J-10C for PAF - Hypothetical Scenario

[Beast]

Uptil now, 12 J-10 have crashed out which mostly are S and A variants.
Correct me where i am wrong
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/J10

12-10 crashes for a career of more than 12 years are quite a good record... Check out F-16 first 12 years record and compare and you will know J-10 has a better safety record to it. Not all crashes are malfunction. Some are low level dangerous training flight while some are bird strike. J-10 safety record are better than most plane... There are estimated more than 500 J-10 series plane in service with China. Deino can provide a better estimation.

 

[araz]

Uptil now, 12 J-10 have crashed out which mostly are S and A variants.
Correct me where i am wrong
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/J10

I think the only thing is none of the Cs have crashed. This means that the platform has now achieved maturity both design and engine wise. J10 has gone back to the design board a few times firstly in the 90s then again in the early teens. I guess when you are stepping into the wild blue yonder on your own these things are bound to happen. The most important milestone for the Chinese brothers would be engine maturity and it seems they are finally reaching that landmark if not already done so.
A

12-10 crashes for a career of more than 12 years are quite a good record... Check out F-16 first 12 years record and compare and you will know J-10 has a better safety record to it. Not all crashes are malfunction. Some are low level dangerous training flight while some are bird strike. J-10 safety record are better than most plane... There are estimated more than 500 J-10 series plane in service with China. Deino can provide a better estimation.

Why should we compare it to the 16. Why not to the JFT. after all it is from the same source. Again youare too jingoistic. You need to answer questions objectively. 12 crashes in 12 years of operational service raises a lot of eyebrows. So people are right to ask questions. What you should be pointing out is maturity having been achieved with Cs nd how there have been no crashes of the C.
A

 

[StormBreaker]

12-10 crashes for a career of more than 12 years are quite a good record... Check out F-16 first 12 years record and compare and you will know J-10 has a better safety record to it. Not all crashes are malfunction. Some are low level dangerous training flight while some are bird strike. J-10 safety record are better than most plane... There are estimated more than 500 J-10 series plane in service with China. Deino can provide a better estimation.

I think the only thing is none of the Cs have crashed. This means that the platform has now achieved maturity both design and engine wise. J10 has gone back to the design board a few times firstly in the 90s then again in the early teens. I guess when you are stepping into the wild blue yonder on your own these things are bound to happen. The most important milestone for the Chinese brothers would be engine maturity and it seems they are finally reaching that landmark if not already done so.
A

I don’t see why people take crashes as insulting ?
This is all part of extensive testing, evaluation and upgradation. J-10S/A had quite a low life airframe, issues here & there (not quoting the 50 issues identified by PAF), engine reliability of AL-31FN (which itself was a flop and had issues).

Plus, J-10 was China’s first attempt at 4th Gen fighter, but the machine has come a long way to become really lethal and potent as we see in the form of J-10C today.

It is not about bads, it is more about, improving yourself after the bads, that is what makes you better and great.

 

[Beast]

Why should we compare it to the 16. Why not to the JFT. after all it is from the same source. Again youare too jingoistic. You need to answer questions objectively. 12 crashes in 12 years of operational service raises a lot of eyebrows. So people are right to ask questions. What you should be pointing out is maturity having been achieved with Cs nd how there have been no crashes of the C.
A

Let me ask you, how many JF-17 in service compare to J-10? JF-17 operational status is also much later than J-10.
J-10 series having a twin seater version shows the level of high tempo training priority compare to JF-17.

And finally, I have already menton that not all accident is due to malfunction but tough training and bird strike. If taken all this into consideration. My stance of J-10 having a good safety record would still stand.

 

[araz]

Let me ask you, how many JF-17 in service compare to J-10? JF-17 operational status is also much later than J-10.
J-10 series having a twin seater version shows the level of high tempo training priority compare to JF-17.

And finally, I have already menton that not all accident is due to malfunction but tough training and bird strike. If taken all this into consideration. My stance of J-10 having a good safety record would still stand.

Are you saying that the JFT has been parked in bays and not used. Are you comparing a platform which has seen active war with one which has not. So tell me is have a twin seater an advantage or a disadvantage? If it provides safety of training which side has the advantage? So if pilots are coming on to the platform from simulators to fly solo is that theoretically an inferior position from a purely sefety perspective or not. So how can you say your crashes are a good record. For the record JFT which came out later than j10 has flown 40K sorties. We have 2 losses in 11years of service. Extrapolate that to J10 and see where youcneed to be. I can also explain to you why you cannot compare the J10 to the 16s but let us concentrate on this aspect in the first instance. Secondly you know when the J10s were taken off active duty and all platforms checked. How many times has that happened to the JFT.
Man you really dont have a case here. So bale out and accept that you HAD problems which have now bèen resolved with the Cs so things are better and platform maturity has ben established.
A

 

[Beast]

Are you saying that the JFT has been parked in bays and not used. Are you comparing a platform which has seen active war with one which has not. So tell me is have a twin seater an advantage or a disadvantage? If it provides safety of training which side has the advantage? So if pilots are coming on to the platform from simulators to fly solo is that theoretically an inferior position from a purely sefety perspective or not. So how can you say your crashes are a good record. For the record JFT which came out later than j10 has flown 40K sorties. We have 2 losses in 11years of service. Extrapolate that to J10 and see where youcneed to be. I can also explain to you why you cannot compare the J10 to the 16s but let us concentrate on this aspect in the first instance. Secondly you know when the J10s were taken off active duty and all platforms checked. How many times has that happened to the JFT.
Man you really dont have a case here. So bale out and accept that you HAD problems which have now bèen resolved with the Cs so things are better and platform maturity has ben established.
A

Is J-10 in longer operational service than JFT a fake lies? Is J-10 more in numbers than JFT also make up? Is China having more military budget and thus allowing its pilot to have more real time flying hours than PAF JFT also making up? Is JF-17 shooting down a slow flying drone considered worthy combat proven? China twin seat J-10 is more for training purpose than combat sortie. If you have follow China military combat aircraft history. Most of early PLAAF J-11A and imported Su-27SK were retired due to heavy sortie and training by pilot to sharpen their skill. While many countries still flying their early Su-27 series as fore front fighter. These applies to J-10A/S too.

When you push your training hard and especially low level night flying, the risk significantly increases. When you have more training and sortie, will it expose more of your chances to bird strike.

 

[araz]

Is J-10 in longer operational service than JFT a fake lies? Is J-10 more in numbers than JFT also make up? Is China having more military budget and thus allowing its pilot to have more real time flying hours than PAF JFT also making up? Is JF-17 shooting down a slow flying drone considered worthy combat proven? China twin seat J-10 is more for training purpose than combat sortie. If you have follow China military combat aircraft history. Most of early PLAAF J-11A and imported Su-27SK were retired due to heavy sortie and training by pilot to sharpen their skill. While many countries still flying their early Su-27 series as fore front fighter. These applies to J-10A/S too.

When you push your training hard and especially low level night flying, the risk significantly increases. When you have more training and sortie, will it expose more of your chances to bird strike.

I asked you to extrapolate the duration of flying to the number of crashes. Have you done so?. You berate the JFT for having shot down a drone. What about all the bombing runs it has done on the Western border and morover the 27/02? What about the 40k flying hours? What has China done in the way of aggressive mission flying(not exercises)? Now compare that with the number of hours flown by the J10 and then compare the attrition rate.
Are you telling me PAF sleeps at night and there are no night sorties. Go and spew this bullshit somewhere else boy. You have so far just jumped up and down and not produced a single fact to counter my points. Is this how you represent PLAAF? Do some research and come back to wipe the shame off your face. You havedisgraced yourself.
PAF maintains 200 to 220 flying hours on the JFT. How many do the Chinese do? How many sortie hours has the J10 flown?
I want facts before you respond to my post otherwise you are nothing more than a waffler. So dont respond to my post before you make a comparative analysis from open sources and bring it to this board for all to see what crap you are spewing.
I gave you face boy by telling you the J10Cs have achieved maturity, but it seems you want your face dragged in dirt. So first provide me the data then talk.
A

 

[GriffinsRule]

The only way J-10 is coming to Pakistan is if there is a full scale war with India and large majority of our F-16 fleet is destroyed.

 

[Akh1112]

Gripen is probably the best light weight fighter jet may be even better than medium weight F-16 as well , excellent Engine and very lethal weapons and most surprisingly only 4700 dollar per hour flight cost


yup only 3000 hour life span

The Gripen-E/Gripen families per flight hour cost is vastly inaccurate, Saab cherry picked the numbers to create a best case scenario type deal and make it look alot more appealing, in reality, the Gripen's PFHC is greater. Besides, The F-16 is battle tested, the Gripen is not, if you are looking at just numbers on paper alone, the Tejas is an amazing aircraft and the SU-35 would also be one of the worlds best aircraft, both of which are not true.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The Gripen-E/Gripen families per flight hour cost is vastly inaccurate, Saab cherry picked the numbers to create a best case scenario type deal and make it look alot more appealing, in reality, the Gripen's PFHC is greater. Besides, The F-16 is battle tested, the Gripen is not, if you are looking at just numbers on paper alone, the Tejas is an amazing aircraft and the SU-35 would also be one of the worlds best aircraft, both of which are not true.

Battle tested term is worth nothing, when we got our first F-16 its still not battle tested and same goes to every fighter jet that's are newly inducted to any air force

 

[Akh1112]

The only way J-10 is coming to Pakistan is if there is a full scale war with India and large majority of our F-16 fleet is destroyed.

That makes no sense as the J-10, while on paper, is a reasonable alternative to the F-16, we have seen time and time again, for now, Chinese missile tech lags behind western missiles, there is no way the J-10 could replace our F-16's. Besides, it is highly unlikely we would lose our whole fleet in wartime, i assume they'd probably be assigned to air patrols etc in which case, thr AMRAAM easily outclasses anything our adversaries can throw at us. Pakistan easily operates the most advanced AAM's in the South Asia region with Chinese tech yet to prove itself and the Indians having nothing that can yet match our capabilities. Atleast until they are able to integrate the Derby AAM's or the MBDA Meteor. I am not sure how the MICA stacks up but i would hold my breath on saying the 120-C5 is superior.

Battle tested term is worth nothing, when we got our first F-16 its still not battle tested and same goes to every fighter jet that's are newly inducted to any air force

It absolutely does mean alot, it would enable you to make a judgement on whether the aircraft is actually be able to live up to its capabilities, there is no denying the Gripen, on paper is an impressive bird but i think i could safely say that the F-16 Block 70/72 is probably superior, tbh, UAE's Desert Falcons too, if not, comparible. The gripen is not great value, you can see this by the fact that many air forces decided to go for the F-35 over the gripen as it offers superior value for the money. The gripen has repeatedly come close to the F35 in terms of acquisition costs and offers no real benefits for customers over even the F-16 Block 70/72.

 

[LKJ86]

Uptil now, 12 J-10 have crashed out which mostly are S and A variants.
Correct me where i am wrong
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/J10

That is why China chooses to give up Russian AL-31F engines.

 

[Ultima Thule]

It absolutely does mean alot, it would enable you to make a judgement on whether the aircraft is actually be able to live up to its capabilities, there is no denying the Gripen, on paper is an impressive bird but i think i could safely say that the F-16 Block 70/72 is probably superior, tbh, UAE's Desert Falcons too, if not, comparible. The gripen is not great value, you can see this by the fact that many air forces decided to go for the F-35 over the gripen as it offers superior value for the money. The gripen has repeatedly come close to the F35 in terms of acquisition costs and offers no real benefits for customers over even the F-16 Block 70/72.

F-35/F-22 is not battle tested, Su-57 is not battle tested, J-20 is not battle tested so why they inducted these jets if they are not battle tested, please tell me bro

 

[Akh1112]

F-35/F-22 is not battle tested, Su-57 is not battle tested, J-20 is not battle tested so why they inducted these jets if they are not battle tested, please tell me bro

You are focusing on a single point, while you are right in some ways, the F-35 is battle tested, the IAF operates them within Syria very frequently, the F-22 Has flown escort missions within Iran, escorting UAV's and warding off IRAF aircraft. The SU57 and J20 are not however, you are correct. But if you have a platform of a similar role and capability that is tried and true and has been in service for decades, why go for the other? On cost grounds, the gripen has no edge. Diplomatic terms, Gripen has no edge, it does have a superior weapons loadout on paper, it does not have the same developed supply chain like the F-16 has. There is literally no reason to go for a Gripen instead of an advanced F-16 variant or the F-35. Also, just a simple example, on paper, the RVV-AE(export variant of the R-77) is highly lethal and capable with stellar range and kinematic performance, however, in reality, as we had learnt on February 27th, it is nowhere as capable as the specsheet says and cannot perform as expected.

 

[Ultima Thule]

You are focusing on a single point, while you are right in some ways, the F-35 is battle tested, the IAF operates them within Syria very frequently, the F-22 Has flown escort missions within Iran, escorting UAV's and warding off IRAF aircraft. The SU57 and J20 are not however, you are correct. But if you have a platform of a similar role and capability that is tried and true and has been in service for decades, why go for the other? On cost grounds, the gripen has no edge. Diplomatic terms, Gripen has no edge, it does have a superior weapons loadout on paper, it does not have the same developed supply chain like the F-16 has. There is literally no reason to go for a Gripen instead of an advanced F-16 variant or the F-35. Also, just a simple example, on paper, the RVV-AE(export variant of the R-77) is highly lethal and capable with stellar range and kinematic performance, however, in reality, as we had learnt on February 27th, it is nowhere as capable as the specsheet says and cannot perform as expected.

No we are not talking about its mentality about the term BATTLE TESTED is north worthy, and F-22/F-35 were in low intensity warfere where no to minimal threat for SAMs and opponent jets threats, Pakistan has no Chance to get either Grippen-NG or F-16/F-35 because we went to Sweden for grippen in early 2000 but sew-den rejected Pakistsan to sell gripen, and with current govt of USA (Trump administration) has anti Pakistani sentiment so there is no chance to get either latest F-16 V/70/72 and forget about F-35 this is not going to happen
And RVV-AE was the extended range version of R77 equiped with RAMJET for defunct MIG-1.44 project and range is insufficient basic R-77 which is 80 km vs 105 km on 27 FEB