17. On the contrary, despite meagre resources and limits on who will supply PAF has shown exceptional initiative to get itself where it is now.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
33,450
344
67,549
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I agree that Pakistan will have better JF-17's with each block - but this was expected from the outset. In my opinion these improvements are not designed to compensate for not buying the J-10.
No, but they do suffice.
So that the PAF isnt that upset about letting the J-10 go for now.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom