What's new

Replacing the F-16: Will Pakistan’s Top Fighter Squadron Transition to Chinese J-10Cs?

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
5,238
20
6,328
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Back to the topic, if the J-10 is acquired and it surpasses the F-16s in the PAF inventory, by default it would be the leading fighter in the PAF inventory.

Certain air bases are probably build to be in compliance with US requirements to support the F-16, so unless other bases are setup to do the task, the F-16s and the squadrons assigned to them will stay as they are, while Mirage squadrons will probably get the J-10s and become the frontline multi role squadrons.

Considering the PAF ends up buying in large numbers, I hope after JF-17 Block 3, Kamra transitions to producing the J-10 in Pakistan, and get ToT from Turkey from their experience on the F-16, F-35, and T-FX (as part of project AZM) to build the best quality fuselage for our domestic built J-10s. It would allow our planes to have lifespans equal to that of the F-16s; of 8000-12000 hours, so they can hopefully serve for 3-4 decades with ease. Also, it’s a good way to build up capability for project AZM and get the most performance out of the J-10 Airframes (lighter, stronger, possibly less RCS with some “baked in stealth” to be coupled with RCS reducing paint).
 
Last edited:

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,523
10
4,193
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Back to the topic, if the J-10 is acquired and it surpasses the F-16s in the PAF inventory, by default it would be the leading fighter in the PAF inventory.

Certain air bases are probably build to be in compliance with US requirements to support the F-16, so unless other bases are setup to do the task, the F-16s and the squadrons assigned to them will stay as they are, while Mirage squadrons will probably get the J-10s and become the frontline multi role squadrons.

Considering the PAF ends up buying in large numbers, I hope after JF-17 Block 3, Kamra transitions to producing the J-10 in Pakistan, and get ToT from Turkey from their experience on the F-16, F-35, and T-FX (as part of project AZM) to build the best quality fuselage for our domestic built J-10s. It would allow our planes to have lifespans equal to that of the F-16s; of 8000-12000 hours, so they can hopefully serve for 3-4 decades with ease. Also, it’s a good way to build up capability for project AZM and get the most performance out of the J-10 Airframes (lighter, stronger, possibly less RCS with some “baked in stealth” to be coupled with RCS reducing paint).
I personally don’t think local production of J-10C will happen, especially since JF-17 program is meant to continue for a while still. We can’t just make a shopping list like that “J-10C ToT from China, F-16 and F35 ToT from Turkey, 2 Darjan tamatar” etc.

Firstly, Turkey cannot share any Tech or info related to F-16 or F35. At least nothing meaningful. It’s not their property or place to do so. I don’t mean to offend anyone’s feelings (especially any Turkish members) but Pakistanis have a habit of overestimating turkeys defense industry, while it’s growth is very impressive, they aren’t at stage yet where they can be hanging out technologies and experience like this (especially not experience, considering they have not made any of this stuff on their own yet without foreign help). I’m even skeptical about the TFX staying anywhere close to its timeline due to how their relationship is deteriorating with the west. Turkish industry is heading towards a lot of hiccups.

Secondly, China wants to make the most money off this sale, is it going to be possible to convince them of ToT that easily? Does PAF want to end the JF program for this (no indication so far). Is local assembly worth it considering Chinese can deliver faster? Is it worth changing the entire airframe makeup of the J-10 (which would mean lots of money and research) instead of putting that into Azm (that is if China allows it in the first place), and what about any Chinese future upgrades to the J-10C, etc etc.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
1,002
0
964
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Back to the topic, if the J-10 is acquired and it surpasses the F-16s in the PAF inventory, by default it would be the leading fighter in the PAF inventory.

Certain air bases are probably build to be in compliance with US requirements to support the F-16, so unless other bases are setup to do the task, the F-16s and the squadrons assigned to them will stay as they are, while Mirage squadrons will probably get the J-10s and become the frontline multi role squadrons.

Considering the PAF ends up buying in large numbers, I hope after JF-17 Block 3, Kamra transitions to producing the J-10 in Pakistan, and get ToT from Turkey from their experience on the F-16, F-35, and T-FX (as part of project AZM) to build the best quality fuselage for our domestic built J-10s. It would allow our planes to have lifespans equal to that of the F-16s; of 8000-12000 hours, so they can hopefully serve for 3-4 decades with ease. Also, it’s a good way to build up capability for project AZM and get the most performance out of the J-10 Airframes (lighter, stronger, possibly less RCS with some “baked in stealth” to be coupled with RCS reducing paint).
Why to invest in J10 ToT when you already investing in JF17s program in long run.
J10 are stop gap induction to increase numbers for AESA based mid weight jet till AZM or any other 5th gen induction
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
5,238
20
6,328
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Why to invest in J10 ToT when you already investing in JF17s program in long run.
J10 are stop gap induction to increase numbers for AESA based mid weight jet till AZM or any other 5th gen induction
PAF will probably induct the J-10 in large numbers, eventually as per the following video ; over 90 IMHO, perhaps more. JF-17 may see its production run end after 100 Block III, as PAF may need to focus on a larger platform with a more power AESA radar and the ability to carry larger/longer range weapons.


I personally don’t think local production of J-10C will happen, especially since JF-17 program is meant to continue for a while still. We can’t just make a shopping list like that “J-10C ToT from China, F-16 and F35 ToT from Turkey, 2 Darjan tamatar” etc.

Firstly, Turkey cannot share any Tech or info related to F-16 or F35. At least nothing meaningful. It’s not their property or place to do so. I don’t mean to offend anyone’s feelings (especially any Turkish members) but Pakistanis have a habit of overestimating turkeys defense industry, while it’s growth is very impressive, they aren’t at stage yet where they can be hanging out technologies and experience like this (especially not experience, considering they have not made any of this stuff on their own yet without foreign help). I’m even skeptical about the TFX staying anywhere close to its timeline due to how their relationship is deteriorating with the west. Turkish industry is heading towards a lot of hiccups.

Secondly, China wants to make the most money off this sale, is it going to be possible to convince them of ToT that easily? Does PAF want to end the JF program for this (no indication so far). Is local assembly worth it considering Chinese can deliver faster? Is it worth changing the entire airframe makeup of the J-10 (which would mean lots of money and research) instead of putting that into Azm (that is if China allows it in the first place), and what about any Chinese future upgrades to the J-10C, etc etc.
Your probably right, it may not be worth it, to both China (financially) and Pakistan (timeline) to do a ToT. It’s true, we probably do overstaimate Turkish capabilities (no offense to Turkish PDF members), but their experience on making the airframe for the F-16 and F-35 would eventually be transferring in one form or another as part of Probect AZM of it turns out to be the T-FX. I figured, why not get that transferred now, and Pakistan can start making parts for its J-10 with that technology. As you said, China is already going to have its own future upgrades, and why tinker with the Chinese evolution of their own design.

BTW, what kind of Chinese upgrades to the J-10 do you envision outside of Engine upgrades? I could for see some improvements to the Airframe materials, RCS reshaping and upgraded Avionics, but not sure what beyond that?
 
Last edited:

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
22,326
174
42,280
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
PAF will probably induct the J-10 in large numbers, eventually as per the following video ; over 90 IMHO, perhaps more. JF-17 may see its production run end after 100 Block III, as PAF may need to focus on a larger platform with a more power AESA radar and the ability to carry larger/longer range weapons.




Your probably right, it may not be worth it, to both China (financially) and Pakistan (timeline) to do a ToT. It’s true, we probably do overstaimate Turkish capabilities (no offense to Turkish PDF members), but their experience on making the airframe for the F-16 and F-35 would eventually be transferring in one form or another as part of Probect AZM of it turns out to be the T-FX. I figured, why not get that transferred now, and Pakistan can start making parts for its J-10 with that technology. As you said, China is already going to have its own future upgrades, and why tinker with the Chinese evolution of their own design.

BTW, what kind of Chinese upgrades to the J-10 do you envision outside of Engine upgrades? I could for see some improvements to the Airframe materials, RCS reshaping and upgraded Avionics, but not sure what beyond that?
Brother can we just drop to rely upon some random YouTube account/video for PDF discussion? It just ruin our own capability to share our own opinion or analysis.

Regards,
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
12,183
68
14,246
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
They don’t make sense for Pakistan to acquire anyways if J10C is purchased, J10C is enough to bridge the gap until fifth generation fighters can be acquired post 2030. If Pakistan ever does want flankers, SU35>J-16, but neither are going to happen.
J-16 is more advanced than Su-35S and suitable for conducting long-range strike missions over India (and Indian Ocean). J-16 can expand combat reach and capacity of PAF on many counts if acquired in numbers. China is not exporting this jet fighter however.

JF-17 Thunder Block 3 will bridge the gap between J-10C and JF-17 Thunder Block 2 on many counts. Since PAF is operating JF-17 in large numbers, it would be better to update this fleet in my view. J-10C is force-multiplier option for PAF at maximum.

F-16s have good MBTF on average, and Block 52+ make it possible for the PAF to conduct long-range strike missions over India (and Indian Ocean) with CFTs in the present.
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
5,238
20
6,328
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Brother can we just drop to rely upon some random YouTube account/video for PDF discussion? It just ruin our own capability to share our own opinion or analysis.

Regards,
I was quoting someone else’s observation on the numbers to be acquired issue, but sure, I will try to refrain from doing so going forward.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,523
10
4,193
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
J-16 is more advanced than Su-35S and suitable for conducting long-range strike missions over India (and Indian Ocean). J-16 can expand combat reach and capacity of PAF on many counts if acquired in numbers. China is not exporting this jet fighter however.

JF-17 Thunder Block 3 will bridge the gap between J-10C and JF-17 Thunder Block 2 on many counts. Since PAF is operating JF-17 in large numbers, it would be better to update this fleet in my view. J-10C is force-multiplier option for PAF at maximum.

F-16s have good MBTF on average, and Block 52+ make it possible for the PAF to conduct long-range strike missions over India (and Indian Ocean) with CFTs in the present.
Agree with the rest but I wouldn’t put J-16 over SU35S. They are at most comparable, J-16 very likely has the edge in electronics and sensors, but IMO SU35S has a better radar (I know J-16 has an AESA, but the SU35S Hybrid PESA is known to be one of the best in the world, and China AESAs are widely unproven, if that AESA is of similar quality in its class as JF-17s AESA then it won’t be anything special sadly. Though I hope the larger Chinese AESAs, particularly the one in our J-10C, are better.)
Secondly SU35S has better engines than its Chinese counterpart.
Lastly, the weapons packages of the SU35S ahead of the J-16 for me, Chinese Top-end missiles/LGBs are rather unknown but claim better performance than their Russian counterparts all the time. Their ranges quoted everywhere (200-300KM) are absolute bogus. Such ranges are only possible in parabolic trajectory which is used to take down AWACS and tankers, in which case PL-21 should be able to go that far, but against fighters it will be less than 200KM range. And PL-15 cannot do that trajectory.
I’m sure Chinese BVRs are good and comparable to their western and Russian counterparts, but it is unlikely they’re any better.

It could very well be that the Chinese jet is better and we just don’t know enough about it, but there is a reason even they copied the Russian design. Until it’s effectiveness is proven it is hard to call it better for me considering decades of Russian expertise. However Russia is starting to fall behind on account of slow RnD and production, China is advancing rapidly.
 

Ghessan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2018
1,035
0
1,035
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I was quoting someone else’s observation on the numbers to be acquired issue, but sure, I will try to refrain from doing so going forward.
all of them you tubers are taking notes from this forum while sharing information or are taking from each other the information which is still taken from this very forum.
but people at PDF knows what they are saying, those you tubers are of the habit of share things as news which is just a speculation here.
 

Beast

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 5, 2011
25,555
-39
59,214
Country
China
Location
China
Agree with the rest but I wouldn’t put J-16 over SU35S. They are at most comparable, J-16 very likely has the edge in electronics and sensors, but IMO SU35S has a better radar (I know J-16 has an AESA, but the SU35S Hybrid PESA is known to be one of the best in the world, and China AESAs are widely unproven, if that AESA is of similar quality in its class as JF-17s AESA then it won’t be anything special sadly. Though I hope the larger Chinese AESAs, particularly the one in our J-10C, are better.)
Secondly SU35S has better engines than its Chinese counterpart.
Lastly, the weapons packages of the SU35S ahead of the J-16 for me, Chinese Top-end missiles/LGBs are rather unknown but claim better performance than their Russian counterparts all the time. Their ranges quoted everywhere (200-300KM) are absolute bogus. Such ranges are only possible in parabolic trajectory which is used to take down AWACS and tankers, in which case PL-21 should be able to go that far, but against fighters it will be less than 200KM range. And PL-15 cannot do that trajectory.
I’m sure Chinese BVRs are good and comparable to their western and Russian counterparts, but it is unlikely they’re any better.

It could very well be that the Chinese jet is better and we just don’t know enough about it, but there is a reason even they copied the Russian design. Until it’s effectiveness is proven it is hard to call it better for me considering decades of Russian expertise. However Russia is starting to fall behind on account of slow RnD and production, China is advancing rapidly.
What has Russian PESA proven in any war? You mean the 27th Feb 2019 where MKI got locked and Bison shot down?

China is in the top 10 supercomputer where Russia one are none to be found. Chinese just release a computer chip totally independent from any western IP which can compare to AMD Ryzen first gen 2017.

You think Chinese electronic and computer prowess are behind Russian?
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,523
10
4,193
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @kursed @iLION12345_1 @LeGenD @JamD
Iff J10s are coming, can we opt for Leonardo solutions on these jets? Will Chinese allow integration of European systems on it?
We had the option back in the day when J-10 was offered, Leonardo offered their GRIFO 2000/16 radar to Pakistan to equip the J-10 if we bought it.
IMO that option doesn’t make much sense anymore. It made sense back then because Pakistan was not using any Chinese weaponry and only used western missiles and such. It needed a western radar so it would not have to buy and use Chinese weapons (hence why it was done for F7P and PG).

Now Pakistan does not have access to advanced western missiles like the meteor or AIM120D. And the AIM120C5 we have are only enough for the F-16 fleet. Instead we are now already using the latest Chinese weapons in the PL10 and PL-15 due to the JF-17, Hence it makes little sense to consider a western radar for the aircraft and then spend a lot of money on integration of Chinese weaponry on it. Plus Chinese tech has improved a lot since then so it’s not a case of western tech being better either, the F7 needed a lot of upgrades to be a good aircraft even back in the 90s-2000s, the J-10C is already a relevant modern platform.

The engine obviously cannot really be changed to anything but the Chinese or the Russian option due to the airframe being built for it.

While it is possible that some western tech can be integrated into the Pakistani variant of the J-10 from Indra systems (as in JF) and from Leonardo. Like Self-protection measures, Ejection seats (Martin baker), EW pods (ALQ-500P is rather superior to the Chinese KJ-700A from what I know, mainly in regards to power output) etc I doubt PAF is making changes as radical to the J-10C for purchase as it did to F7. It will surely be changed to PAFs Requirements as much as possible, but IMO only with whatever China has available. As for Chinese giving permission in the hypothetical scenario that Pakistan does want to make some changes, I doubt China would mind minor ones, as they don’t want to miss out on a major sale to Pakistan, but I don’t think they’d allow any radical modifications unless Pakistan is willing to pay for it fully.

Lastly, one other benefit that a potential J-10C purchase might hold for Pakistan is further commonality of systems with JF-17, especially block 3 and future blocks. I don’t feel it’s being discussed as much as it should be. It could both bring JF-17 closer in capability to J-10C by employing the systems it does and increase commonality of parts and equipment between the two to bring down operating costs. Some things I can already think of are in regards to the self protection suites like RWR and MAWS.
I wonder what the makeup of the J-10C airframe is, the composites used and the number of composites etc and how that can be carried over to the JF in the future as well. If PAF also purchases the jet with Chinese engines, then that could be another thing that changes on the JF in the future, but I doubt that would be cost effective.
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,301
227
19,974
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Agree with the rest but I wouldn’t put J-16 over SU35S. They are at most comparable, J-16 very likely has the edge in electronics and sensors, but IMO SU35S has a better radar (I know J-16 has an AESA, but the SU35S Hybrid PESA is known to be one of the best in the world, and China AESAs are widely unproven, if that AESA is of similar quality in its class as JF-17s AESA then it won’t be anything special sadly. Though I hope the larger Chinese AESAs, particularly the one in our J-10C, are better.)
Secondly SU35S has better engines than its Chinese counterpart.
Lastly, the weapons packages of the SU35S ahead of the J-16 for me, Chinese Top-end missiles/LGBs are rather unknown but claim better performance than their Russian counterparts all the time. Their ranges quoted everywhere (200-300KM) are absolute bogus. Such ranges are only possible in parabolic trajectory which is used to take down AWACS and tankers, in which case PL-21 should be able to go that far, but against fighters it will be less than 200KM range. And PL-15 cannot do that trajectory.
I’m sure Chinese BVRs are good and comparable to their western and Russian counterparts, but it is unlikely they’re any better.

It could very well be that the Chinese jet is better and we just don’t know enough about it, but there is a reason even they copied the Russian design. Until it’s effectiveness is proven it is hard to call it better for me considering decades of Russian expertise. However Russia is starting to fall behind on account of slow RnD and production, China is advancing rapidly.
PAF deployed PD equipped aircrafts against PESA equipped fighters of IAF in 2019. We know the result. How much role did the radar play in defining the outcome ?
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,523
10
4,193
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
PAF deployed PD equipped aircrafts against PESA equipped fighters of IAF in 2019. We know the result. How much role did the radar play in defining the outcome ?
To me that boils down a lot more to The two users in play and the conditions, obviously any tech can only be better than the other on paper from our perspective, in actual usage scenarios so many other factors come into play that those numbers aren’t relevant anymore. For example, Radar range (which is most often used as a metric for gauging how good a radar is) is not even the best estimation of a radars performance because beyond a certain limit you’re not going to engage your enemy, if a radar can find you a target at 200KM but cannot track it that well then the radar with 150KM range and better tracking is the better one IMO. It’s all just stats on paper.

Regardless, the relation I’m making is in regards to the SU-35S (and by extension the SU30-MKK) operated by Russia and China, not the MKi (older, not the same radar as SU35S or MKK) operated by India, versus the J-16 operated by China. And from what i know on paper the former is better than the latter in some regards, however that would obviously not be the case in an actual combat scenario as all the other factors come into play.
 

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


Top Bottom