What's new

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

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,519
10
4,179
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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?
The planes in use on the 27th from our side were American, so are American planes better than Chinese ones now?

I never called Chinese electronics or computers worst than the Russians, quite the contrary, I called them better, maybe you did not read the message properly.

I don’t understand how making a better supercomputer leads to making a better aircraft or tank, Nobody ever claimed China is behind Russia in economy or development or money or technology. But last I checked, making a better aircraft or tank leads to a better aircraft or tank. You do realize you’re here to defend the J-16 right? The one that is obviously a Russian design that China made after it ordered SU35S and SU30MKK and studied them? Not that there is anything wrong with it, but my point is that Russia has decades more experience with weaponry of all sorts than China. And their weaponry has been used in every single major conflict to date (how many wars have Chinese weapons that aren’t copies of Russian weapons been used in?) Up until a decade or so ago basically every Chinese weapon was a copy of a Russian one or after the Sino-Soviet split a copy/license production of a European/American one (who btw also helped China set up most of its advanced defense production industry). Have you ever wondered why 25% of the worlds weapon exports in the last decade were Russian and why just 5% were Chinese? Or how Germany, france and the UK each had more weapon exports and production than China in the last decade despite being 1/10th the size? Or how China has always been the worlds 2-3rd largest arms importer while the countries you claim to make better tech than aren’t even in the top 10 of that list? That’s why experience matters in this field buddy, don’t forget your roots.

China has obviously progressed rapidly in the last few years and is already quickly overtaking Russia and approaching the US and Europe (ever sat in regards to military technology, but that doesn’t mean they can’t make better stuff than China (something so many payed Chinese bots online have trouble accepting).
I don’t think Chinese technology is bad at all, i think it’s obviously some of the best in the world and I love studying about it myself, but Chinese members have a habit of claiming and thinking only they make good weapons and nobody else, and that’s bias which I cannot accept. If you sit down for once and actually compare the realities of Chinese technology (especially in regards to tanks…) with that of Russian and European ones without that bias in your mind you’d see there’s still a ways to go for China, even if it is advancing more rapidly than others.

I won’t have another argument with you over your hyper-nationalism. Sorry if some truth bothers you that much. Regards.
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,293
227
19,967
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
What if the RED aircraft is using an AESA (and a BVR-AAM) with a very long range while the BLUE aircraft is carrying EW pods (say 2 Pods) which can:
1. Show clones of BLUE aircraft as multiple targets.

2. Make the BLUE aircraft disappear and re appear on RED aircraft's radar.

3. Breaks radar lock

4. Mimic echo of radar signal and send a stronger signal back after microseconds to falsify distance from RED aircraft (showing blue aircraft's location behind actual location of blue aircraft on RED aircraft radar)

5. Blue aircraft sends spurious signals relative to side lobes of incoming radar radiation to show its location left or right from actual position.

7. Jams or attempts to jam RED aircraft's radar or communication system or Data link.

8. Confuses missile direction if RED aircraft fires missile, guiding it away from blue aircraft.

There are many more techniques also. I listed only a few.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,519
10
4,179
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
What if the RED aircraft is using an AESA (and a BVR-AAM) with a very long range while the BLUE aircraft is carrying EW pods (say 2 Pods) which can:
1. Show clones of BLUE aircraft as multiple targets.

2. Make the BLUE aircraft disappear and re appear on RED aircraft's radar.

3. Breaks radar lock

4. Mimic echo of radar signal and send a stronger signal back after microseconds to falsify distance from RED aircraft (showing blue aircraft's location behind actual location of blue aircraft on RED aircraft radar)

5. Blue aircraft sends spurious signals relative to side lobes of incoming radar radiation to show its location left or right from actual position.

7. Jams or attempts to jam RED aircraft's radar or communication system or Data link.

8. Confuses missile direction if RED aircraft fires missile, guiding it away from blue aircraft.

There are many more techniques also. I listed only a few.
I’m a little confused by what you’re trying to ask, sorry (not trying to be rude at all, genuinely a little confused)

But these are the use-case conditions I’m talking about, RED has an AESA, let’s say the the Blue aircraft has a PD radar, on paper we see that and assume RED is better equipped, but then you throw in the EW and there’s several new conditions on the board that negate the advantage of the REDs radar, but that doesn’t mean his radar is worst, it’s still better, just negated in this scenario.

We can basically apply this to 27th February too. On paper they came with the better aircraft. In the actual scenario PAF used everything else it had to make their advantage disappear and took them out. On paper they were still better, but in an actual conflict what’s on paper truly doesn’t matter, (which I believe is what you’re trying to tell me, and I fully agree), but we often don’t see what’s beyond the papers, like how we don’t exactly know PAFs methods of negating the IAFs advantages so well. That’s why I only make comparisons in regards to technology and not in regards to how they’re used, other people are better at those :)
 

Vapnope

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 11, 2015
4,993
15
8,665
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
First of all thank you for the response.

Secondly, i had self protection suite, towed decoys and EW pods in mind when i asked about Leonardo solutions and that too on a condition iff Chinese solutions are inferior than Leonardo's.

P.S I can't find the specs of AESA being used by J10c.
 

redtom

FULL MEMBER
Aug 2, 2020
970
-1
1,647
Country
China
Location
United States
The J10C order shows that Pakistan's F16 is already an unstable asset. There may be a problem in the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. But this is not surprising when considering American history.

Another point worth observing is whether the jf17 blk3 and this batch of J10C will be upgraded with equipment with the same function as PLAF.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,519
10
4,179
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
First of all thank you for the response.

Secondly, i had self protection suite, towed decoys and EW pods in mind when i asked about Leonardo solutions and that too on a condition iff Chinese solutions are inferior than Leonardo's.

P.S I can't find the specs of AESA being used by J10c.
I don’t believe those specs are available anywhere online, plus from what we’re hearing Pakistani J-10 will have different radar.

I think towed decoys and EW-pods being largely external systems can be integrated with the J-10CP, not sure about the self protection suite as it would need to go inside the aircraft, but then I’m not an aircraft engineer.
But bottom line is, if PAF thinks it needs those changes, it will definitely try to get China to make them, if PAF thinks the aircraft really needs those things, then they will likely pay for them too.
I think for modifications like these the Chinese wouldn’t mind either, but it could be that the Chinese alternatives are good enough by now.
Would hope we can integrate the Ariel Mk. 2 Towed Active Radar Decoy, as well as Britecloud Expendable Decoys and the Pirate IRST, all three from Leonardo if I’m not mistaken.
J-10C has an IRST system already. But maybe that system can be implemented too, Pirate is very good, but we don’t know the specs of the Chinese one. It could be just as good.
 

mdmm

FULL MEMBER
Apr 17, 2009
222
0
146
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Strange news are coming up that 36 of J-10 c , being given to Pakistan by China will have different kind of RADAR and Missiles ??
What is it and what is reality ??
 

MH.Yang

FULL MEMBER
Jul 21, 2021
1,057
2
1,646
Country
China
Location
Singapore
I don't think Pakistan needs a 5G fighter.
If Pakistan wants to deal with the enemy's 5G aircraft, it should buy more advanced radar, early warning aircraft and air defense systems.
If you want to deal with the enemy airport or other important targets, missiles and long-range rockets are better choices.
After all, the enemy is very close.
What Pakistan needs is an aircraft that can destroy enemy early warning aircraft.
Pakistan should continue to invest in JF17 until it has enough capacity to manufacture its own 5G aircraft.
Pakistan can invest in building electronic warfare and information warfare forces
 
Last edited:

Raider 21

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 18, 2016
2,901
7
5,064
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Canada
Strange news are coming up that 36 of J-10 c , being given to Pakistan by China will have different kind of RADAR and Missiles ??
What is it and what is reality ??
Given to Pakistan....
Is there news that these aircraft are being donated??
 

Raider 21

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 18, 2016
2,901
7
5,064
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Canada
YES- I have a proof that Pakistan bought 36 J-10 C jet fighters from China.
But I will not give that proof to you or any one else. Because you and any one else has no authority to ask me about proof .
Cute. I meant the donated part.
 

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,135
0
2,538
Country
China
Location
Australia
The AESA on J-16 is many levels better than snow leopard radar of Su-35. Unless Russians sold us totally different snow leopard, the J-16's radar is better like a 2020 smart phone cpu is better than a 2000 calculator's.

In fact it is so much better, I really doubt the snow leopard can even overall have similar performance in detection and tracing as J-10C's AESA. If PESA and hybrid PESA is truly good, Europe, USA, and China will all continue using PESA. PESA offer some power advantage but ability to provide flexible frequency and quick changes in avoiding jamming or in fact providing some EW and is totally uncomparable to modern AESA. the snow leopard is the best PESA radar but it is like saying Titanium is best metal for aircraft in age where exotic composite and alloys are different class.

JF-17's AESA is much lower powered and smaller too. You cannot compare JF-17 AESA as if it is representative of Chinese AESA technology level. The J-16's is getting older now but still many levels above snow leopard. Choose to believe whatever you want. If snow leopard method is so good, we would copy it for J-20 and so on but all of them use AESA and PESA technology is today is like deciding to built modern car using a coal fire or steam engine.

Russians use AESA for Su-57. AESA module in some sense is harder to produce in high success rate than PESA for Russian domestic electronics industry. USA banned Russia already like 30 years ago on accessing this stuff and recently banned China. China however will easily overcome this with some time since it has already been much further ahead than Russia. More funding provided and can employ many foreign experts not to USA's level but have so much more than Russia has available during these 30 years. PESA was investigated and rejected as main form of radar technology. The next one will be light particle entanglement basis of physics in quantum effects to replace AESA. Russia continued with PESA technology from Soviet era because their barrier radar in that time was probably the best in the world. Soviets broke through electronic phased radar early but their technology development focused almost all resources into this type. Why do you think modern Russia is slow to adopt AESA? Because going to AESA roots and starting development may not take so long for them but still will take time and money. They finally decided to after 2000s and still barely has any for space, ships, and aircraft except AWACS and electronic warfare. PESA is not better. In fact it is many magnitude much worse.

Don't listen to 400km range for 3m^2 rcs target. That's total real marketing bullshit. If you queue up AWACS with snow leopard for specific window search then it is maybe sometimes useful but in reality it is nonsensical aspect they use for advertising. The radar is good for 2000s era but against modern western systems in real war setting it is near useless! Since no matter how low one type of AESA radar is, the same level PESA will be worse. Snow leopard is just the best PESA and has so much power it can possibly overcome jamming and EW. But if we provide same level AESA with access to similar power, it is many times better in those departments. J-16's AESA is like the AESA of snow leopard developed a little later than Su-35S.
 
Last edited:

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


Top Bottom