Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[LKJ86]

Via @太湖啥个 from Weibo

 

[vi-va]

J-10C might win Thailand’s new big fighter order
Posted on October 12, 2019 by buffalo — No Comments ↓


J-10C fighter

According to media out of China, the Royal Thai Air Force has proposed a new generation of fighter aircraft to replace the existing F-16A/B fighter, and China’s J-10C fighter is one of the potential candidates. If the bid is successful, J-10C fighter might witness the export of its first order.

According to Royal Thai Air Force, the current F-16A/B fighter jets were introduced in the late 1980s and has been in service for nearly 30 years.

The life span of a three-generation fighter is generally 30 calendar years. The Royal Thai Air Force upgraded the active F-16A/B fighter in 2010, it achieved the F-16MLU level and enhanced its combat capability. However, these fighters have entered a period of high failure and it has become more and more difficult to maintain their integrity rate, so the Royal Thai Air Force decided to introduce a new generation of fighters.

Now there are three of the most powerful competitors in the Royal Thai Air Force new fighter program, namely F-16V, JAS-39E/F and J-10CE fighters.

The Chinese J-10C fighter is a dark horse of the Royal Thai Air Force’s new generation fighter program. J-10C fighter is the latest improvement of China’s J-10 fighter.

It is equipped with a domestic WS-10B turbofan engine. The airborne fire control radar is upgraded to an active phased array radar. The cockpit is made of vitrified cockpit and the airborne weapon is medium and long. Air-to-air missiles and infrared imaging combat air-to-air missiles have the same overall combat capability as three generations of improved and three-generation-and-half fighters.

For export-oriented fighters, China is also open to airborne mission computers, allowing customers to access source code and integrate their own weapons and equipment.

There is also a relatively low price of domestic fighters. The price of the J-10C fighter is said to be only about half of JAS-39E/F fighters, which could be very attractive for Thailand.
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/10/j-10c-thailand-fighter-order/

 

[Fsjal]

J-10C might win Thailand’s new big fighter order
Posted on October 12, 2019 by buffalo — No Comments ↓


J-10C fighter

According to media out of China, the Royal Thai Air Force has proposed a new generation of fighter aircraft to replace the existing F-16A/B fighter, and China’s J-10C fighter is one of the potential candidates. If the bid is successful, J-10C fighter might witness the export of its first order.

According to Royal Thai Air Force, the current F-16A/B fighter jets were introduced in the late 1980s and has been in service for nearly 30 years.

The life span of a three-generation fighter is generally 30 calendar years. The Royal Thai Air Force upgraded the active F-16A/B fighter in 2010, it achieved the F-16MLU level and enhanced its combat capability. However, these fighters have entered a period of high failure and it has become more and more difficult to maintain their integrity rate, so the Royal Thai Air Force decided to introduce a new generation of fighters.

Now there are three of the most powerful competitors in the Royal Thai Air Force new fighter program, namely F-16V, JAS-39E/F and J-10CE fighters.

The Chinese J-10C fighter is a dark horse of the Royal Thai Air Force’s new generation fighter program. J-10C fighter is the latest improvement of China’s J-10 fighter.

It is equipped with a domestic WS-10B turbofan engine. The airborne fire control radar is upgraded to an active phased array radar. The cockpit is made of vitrified cockpit and the airborne weapon is medium and long. Air-to-air missiles and infrared imaging combat air-to-air missiles have the same overall combat capability as three generations of improved and three-generation-and-half fighters.

For export-oriented fighters, China is also open to airborne mission computers, allowing customers to access source code and integrate their own weapons and equipment.

There is also a relatively low price of domestic fighters. The price of the J-10C fighter is said to be only about half of JAS-39E/F fighters, which could be very attractive for Thailand.
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/10/j-10c-thailand-fighter-order/

Makes a lot of sense. J-10 is pretty much in the same class as the F-16, both have similar sizes and similar ordnance payload capacity. However, based on Col. Boyd's energy-maneuverability theory, the J-10 is a turn-based fighter like Gripen compared to F-16 being energy-based instead.

I'm interested to know whether Thailand will choose F-16V or J-10C, since politics plays a lot in weapons acquirement. It's also interesting to know J-10C is actually cheaper than Gripen E/F despite J-10C being a class above it. This might give J-10C a higher chance of being procured by Thailand though RTAF does operate Gripen C/D already so the chance of Gripen E/F is still possible.

 

[vi-va]

J-10 maneuverbility is similar to Dassault Rafale. Both are canard delta wing, multirole fighter aircraft. No one said Rafale is not energy based fighter, right?

maneuverbility is a capability, do not conflict with energy.

Makes a lot of sense. J-10 is pretty much in the same class as the F-16, both have similar sizes and similar ordnance payload capacity. However, based on Col. Boyd's energy-maneuverability theory, the J-10 is a turn-based fighter like Gripen compared to F-16 being energy-based instead.

I'm interested to know whether Thailand will choose F-16V or J-10C, since politics plays a lot in weapons acquirement. It's also interesting to know J-10C is actually cheaper than Gripen E/F despite J-10C being a class above it. This might give J-10C a higher chance of being procured by Thailand though RTAF does operate Gripen C/D already so the chance of Gripen E/F is still possible.

 

[Fsjal]

J-10 maneuverbility is similar to Dassault Rafale. Both are canard delta wing, multirole fighter aircraft. No one said Rafale is not energy based fighter, right?

maneuverbility is a capability, do not conflict with energy.

I don't disagree with turn-based fighter jets having the ability to retain energy. The Flankers themselves are a great example since they're turn-based heavy fighters themselves and can still retain energy without bleeding too much of it during a tight turn (although energy from a supermaneuverable plane like the Flankers can be further bled if AoA limiters are off).

However, what makes a turn-based fighter different from energy-based fighters is that during continuous maneuvers and turns, an aircraft such as the J-10 or Rafale bleeds energy quicker than energy-based fighters such as F-16 or F/A-18, but at the same time these turn-based fighters have higher maneuverability in return.

"Typically, the fighter with higher energy (energy fighter) will make an "energy move" like an "out-of-plane maneuver", to maintain the energy advantage, while the fighter at an energy disadvantage (angles fighter) will make an "angles move" such as a break turn, trying to use the opponent's energy to their own advantage"

- Source from navyflightmanuals.tpub.com

An energy-based fighter jet can still be maneuverable and fit for dogfight, the F-16 itself was designed as an energy dogfighter from the very start. Heck, even F-15 itself is quite maneuverable especially thanks to its large wings. Meanwhile, turn-based fighters don't have to follow the tailless delta-canard configuration as seen on J-10 and Rafale, both MiG-29 and Su-27 (and other canardless Flanker variants such as Su-30MKK and Su-35S) use conventional tail configuration for that matter.

Yes, maneuverability is a capability and it doesn't conflict with energy, but turn-based fighters have different ways of using their energy compared to their energy-based counterparts.

 

[vi-va]

J-10C fighter adopts advanced helmet display
Posted on September 30, 2019 by buffalo — No Comments ↓



According to an exquisite picture exposed from China Air Force, helmet display has been adopted for J-10C fighter, which is comparable to the most advanced JHMCS joint helmet aiming system in the West!

J-10C medium-sized fighter jet is now regarded as one of the most advanced fighters of the Chinese Air Force, third only to J-20 and J-16 larger fighters.

This helmet display, in conjunction with PL-10 high-mobility air-to-air missiles specially developed for J-20, J-10C and J-16 fighters, is a perfect match against the world’s strongest combination of high-mobility fighters and fighting missiles. Correspondingly, the US military is equipped with a combination of JHMCS helmet display and AIM-9X Block II ” Sidewinder” air-to-air missiles, which is also being delivered to Taiwan Air Force in the near future along with F-16V fighters.

It was reported that advanced helmet display systems like JHMCS joint helmet aiming system of US military pilots, need to be specially tailored to pilots’ head shape, so its design, manufacture, delivery, and matching takes a longer time and costs more. But its combat ability is obviously very high.

This specially developed helmet of China Air Force would further improve the combat performance of J-10C fighter because it greatly improves the pilot’s ability to interact with the onboard complex avionics system, while also giving full play to J-10 ‘s high maneuvering combat. The missile’s maximum off-axis launch capability can even achieve targets that deviate more than 90 degrees from its own flight direction, such as targets that fly in its rear flanks.
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/09/j-10c-helmet-display/

 

[Su33KUB]

Makes a lot of sense. J-10 is pretty much in the same class as the F-16, both have similar sizes and similar ordnance payload capacity. However, based on Col. Boyd's energy-maneuverability theory, the J-10 is a turn-based fighter like Gripen compared to F-16 being energy-based instead.

I'm interested to know whether Thailand will choose F-16V or J-10C, since politics plays a lot in weapons acquirement. It's also interesting to know J-10C is actually cheaper than Gripen E/F despite J-10C being a class above it. This might give J-10C a higher chance of being procured by Thailand though RTAF does operate Gripen C/D already so the chance of Gripen E/F is still possible.

F-16 was designed as a tight turning aircraft, however consider it first flew in 1974, while J-10 was flown in 1997, J-10 is similar to Gripen because both were designed in the same period.

You are saying the F-16 is good at sustained turn rate (STR) and J-10 at (instantaneous turn rate) ITR, however STR is based upon thrust and ITR in lift/drag ratio, basically the max lift available or in order words wing loading.

Wing loading basically is based upon wing area and weight, the F-16 has a relatively high wing loading these days, most modern aircraft are in the range of 350 kg/m
J-10 is similar to Gripen because the wing area and weight ratio are similar, heavier aircraft also sustain higher loads at the same G load number, Su-27 needs a much stronger structure to achieve the same G load number than F-16 or J-10 because it is larger and heavier.
Further more there is different lift at max AoA than at lower AoA.

To summarize, J-10 and F-16 are turning type fighters, but since J-10 is newer, weight reduction and aerodynamic enhancements makes it a bit better at ITR, but both are turning aircraft, however F-16 has excellent thrust in the latest versions nevertheless it is used to increase warload to carry more fuel and weapons.

I don't disagree with turn-based fighter jets having the ability to retain energy. The Flankers themselves are a great example since they're turn-based heavy fighters themselves and can still retain energy without bleeding too much of it during a tight turn (although energy from a supermaneuverable plane like the Flankers can be further bled if AoA limiters are off).

However, what makes a turn-based fighter different from energy-based fighters is that during continuous maneuvers and turns, an aircraft such as the J-10 or Rafale bleeds energy quicker than energy-based fighters such as F-16 or F/A-18, but at the same time these turn-based fighters have higher maneuverability in return.

F-18 was designed as a turning fighter, however it was designed when the most manoeuvrable soviet fighter was MiG-21, its wing and highly swept LEX made it able to out turn Viggen and MiG-21.

J-10 was designed much later an it supposed to beat F-16 and MiG-29, but remember by that time Russia was designing MiG-1.44 and the USA YF-22, the arms race is like that, J-10 is a 4th generation aircraft with very similar performance to most of its peers, F-16, MiG-29 or Gripen.

The F-16 is still an aircraft with the avionics and weapons to match any thing you have in J-10 or MiG-29.


In price is excellent because they have made more than 4000 so the purchase of F-16 guarantee a very well proven design, with the right avionics can match anything made in Europe, Russia, or China, the J-10 if purchased by any nation is due to geopolitics and in the case of China domestic production, but both aircraft have areas of superiority and disadvantages with respect each other

 

[LKJ86]

Via @inSky_1865 from Weibo

 

[LKJ86]

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

 

[LKJ86]

J-10B

Via @用影像记录生活 from Weibo

 

[LKJ86]

J-10SY

Via @hysplan from Weibo

 

[LKJ86]

Via ChinaPictorial

 

[Fsjal]

F-16 was designed as a tight turning aircraft, however consider it first flew in 1974, while J-10 was flown in 1997, J-10 is similar to Gripen because both were designed in the same period.

The prototype radar-less YF-16 itself did prov to be a tight turning fighter jet during test flight, which isn't surprising since it was designed as a dogfighter from the start especially with the interests of the Fighter Mafia, however the current variants of the F-16 are different from how the aircraft was originally designed due to increase in weight, not to mention certain variants having conformal fuel tanks that basically decreases maneuverability.

J-10 is similar to Gripen because the wing area and weight ratio are similar, heavier aircraft also sustain higher loads at the same G load number, Su-27 needs a much stronger structure to achieve the same G load number than F-16 or J-10 because it is larger and heavier.

I would argue that Gripen's wing area is basically in between the wing area of the F-16 and J-10, meanwhile the thrust-to-weight ratio of a J-10 is more comparable to that of an F-16 than that of a Gripen C/D. The only similarity between J-10 and Gripen is with their tailless-delta-canard configuration as well as being single-engine lightweight fighters. Other than that, J-10 has larger size dimension than Gripen and is also slightly heavier than at least the F-16C in terms of empty weight, gross weight, and max takeoff weight.

As for Su-27, the aircraft does need a strong but heavy airframe as a supermaneuverable fighter, especially on its large wings.

To summarize, J-10 and F-16 are turning type fighters, but since J-10 is newer, weight reduction and aerodynamic enhancements makes it a bit better at ITR, but both are turning aircraft, however F-16 has excellent thrust in the latest versions nevertheless it is used to increase warload to carry more fuel and weapons.

I would disagree with the F-16 being a turn-based fighter if we're talking about the production variants. The YF-16 itself did indeed prove to being a turn-based fighter during flyoffs against the YF-17, but the production F-16s have increased weight because of avionics and ordnance. CFT-equipped F-16s are the ones who are basically far away from the Fighting Falcon's original design of being a pure turn-based dogfighter.

F-18 was designed as a turning fighter, however it was designed when the most manoeuvrable soviet fighter was MiG-21, its wing and highly swept LEX made it able to out turn Viggen and MiG-21.

I would also disagree with the F/A-18 being a turn-based fighter. The YF-17 itself was outmaneuvered by its YF-16 competitor. The F/A-18C/D is slightly larger and heavier than YF-17, however both Hornets and Fighting Falcons are still maneuverable but not turn-based fighters.

The F-16 is still an aircraft with the avionics and weapons to match any thing you have in J-10 or MiG-29.

Well, the J-10C itself has a lot of potential though especially against the F-16E/F/V, the combination of a modern AESA radar along with IRST and high maneuverability still makes the J-10C a strong competitor against regional rivals such as KF-16 and F-2A.

the J-10 if purchased by any nation is due to geopolitics and in the case of China domestic production, but both aircraft have areas of superiority and disadvantages with respect each other

Any fighter jet an airforce buys, regardless where it comes from, always has geopolitical considerations added. That's why the US sometimes tells any of its close allies to not buy any certain weapons from other countries because of political undertones, a good recent example would the whole S-400/F-35 fiasco between the US and Turkey, or the whole Kilo-sub fiasco when the US told the Philippine government to not buy a Kilo-class SSK from Russia. Interesting that Thailand has interests in the F-16V, but considering that they've been buying from other sources (particularly China) kinda shows that Thailand wants to be a bit more flexible with acquiring weapons from foreign sources. The question is: would the US even sell the F-16V to Thailand and would they even allow the RTAF to acquire J-10Cs?

 

[Su33KUB]

I would disagree with the F-16 being a turn-based fighter if we're talking about the production variants. The YF-16 itself did indeed prove to being a turn-based fighter during flyoffs against the YF-17, but the production F-16s have increased weight because of avionics and ordnance. CFT-equipped F-16s are the ones who are basically far away from the Fighting Falcon's original design of being a pure turn-based dogfighter.



I would also disagree with the F/A-18 being a turn-based fighter. The YF-17 itself was outmaneuvered by its YF-16 competitor. The F/A-18C/D is slightly larger and heavier than YF-17, however both Hornets and Fighting Falcons are still maneuverable but not turn-based fighters.

The Hornet is a pretty manoeuvrable aircraft, what you are trying to say is delta canards achieve a high ITR because of the configuration it self, which is not true, the J-10 is pretty agile because it has a larger wing than F-16 thus it has a lower wing loading, AJ-37 is also a delta canard and it will not out manoeuvre even a MiG-23. much less a MiG-29. The F-16XL had a huge wing, so huge it could outmanoeuvre the original F-16A in ITR, pretty much it was as good as the Lavi or J-10 and it was tailless.

However to understand why you have F-16s with such configuration you have to see 2 details, first with HMS and AIM-9X the small difference in ITR the J-10 has with F-16 does not matter except in battles without missiles.

The other factor is the strike mission, the F-16 with AIM-9X will allow heavier wing loading and higher attack capability at the same price keeping the same manufacturing tooling and basic model, reducing redesign the airframe and without even using thrust vectoring.


the F-18 is the same, it carries a large amount of weapons, takes off from a carrier, with AIM-9X will render even Su-35 useless, Thrust vectoring is only in reality good at supercruise or if you are fighting against aircraft without HMSs and aircraft armed with Air to Air missiles like AIM-9Ls, AA-8s or earlier type of missiles.

J-10C is a very capable machine, no doubt about it, but is basically as capable as MiG-35 or F-16V, and only superior to MiG-29A or F-16s without AESAs, pretty much it does not offer anything superior to these old cold war veterans, Rafale and Eurofighter offer supercruise capability, which is superior to all these fighters, but still well is low supercruise speeds, so they are not so different to MiG-35, F-16V or J-10C, but still enjoy some slight advantages


Flight Demonstration Program Planning 63

But in actuality, this only held true for 1-g (straight and level) flight, and it partially accounted for the improved range and payload capabilities of the F-16XL. For example, on an air-to-surface mission, the F-16XL could carry twice the payload of the F-16 up to 40 percent farther without having to carry eternal tanks. With equal payloads and carrying external tanks, the XL mission radius was nearly double that of the F-16. A fully loaded F-16XL had a speed advantage of up to 80 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS) in military power at sea level over the F-16 with a similar payload.25 However, during high-AoA sustained subsonic maneuvering, the F-16XL (like delta configurations generally) had a much higher induced drag penalty. This was a natural result of the aerodynamics of its very-low-aspect-ratio cranked-arrow wing. During the latter Air Force flight-test program, this higher induced drag would prove to cause a rapid loss of excess energy. This, in turn, was manifested by a rapid loss of airspeed and altitude during sustained subsonic high-g turns as compared to the standard F-16. In the “real world” of fighter-versus-fighter combat, this constituted a major performance deficit, given potential opponents such as the powerful and highly agile Soviet Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum and Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker.26 In their briefings and marketing literature, General Dynamics emphasized that the F-16XL had two additional advantages that would contribute to increased overall effectiveness and survivability in combat situations. These were its improved instantaneous maneuvering capability and its reduced radar cross section, as compared to the standard F-16. In an attempt to offset the reduced performance capabilities of the F-16XL during sustained hard-maneuvering combat, GD highlighted its excellent instantaneous turning performance. This, they claimed, would enable an F-16XL pilot to quickly change direction and get his missiles off before an enemy was able to react and adjust his tactics. In this regard, the F-16XL with its much lower wing loading did have a distinct instantaneous turning advantage, for it was able to reach 5 g’s in less than 1 second and 9 g’s in about 2 seconds. Both times were less than half those of the standard F-16A

The Integrated Flight-Test Organization, Objectives, and Program

At the same altitude, the F-16XL’s instantaneous turn rate was 14 percent better than that of the standard F-16 when both aircraft were carrying their full air-to-air missile payload. In contrast, there was a significant loss of sustained turn capability compared to that of the F-16. For example, at a Mach number of 0.9 at 30,000 feet, the F-16XL’s sustained turn rate was 30 percent lower than that of the F-16 in both the air-to-air and the air-to-ground configurations. This poor sustained turning performance compared to the F-16 was identified by the Air Force as resulting from the high induced drag of the F-16XL’s cranked-arrow wing and its relatively low thrust-to-weight ratio.


https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf



This proves you an F-16XL more or less was as capable as a Lavi or J-10 in ITR

Lavi had a 24.5 deg/sec ITR at 15000 ft

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=PlpVCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT74&lpg=PT74&dq=lavi+iai+instantaneous+turn+rate&source=bl&ots=YLFxmHRAEr&sig=ACfU3U1Uhfqdg0dRaw_o5weQWLqIitPY9g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtlYvSoKflAhUUNaYKHQ6wC1EQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=lavi iai instantaneous turn rate&f=false

 

[Fsjal]

The Hornet is a pretty manoeuvrable aircraft, what you are trying to say is delta canards achieve a high ITR because of the configuration it self, which is not true, the J-10 is pretty agile because it has a larger wing than F-16 thus it has a lower wing loading, AJ-37 is also a delta canard and it will not out manoeuvre even a MiG-23. much less a MiG-29. The F-16XL had a huge wing, so huge it could outmanoeuvre the original F-16A in ITR, pretty much it was as good as the Lavi or J-10 and it was tailless.

I wasn't technically implying delta-canard configuration allows higher ITR since as you said it, that's not the case. I do strongly agree with larger wing area allowing for better agility and higher lift, it's why both Su-27 and F-15 can achieve great maneuverability despite being large heavy fighters. Plus before Viktor Belenko's defection, the MiG-25 was originally thought to be a heavy air-superiority fighter because of its large wings but was later proven to be a high-speed interceptor instead since its pair of big heavy engines negated the advantage of its large wings for maneuverability. No doubt that wing area plays an important role, and the J-10 does indeed have an advantage because of its larger wings.

However to understand why you have F-16s with such configuration you have to see 2 details, first with HMS and AIM-9X the small difference in ITR the J-10 has with F-16 does not matter except in battles without missiles.

The other factor is the strike mission, the F-16 with AIM-9X will allow heavier wing loading and higher attack capability at the same price keeping the same manufacturing tooling and basic model, reducing redesign the airframe and without even using thrust vectoring.

The production-series F-16 variants were technically already "energy-based" fighters starting from F-16A due to increase in weight compared to the prototype YF-16, although this can be attributed to doctrinal emphasis on retaining energy rather than bleeding energy during WVR combat. The introduction of HMDs and AIM-9X and other off-boresight WVRAAMs no doubt made it a lot easier for the F-16s, especially ones that are carrying heavy ordnance and CFTs. The F-16 was once tested with a thrust-vectoring nozzle, but no production-series F-16 has been fitted with TVCs, in contrast TVC was tested on the Su-37 and since the Russians strongly appreciate instantaneous turning during WVR dogfights, TVCs would later be added to Irkut's line of Su-30s (MKI, MKA, MKM, SM variants) as well as the Su-35S. For the Su-35S itself, the TVC was basically added to cope with the removal of the canards while Irkut's own series of Su-30s use TVC to achieve supermaneuverability since its canards were actually meant to lift the heavy weight of the Bars-M radar.

the F-18 is the same, it carries a large amount of weapons, takes off from a carrier, with AIM-9X will render even Su-35 useless, Thrust vectoring is only in reality good at supercruise or if you are fighting against aircraft without HMSs and aircraft armed with Air to Air missiles like AIM-9Ls, AA-8s or earlier type of missiles.

AIM-9X wouldn't technically render an Su-35 completely useless since the original F/A-18 lacks IRST, meanwhile the Super Hornet only has IRST on the Block III version and Advanced Super Hornet variant. As for F-16s, the only production variant in service that has IRST is F-16E/F. However, an IRST-equipped F-16 or Super Hornet together mated with AIM-9X would indeed be a very difficult target for the Flanker to deal with in dogfights.

J-10C is a very capable machine, no doubt about it, but is basically as capable as MiG-35 or F-16V, and only superior to MiG-29A or F-16s without AESAs, pretty much it does not offer anything superior to these old cold war veterans, Rafale and Eurofighter offer supercruise capability, which is superior to all these fighters, but still well is low supercruise speeds, so they are not so different to MiG-35, F-16V or J-10C, but still enjoy some slight advantages

I think the reason why these 4.5 generation fighters don't really push the boundaries compared to 5th gen. stealth fighters is because the emphasis is more on avionics and not too often on flight capabilities. Rafale, Typhoon, and Su-35S do have supercruise abilities, which is quite a great advantage, but other than that, 4.5 generation fighters are more focused on avionics. All the pushing of boundaries and going even more supermaneuverable would go towards 5th gen. fighters instead. However, 4th gen. designs such as the F-15 ACTIVE, Su-37 and F-16XL did push the boundaries back in their time.

J-10C's AESA radar is said to be a version of the AESA radar used on the J-20, and since J-10C uses a modified airframe of the J-10B. Basically the C variant is essentially J-10B with increased avionics capability. Since J-10B was tested with TVC, the C variant has potential for TVC, and once China solves the engine problems, then maybe even use a newer engine variant to add supercruise capability too, which would indeed push the boundaries of the original J-10 design.

This proves you an F-16XL more or less was as capable as a Lavi or J-10 in ITR

Yeah, F-16XL was an impressively-designed fighter jet. Those cranked delta wings really did give the aircraft various advantages over the standard F-16, pretty much making it perfect for not only as a strike fighter but even in dogfighting too. Shame that it lost to the Strike Eagle.