Code:
@ Jatt
Man i want to know what exactly are u trying to say, if u plz conclude it in one post
My posts are all over the place, but thats because I don't want to spend too much time on them. I find that argueing with some forumers is like arguing with women at a certian time once a month, emotional feelings, no real reasoning. I hate the tides. But since you asked i will post again.
You see, its not logical to conclude that the J-10 was purchased for the same reason as the FC-1, atleast not entirely. While the can, the J-10 is neither their cream of the crop for airsuperioty, nor a reliable airdefence. So why the purchase of small number of J-10s? My reasoning is that while both are multrole, one can be scrambled faster. I'm not talking about takeoff distance vs payload etc... because in this realm the J-10 would be largely superior thanks to its powerfull engine. But just like a car's engine, you need to turn on the engines for the aircraft, so they heat up and you can be on your way. If not, you get low thrust and massive fuel consumption aswell as. The RD-33 engines have short life span, relativily cheap but they solve one problem, which is assumed above.
Why is this time for engines important? Well, if your runways are limilted, you waste critical time ontop of that the aircraft that goes first waits for the second consuming fuel. One can build more airstrips like the PLAAF but not possible everywhere and expensive longterm solution. The time you loose incase of PAF, the IAF could that much closer to their target.
If you note, the primary duty of the Mig-29, even though mult-role now was intercepting. The engines were designed and the airframe was designed around the engine. The Falcrums body was meant for complete lift like one large wing. If you note, even the FC-1 had to increase its surface area to make it more effiecent with this engine. So if the primary duty of the FC-1 is PAF is interception of aircraft and air denial, what is the purpose of the larger J-10?
That question is answered by the larger payload. The IAF's MMRCA will not just be multrole but importantly a bomb droper. Tejas is their interceptor for airdenial, even though MMRCA is perfectly capable, the Tejas does it at a lower cost overall.
Given the J-10s engine which consumes more fuel than the FC-1, to have the pilots train in air to air combat with them, would consume more fuel overall than the FC-1. Its larger payload would be best used for droping munitions. While capable of air to air combat, training the pilot and constant scrambles to escort missions mean the the aircraft would cost a lot more in its life time.
Overall it was their doctrine which was built around the PAF's environment and budget. They could have chosen the FC-1, but building more airstrips, and buying more fuel is intolrable in the long run, expecially when the IAF will burst in short heated war, you need reliability.
Also the J-10 is not Lavi, not even close. It has more incommon with Flankers and F-7s. Thats what they build and to build something that is different would be another nightmare. Previous knowledge from Superseven, and J-9, J-13 was used. Knowledge and experience shouldn't be wasted. Neither the materials. TO note, the J-10's canard config is a lot older than Lavi.
