PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[tphuang]

This article conclusively answers the seeming conundrum of J-20 pilots stating that their aircraft is easy to fly but hard to master. Like the J-10C, the J-20 is easy to handle/maneuver but since the plane generates so much information, mastering how to best operate the plane in combat situation is difficult. Kudos to Pakistanis pilots for mastering such a bird in such a short period of time.

One other interesting tidbit is the claim that J-10C is semi-stealth. This is inline with leaked information from the Zhurihe Parade a couple of years back where ground radar operators were specifically warned that J-10C (clean) and J-20 (even with lunesburg lens) are difficult to track and require multiple systems covering all the angles for safety purposes. J-16/J-11B do not have this issue.

Keep in mind that J-10C is considered by US military to be almost LO, but that also has to be put in the context where China has a whole variety of EW assets flying around. PAF can achieve similar level of LO only if it buys some EW aircraft from China.

I see that as more important than more AWACS.

I'd be curious to hear from PAF side on whether their F-16s can even pick up J-10C from more than 30 to 40 km out.

 

[araz]

tbh, if there's a JF-17 Block-4, it'd be a smaller upgrade to the Block-3. I don't think the PAF will invest any further in the JF-17 airframe (besides maybe changing the engine to the WS-13). If it needs more range or payload, it'll procure more J-10CEs.

Otherwise, for what it is (i.e., a lightweight multirole fighter), the JF-17 does the job and some more.

The only "big" change I can see the PAF pushing for in the JF-17 is adding an integrated IRST. This assumes the PAF moves ahead with the 'Near BVR' concept, i.e., using the IRST as the primary awareness system at up to 40 km and, in turn, using the PL-10E at around 20-30 km out (@SQ8).

Basically, the idea behind 'Near BVR' is that you have the longest stick within the distance most of your real-life engagements will take place. It's basically the area where you'll want to neutralize every enemy air asset while exposing as little from your end as possible.

I think a really good IRST system that can cue a HOBS AAM with a range of 20-30 km is the key here.

We have 130 odd Block 1s and 2s. Block 3 is still not fully online. I remember the changes to the central fuel line to incorporate IFR took 18 months of redesigning. The block 3 has been ready since last year when the air frames were demonstrated, waiting for additional capabilities and testing before integration. So the prospect of a Block four with Delta canard is a dream too far( I known you did not raise this question). IRST on Block 1-2's will have to be via centre line pod unless chin modifications can be carried out to earlier blocks to incorporate chin mounted Hard point (I am assuming NOT!).I assume PAF takes the view point that there are general duty work horses (Block 1-2) capable of carrying out air interdictions and BVR engagements. Block 3 could be a specialized aircraft mission driven for specific purposes??. With AWACs and interplane secure comms how do these planes function ?? So in short we have more questions than answers.
A

 

[Sinnerman108]

This article conclusively answers the seeming conundrum of J-20 pilots stating that their aircraft is easy to fly but hard to master. Like the J-10C, the J-20 is easy to handle/maneuver but since the plane generates so much information, mastering how to best operate the plane in combat situation is difficult. Kudos to Pakistanis pilots for mastering such a bird in such a short period of time.

One other interesting tidbit is the claim that J-10C is semi-stealth. This is inline with leaked information from the Zhurihe Parade a couple of years back where ground radar operators were specifically warned that J-10C (clean) and J-20 (even with lunesburg lens) are difficult to track and require multiple systems covering all the angles for safety purposes. J-16/J-11B do not have this issue.

That statement is inaccurate and an overstatement.

The principle of flight generates a LOT of information,
the pilot doesn't need all the information
The pilot needs only the information that takes him to the next step.
The pilot needs all the RIGHT information, in the right format.

It is the job of the flight controller and human machine interface designers
to ensure that pilot if never overloaded with information, yet he has all the
right information at his tips.

Developing such interfaces takes decades of flight data, pilot interviews and coupling
this information together in a fashion that technology can reasonably support.

J-10 is relatively baby, compared to maybe the F-16 or F-15s .. where the americans have
analyzed it's flight envelope, it's characteristics and then asked pilots how best they can
assimilate and process that information.

Regards.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Keep in mind that J-10C is considered by US military to be almost LO, but that also has to be put in the context where China has a whole variety of EW assets flying around. PAF can achieve similar level of LO only if it buys some EW aircraft from China.

I see that as more important than more AWACS.

I'd be curious to hear from PAF side on whether their F-16s can even pick up J-10C from more than 30 to 40 km out.

Frontally, maybe, but with external load and at different angles it’ll no doubt be easier to pick up.

 

[Deino]

Via https://secondtononepaf.com/2022/11/08/enter-the-dragon-beginning-of-a-new-era/

 

[siegecrossbow]

The crews were taken aback after engaging afterburner (AB). The kick was bigger than the F-16. “There was an unbelievable amount of thrust when I opened up the afterburner for the first time. The J-10C can produce 29,000 lb thrust, which is 10,000 lbs excess thrust than the JF-17 produces, and as much power as two and a half Mirages put together. A single Mirage produces 14,000 lb thrust,” Sqn Ldr Jibran Rashid said. The speed increment was so fast that post-take-off procedures had to be executed in rapid succession to remain with the aircraft.​

Looks like first impression with WS-10B engine is a positive one.

 

[PakFactor]

Looks like first impression with WS-10B engine is a positive one.

That and it's good to know the pilots manning J-10Cs are from various backgrounds, previously flying F-16s, Mirages, etc., so their opinions hold more weight than someone from just an F-7 and moving to J-10C.

 

[siegecrossbow]

That and it's good to know the pilots manning J-10Cs are from various backgrounds, previously flying F-16s, Mirages, etc., so their opinions hold more weight than someone from just an F-7 and moving to J-10C.

Indeed, it is compared directly with the F-16 and the comparison is favorable.

One of my concerns about the J-10C with WS-10 is that additional weight of upgraded radar/avionics and other bells and whistles may cause degradation in flight performance. Looks like that is unfounded.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

I am not sure if it is a repeat!

 

[SQ8]

tbh, if there's a JF-17 Block-4, it'd be a smaller upgrade to the Block-3. I don't think the PAF will invest any further in the JF-17 airframe (besides maybe changing the engine to the WS-13). If it needs more range or payload, it'll procure more J-10CEs.

Otherwise, for what it is (i.e., a lightweight multirole fighter), the JF-17 does the job and some more.

The only "big" change I can see the PAF pushing for in the JF-17 is adding an integrated IRST. This assumes the PAF moves ahead with the 'Near BVR' concept, i.e., using the IRST as the primary awareness system at up to 40 km and, in turn, using the PL-10E at around 20-30 km out (@SQ8).

Basically, the idea behind 'Near BVR' is that you have the longest stick within the distance most of your real-life engagements will take place. It's basically the area where you'll want to neutralize every enemy air asset while exposing as little from your end as possible.

I think a really good IRST system that can cue a HOBS AAM with a range of 20-30 km is the key here.

I think the biggest issue with the JF is that Pakistan’s economy never kept up to the program. I’ve mentioned earlier how the PAF was struggling to pay the loans on just the basic program itself let alone any new airframes and improvements some ten years ago - while some cash inflow came in that did no impact to the time needed to make those changes.

Also, as the threat environment changed so did some of the requirements. The early block-I JF-17s could hold their own against a MKI but would struggle against the updated M2KI - then there was the baited breath on the Rafale saga. As soon as it was clear from HUMINT who the IAF was going to select there were changes needed to the ASR to reflect it.

One needs to do a collective bow of thanks to the Indians themselves of their repeated shooting in their own foot as far as their procurement processes go. Otherwise the PAF would really have to revise ASR and buy better capabilities directly instead of upgrading the JF-17.

The J-10 saga isn’t new either - the PAF looked at the J-10A and requested a list of improvements but wanted to focus it as a strike fighter. Then when many were of those improvements were taken in stride by CAC and they made the J-10B the PAF had no funds for it. Then as feedback ok what the PLAAF needed poured in so did the PAF reps at CAC give their based on what they were hearing from friendly countries on the Rafale and other platforms.

The passive cueing is good on paper for the PL-10 but not sure how well it would apply in real life for the short skirmishes . Considering a lot of initial eastern border engagements are VID dependent it likely will be the ability to deter any incursion in the first place.

If any target from the east realizes they are being locked on 70km out from an aircraft it will have them under consternation from the get go.

Also, I am not totally bought into the semi LO aspect because at the end the limit will be the highest radiated amount and while there is a lower RCS involved it doesn’t mean its comparable to a J-20.

J-16/J-11B do not have this issue.

The issue is that flanker variants in general are excellent reflectors for radar and shoot a big RCS out. The Su-35 purchase was done to address what attempts sukhoi has made to reduce the RCS but even that has not been sufficient. Too many flat angles and 90 degree surfaces to send nice returns back.

Compound that with the Canards on the MKi and its even worse than a J-16. A basic airfield radar can mistakenly call the MKI a Airbus A320 because they are close enough

 

[tphuang]

I think the biggest issue with the JF is that Pakistan’s economy never kept up to the program. I’ve mentioned earlier how the PAF was struggling to pay the loans on just the basic program itself let alone any new airframes and improvements some ten years ago - while some cash inflow came in that did no impact to the time needed to make those changes.

Also, as the threat environment changed so did some of the requirements. The early block-I JF-17s could hold their own against a MKI but would struggle against the updated M2KI - then there was the baited breath on the Rafale saga. As soon as it was clear from HUMINT who the IAF was going to select there were changes needed to the ASR to reflect it.

One needs to do a collective bow of thanks to the Indians themselves of their repeated shooting in their own foot as far as their procurement processes go. Otherwise the PAF would really have to revise ASR and buy better capabilities directly instead of upgrading the JF-17.

The J-10 saga isn’t new either - the PAF looked at the J-10A and requested a list of improvements but wanted to focus it as a strike fighter. Then when many were of those improvements were taken in stride by CAC and they made the J-10B the PAF had no funds for it. Then as feedback ok what the PLAAF needed poured in so did the PAF reps at CAC give their based on what they were hearing from friendly countries on the Rafale and other platforms.

The passive cueing is good on paper for the PL-10 but not sure how well it would apply in real life for the short skirmishes . Considering a lot of initial eastern border engagements are VID dependent it likely will be the ability to deter any incursion in the first place.

If any target from the east realizes they are being locked on 70km out from an aircraft it will have them under consternation from the get go.

Also, I am not totally bought into the semi LO aspect because at the end the limit will be the highest radiated amount and while there is a lower RCS involved it doesn’t mean its comparable to a J-20.


The issue is that flanker variants in general are excellent reflectors for radar and shoot a big RCS out. The Su-35 purchase was done to address what attempts sukhoi has made to reduce the RCS but even that has not been sufficient. Too many flat angles and 90 degree surfaces to send nice returns back.

Compound that with the Canards on the MKi and its even worse than a J-16. A basic airfield radar can mistakenly call the MKI a Airbus A320 because they are close enough

my contact (and I won't divulge further background here) says that USAF E-3C has trouble locking on to PLAAF J-10Cs. It has really good emission control and EW suite.

He also said that even with F-16V, its bus speed, subsystem integration and EW suite makes it way less competitive than J-10C.

 

[m52k85]

my contact (and I won't divulge further background here) says that USAF E-3C has trouble locking on to PLAAF J-10Cs. It has really good emission control and EW suite.

He also said that even with F-16V, its bus speed, subsystem integration and EW suite makes it way less competitive than J-10C.

beta E3C dont lock Sh*t

 

[SQ8]

my contact (and I won't divulge further background here) says that USAF E-3C has trouble locking on to PLAAF J-10Cs. It has really good emission control and EW suite.

He also said that even with F-16V, its bus speed, subsystem integration and EW suite makes it way less competitive than J-10C.

The E-3C doesn’t lock on - it does track targets but the kit on the E-3C is actually fairly old and of late 90s vintage so not exactly the best benchmark.
ESA systems like those on the E-7 wedgetail or even the Pakistani Erieyes do a better job than a E-3C

I disagree on the “way less” competitive aspect with the F-16V so lets agree to disagree

 

[Trango Towers]

This is what I got from the text above via Google Lens:

View attachment 899421

I don't get what the camo has to do with ground attack. The point of camo is to make it difficult for the enemy to spot visually. That really is no longer necessary

 

[tphuang]

The E-3C doesn’t lock on - it does track targets but the kit on the E-3C is actually fairly old and of late 90s vintage so not exactly the best benchmark.
ESA systems like those on the E-7 wedgetail or even the Pakistani Erieyes do a better job than a E-3C

I disagree on the “way less” competitive aspect with the F-16V so lets agree to disagree

track, whatever you want to call it. I don't quite recall his exact phrasing here, but basically you don't want to use E-3C to find J-10C.

wrt F-16V, remember that J-10A to J-10B went through a huge redesign of interior in order to accommodate a new avionics architecture, data bus, heat management and MMI that serves as a testbed for J-20. So in terms of amount of data it can provide to pilot, I'm not surprised it impressed upon PAF pilots. F-16V on the other hand didn't go through an interior redesign from C/D.