What's new

PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

syed_yusuf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 20, 2006
1,524
0
1,055
There is a couple of things I want to address here. First of all, I would consider WS-10 to be quite mature by this point. It's true that back in 2015, AL-31F probably did have long service life and reliability than WS-10. But we've gone through several years of flying now and PLAAF have been using its on J-10C for a couple of years without any major incidents. The original design spec for WS-10 had higher MTBO requirements than AL-31. Now that both engines are mature, I would imagine WS-10B currently would have better in service MTBO period than AL-31FN. More importantly, China is now producing massive quantities of WS-10 every year. You are probably going to have better after service care from China on WS-10B than you would from Russians on AL-31FN. IAF's AL-31FP issues with Russians is pretty well known. I'm not sure why people are acting like Russia is the hallmark of reliability. It's pretty bad.

Secondly, we've only had the one known J-10C prototype with TVC. It would be quite crazy for PAF to opt for that.

Thirdly, I actually don't think F-16V is a good choice for PAF at this point. It probably is an adequate option against Rafale, but there is not much growth left in the F-16 platform. F-16 at this point is maxed out in terms of what you can fit in there. It's already lost agility in order to fit AESA radar in there. In comparison, I think J-10C at this point can fit more larger/more powerful radar and electronics in there and will probably have more powerful engine to support that. There should be some growth left in J-10 program still.

Fourth, I don't get this fascination with saying that PAF never compromises on quality and always needs the best. That's simply not true for any Air Force, let alone when that faces a massive resource disadvantage again its biggest rival. The only Air Force who can always get the best is USAF. Everyone else, including China, needs to be realistic about their options based on who they can acquire from and what their budgets are. If you want to use IAF's strategy of shooting for the moon and fantasizing about exporter's marketing brochures, then you are going to end up as a smaller and weaker version of IAF. That would be a terrible strategy for PAF. PAF needs to make cost conscience decisions on what's most available that can immediately improve its capability and allow it continue to be a strong deterrence to an opponent with massive resource advantage. Getting J-10C now is about getting a strong deterrence against an obvious threat to balance of power in the form of Rafale. PAF cannot wait 5 years and sink a bunch of money into getting something else that looks good on paper. It wants IAF to continue to keep doing that.

I agree 100%
 

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
6,982
7
14,150
Country
China
Location
United States
Young people who worked on the J-10CE. Great work.

EDCFF298-4A22-4F81-AE56-838426621212.jpeg
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,953
79
14,973
If P&W does not match their brochure than it means, its out of the race. Very simple
If you are wrong why dont you just accept it. The 16s/70s have GE engines and the 72s jave P&W engine. Please do not continue this useless debate. The 70/72s are available with both engines. This is besides the debate of whether GE is better than P&W. Incidentally the figures you quoted for P&W are those of the pw220 engines which are powering the Block 15s. The PW229 with 29000lb Thrust is in block52s.
I also think that the latest GE engine churnes out 32000lb in thrust although cant remember where I read it.
Regards
A
 
Last edited:

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,953
79
14,973
doesn't hurt to have. HOBS missiles aren't 3 dimensional 360 degrees, TVC will help in bringing any target into the HOBS sight and quickly as opposed to having to carry out traditional in turn maneuvers. Also, it'll have a psychological impact on the already nerve wrecked indian pilots...
If the PAF claim of downing an MKI is right then your supposition does not bear weight. Modern missiles let alone HOBS in their kill zones are fairly lethal and once fired the other party has no option but to drop tanks and run for their lives. TVC will add 200kgs of weight will need maintenance every 200 hours for very little benefit.
My 2 paisas worth.
A
 
Last edited:

MH.Yang

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 21, 2021
3,277
-2
6,900
Country
China
Location
China
If the PAF claim of downing an MKI is right then your supposition does not bear weight. Modern missiles let alone HOBS in their kill zones are fairly lethal and once fired the other party has no option but to drop tanks and run for their lives. TVC will add 200kgs of weight will need maintenance every 200 hours for very little benefit.
My 2 paisas worth.
A
China experimented with TVC on J10B, but did not use it for J10C. That's enough to say a lot.
 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
12,410
-13
17,244
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
If the PAF claim of downing an MKI is right then your supposition does not bear weight. Modern missiles let alone HOBS in their kill zones are fairly lethal and once fired the other party has no option but to drop tanks and run for their lives. TVC will add 200kgs of weight will need maintenance every 200 hours for very little benefit.
My 2 paisas worth.
A
it all depends on where the target is now doesn't it? the doomed mki was flying high and was caught n killed at BVR range. but it's entirely possible that an enemy aircraft could be flying close to the ground behind mountain ranges and as soon as he pulls up, it's a close in dog fight from the get go in which case, HOBS will be so much more effective with the interceptor aircraft having TVC, depending on the position of the interceptor, instead of using up 5 vital seconds to traditionally turn to bring the target within the HOBS sight, he can use TVC to turn and bring the target within HOBS sight within 1 second. so it does make a big difference.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom