PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[Big_bud]

There is a reason why I asked you to kindly consult the information thread. After spending around 10+ years on the forum, I will tell you this, I do not possess the technical knowledge to comment on airframe design. I can however comment with confidence, only on the management of the program, marketing ( as I do possess knowledge as far as these fields are concerned) and maybe a bit of surface level analysis having spend a lot of time on this forum back in the day where serious discussions was a thing ..

I fail to understand how people who are new here and do not really possess the technical know how (newsflash: it is quite obvious) comment with such sweeping statements such as the jet is under powered or it doesn't belong in the 4th generation.

So again, I refer you to some examples,
1.the Mirage 2000 with its snechma M53-P2 can produce around 95 KN of thrust (21,400 pounds of thrust) with a loaded weight of around 30,000 pounds, has a Thrust to weight ratio of 0.71. The earlier model of the Mirage 2000 had the M-53-5 which produced even less at around 19,400 pounds of thrust.

2.Take the Gripen with the earlier models being powered by Volvo RM-12 producing 18,100 pounds of thrust. Compare that with the RD-93's 19000 pounds of thrust, along with the loaded weight of jf-17 at 20000 pounds i.e. a T/w of 0.95.

3. As far as G limits go, some models of the F/A-18A/c could pull less than the JF-17 i.e. around +7.5/-3 when they were introduced.

Question: Are you comfortable saying that the Gripen, Mirage 2000 and the F/A-18 do not belong in the 4th generation?

It is quite well documented that PAF was quite strict when it came to the performance parameters of the aircraft, just look at the difference between the first prototypes and the PT-04. Or one could simply listen to AVM (retd.) Shahid Latif regarding the program. The answer to most queries is the block building approach. What remains to be seen is how the rest of the JF-17 fleet will be upgraded once the deliveries of the block-III is complete.

Oh sorry to hurt your sentiments my dear old friend, but didn't you read rest of my post? no, no anything would fall on deaf ears, whatever I say. ACM Sohail Aman called it a 3-3.5 Gen fighter in one of his interviews. Is he a newbie too? As I said its useless to debate with someone who is unable to have an unbiased learned opinion.

And I already I said you can think and believe in whatever you want. Block 1s & 2s are not true 4th gens. And canards or Gs or Engine hasn't got much to do with it. Its the lack of capability which makes it a 3.5 Gen. Performance is one of its limiting factors, but Gen is related to capability.

 

[untitled]

Block 1s & 2s are not true 4th gens

What's your definition of a 4th gen aircraft?

 

[Clutch]

Oh no ... do you guys ever read a thread and what was written so often before or do your homework?

These images are from April last year and show PLAAF J-10C, that were delivered thru 2021 to the 25th and maybe 16th Air Brigades but surely not PAF birds still waiting.

View attachment 806025

Allegedly

 

[abdulbarijan]

Oh sorry to hurt your sentiments my dear old friend, but didn't you read rest of my post? no, no anything would fall on deaf ears, whatever I say. ACM Sohail Aman called it a 3-3.5 Gen fighter in one of his interviews. Is he a newbie too? As I said its useless to debate with someone who is unable to have an unbiased learned opinion.

And I already I said you can think and believe in whatever you want. Block 1s & 2s are not true 4th gens. And canards or Gs or Engine hasn't got much to do with it. Its the lack of capability which makes it a 3.5 Gen. Performance is one of its limiting factors, but Gen is related to capability.

Just to quote your previous posts ..

You didn't get what I wrote. Comment was in reference to the airframe design + the engine its paired with. As I said, JF needs a strong engine with this design to have good turn rate and nose pointing authority. It can not pull 9G like others can. Anyways, you can believe in whatever you like.

Block 2s don't have HMDs. They dont have an Aesa. Their fuel tanks are small and hardpoints limited. They have an average engine thrust. They dont have canards. Such an aircraft needs a powerful engine, like F16, if you are going to pitch it against SU30s, Mirages and Migs. They can only fire SD10s. They are not true 4th gens hence they shouldn't be included in the list.

Block 3s once they arrive will be true 4+ Gen. Since PL15s will make a lot of difference in their lethality. Otherwise JFs can't engage in a dogfight comfortably with any of the above.

Spare us the word salad when you can't even maintain a semblance of consistency in reasoning across 3 mere posts.

As far as the airchief Sohail Aman is concerned, kindly post the video here, it could easily be that the former airchief is quoting the Chinese classification of generations where the likes of J-20/F-35/F-22 are termed 4th generation aircrafts while the SU-35's/Mig-29's/J-11's/J-10's/F-16's etc. and the likes are termed the 3rd generation aircrafts.

I can cite the following:

To quote the former airchief Sohail Aman on a program aired on Feb of 2020 (you can go directly to the time stamp of 11:55 to get this quote)
"Technology onboard the JF-17 is nowhere lesser than F-16, in fact in some aspects it has the edge over the F-16 (the JF-17 does)"



Regards,
Abj

 

[luciferdd]

Oh sorry to hurt your sentiments my dear old friend, but didn't you read rest of my post? no, no anything would fall on deaf ears, whatever I say. ACM Sohail Aman called it a 3-3.5 Gen fighter in one of his interviews. Is he a newbie too? As I said its useless to debate with someone who is unable to have an unbiased learned opinion.

And I already I said you can think and believe in whatever you want. Block 1s & 2s are not true 4th gens. And canards or Gs or Engine hasn't got much to do with it. Its the lack of capability which makes it a 3.5 Gen. Performance is one of its limiting factors, but Gen is related to capability.

F-16A/B don't have any BVR capability,are they 3th Gen?

 

[untitled]

What's your definition of a 4th gen aircraft?

My understanding of a 4th generation fighter aircameaft is any aircraft that entered service from or was designed from 1970s to 2000s which met most of the criteria listed below:

1) Full fly-by-wire control.. Exception to this are F-15, F-14, MiG-29 and of course the JF-17

2) The aircraft manuaveribilty was given equal consideration along with it's top speed and ceiling. Exception was the Tornado

3) Turbofan engines

4) Had a decent radar

5) Low observability was not given sufficient consideration

 

[HRK]

I don't know why some new member are raising the issue of Fighter aircraft generations,

For ease of understanding I am attaching an Official Table from an Official Report of Singapore Ministry of Defence below

 

[GiantPanda]

People like to point out the Gripen/J-11A 2015 Falcon Strike exercise. But remember, that was only one of four such exercises and it was revealed by Senior PLAAF Pilot Li Zhonghua at Northwestern Polytechnical University in 2019 to push changes in the Chinese Air Force, especially in regards to the J-11A.

• The Gripen's performance was at its worst inside the within visual range (WVR) envelope. Over a two-day period, PLAAF pilots shot down 25 Gripens at a loss of only one Su-27.
• Once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, JAS-39's advantages became apparent. The Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine Gripens.
• The Gripen’s Raytheon AIM-120 AAM also outranged the RVV-AE at 80km versus only 50 km for the Russian missile.
• Li stated that the JAS-39C/D’s much smaller radar cross-section (RCS) at 1.5-2.0 m2 was a major factor, as the much larger Su-27 is easier to detect at 12 sq miles. The JAS-39 can also ripple-fire up to four AIM-120s simultaneously but the Su-27 can fire only one RVV-AE at a time.
• Li said subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A and especially the J-10C which were more than match for the JAS-39C/D. He said the “active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”

The J-11As in Thailand use the same BVR missile, the R-77, as all exported Flankers (including SU-30 MKI.) The J-11A were extremely potent dogfighters (it crushed the Gripen 25 to 1 in WVR) but were also first generation BVR platforms. Their size and the poor performance of the R-77 in particular gave them a huge disadvantage in BVR fight.

The J-10A had little problems with the Gripens in the 2017 and 2018 Falcon Strike exercises. The J-10C in 2019 reportedly had a very easy time with the JAS-39. The J-10A and J-10C use Chinese radar and missile exclusively.

The J-10s, even the A version, can handle the Gripen with relative ease. Can the Rafale do the same to the Gripen?

Anyways, for Pakistan, the vast bulk of the IAF is not the Rafales. It is the SU-30 MKI armed with the R-77. The JF-17 is the same size as the Gripen with the same generation of BVR equipment. So what does the 2015 Falcon Strike exercise tells us about a small modern fighter versus an exported Flanker armed with the R-77?

The J-10C had won Golden Helmet Awards in the past several years against the J-16 (which is a much more modern Flanker than the J-11A or SU-30 MKI.)

 

[JawadKKhan]

I don't know why some new member are raising the issue of Fighter aircraft generations,

For ease of understanding I am attaching an Official Table from an Official Report of Singapore Ministry of Defence below

View attachment 806052

I think people get confused when they don't understand that there is no global unified generation system. The Chinese generation system is different then the west's. China started manufacturing aircrafts when west was at 2nd generation. The F-35/F-22 / J-20 is 4th generation according to typical & traditional chinese generation system. So whenever Western media quote chinese text they do conversion according to their own standard for aircrafts but indian articles will omit this conversion deliberately telling their audiences that aircraft is of lower tech / generation. They do this massive propaganda for clearly a 4th Gen JF-17 block I & II as third generation. An agile, cropped delta aircraft with adv avionics / bvr capable is 4th generation by any definition of west's generation of fighters.


The PAC / its engineers which works mostly with the chinese systems for aircraft manufacturing. They were used to with chinese generation system to qualify aircrafts. I recall old reports saying Joint fighter program with China as an aircraft as capable as F-16, and upgrading our infrastructure / capabilities to support third generation aircraft developments. So these kind of statements added the confusion in general public without knowing the difference of chinese vs west qualification of fighter jets.

 

[baqai]

How did he get back out, is what I want to know.

they made him sit on the ejector seat and manufactured the plane around it, simple ...

 

[Zarvan]

#DGISPR just called induction of J-10 C as "nothing special" but a routine matter.

 

[alimobin memon]

People like to point out the Gripen/J-11A 2015 Falcon Strike exercise. But remember, that was only one of four such exercises and it was revealed by Senior PLAAF Pilot Li Zhonghua at Northwestern Polytechnical University in 2019 to push changes in the Chinese Air Force, especially in regards to the J-11A.

• The Gripen's performance was at its worst inside the within visual range (WVR) envelope. Over a two-day period, PLAAF pilots shot down 25 Gripens at a loss of only one Su-27.
• Once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, JAS-39's advantages became apparent. The Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine Gripens.
• The Gripen’s Raytheon AIM-120 AAM also outranged the RVV-AE at 80km versus only 50 km for the Russian missile.
• Li stated that the JAS-39C/D’s much smaller radar cross-section (RCS) at 1.5-2.0 m2 was a major factor, as the much larger Su-27 is easier to detect at 12 sq miles. The JAS-39 can also ripple-fire up to four AIM-120s simultaneously but the Su-27 can fire only one RVV-AE at a time.
• Li said subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A and especially the J-10C which were more than match for the JAS-39C/D. He said the “active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”

The J-11As in Thailand use the same BVR missile, the R-77, as all exported Flankers (including SU-30 MKI.) The J-11A were extremely potent dogfighters (it crushed the Gripen 25 to 1 in WVR) but were also first generation BVR platforms. Their size and the poor performance of the R-77 in particular gave them a huge disadvantage in BVR fight.

The J-10A had little problems with the Gripens in the 2017 and 2018 Falcon Strike exercises. The J-10C in 2019 reportedly had a very easy time with the JAS-39. The J-10A and J-10C use Chinese radar and missile exclusively.

The J-10s, even the A version, can handle the Gripen with relative ease. Can the Rafale do the same to the Gripen?

Anyways, for Pakistan, the vast bulk of the IAF is not the Rafales. It is the SU-30 MKI armed with the R-77. The JF-17 is the same size as the Gripen with the same generation of BVR equipment. So what does the 2015 Falcon Strike exercise tells us about a small modern fighter versus an exported Flanker armed with the R-77?

The J-10C had won Golden Helmet Awards in the past several years against the J-16 (which is a much more modern Flanker than the J-11A or SU-30 MKI.)

Good Analysis, JF17 is also good just a light fighter. It can fare against Indian air force planes. J10C is overkill against all fighters except Rafale where it might be equal or near equal to it.

 

[Signalian]

Just out of curiosity, does PN really need Twin engine flankers ?

How about three-engines ?

PN should form its Naval Fighter school first and compete with PAF for Top Gun.

 

[PakShaheen79]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478681097152208900

 

[GiantPanda]

Good Analysis, JF17 is also good just a light fighter. It can fare against Indian air force planes. J10C is overkill against all fighters except Rafale where it might be equal or near equal to it.

The MKI spent its time dodging instead of attacking against PAF F-16s and JF-17s for a reason.

The J-10C also beat the SU-35 at the Golden Helmet exercises. The main competition was the J-16 not the SU-35 (though the SU-35 is often advertized as the ultimate Flanker.)

The J-10C is a medium fighter with the advantages of a smaller size against the heavyweight fighters in the detection and fire first game of BVR but also advantages against the light fighters with more power and load.