PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[NA71]

For leakining too early or for providing false information ..

25 wala part seems wrong info....after that announcement he has not been in Media ....may be under house arrest for software update....

 

[Imran Khan]

J-10C plaque with the serial number of “21-601” and PAF squadron Bandits marking on it.

View attachment 806392

you guys will have ony this toy sheeda talli make you guys fool

 

[Windjammer]

2hat happened to him?

چھوڑو یار مجھے خود ڈانٹ پڑی
For posting the SU-35 news.

 

[CriticalThought]

چھوڑو یار مجھے خود ڈانٹ پڑی
For posting the SU-35 news.

Take heart, we all understand it is only rumors. But I stand behind the concept of Su35/J15/J16 for naval power projection, so the concept is not without merit.

 

[baqai]

don't know where to post this but oh well ... just to juice things up ... fan made by me

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

you guys will have ony this toy sheeda talli make you guys fool

LOL, I hope not a lot of hearts will be broken.

 

[denel]

I think the J-9 was a different single engine design attempt but possibly attached with risks that they did not want to undertake.

You may be thinking of the J-8 whose reason of similarity was the similar paths they took. The Su-15 came as an evolution from the Su-11.

The J-8 was literally slapping two J-7s together. Its initial iteration looks exactly like that.MiG also did this with the Mig-21 but did not go beyond to add the large radome.

Thanks for correction; J8 was an ugly concoction of someone having a hangover and double vision .

 

[The Eagle]

چھوڑو یار مجھے خود ڈانٹ پڑی
For posting the SU-35 news.

مطلب شیخ جی بھی ڈانٹ سن چکے؟
For SU-35? Didn't you ask before.

 

[denel]

مطلب شیخ جی بھی ڈانٹ سن چکے؟
For SU-35? Didn't you ask before.

now now... you are trying to incite overexcitement

 

[Windjammer]

مطلب شیخ جی بھی ڈانٹ سن چکے؟
For SU-35? Didn't you ask before.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

J-10C is to replace F-16 which supply and spare cut off in future. Some say Turkey can continue help to maintain or service it which there is a limit especially engine which no way Turkey can replicate or keep overhaul to give it another life.

Basically in future, there will be only one medium weight fighter which makes the correct decision to buy J-10C. There are effective and yet still cheaper to maintenance compare to heavy weight fighter.

I respectfully disagree. I think J10C are more a replacement of Mirage3s (with eventual Mirage5s), though I think Mirage5s will be around longer than 3s. I might be wrong but I think that is (Mirage3s) currently the front and center issue. JF17 help us roll off the F7Ps.

That is worrying. Wondering how Pakistan has survived this long.

If it's okay for you to reveal, can I ask how does the military interact with the PDF staff to prevent certain information from being published here? Is it via ISPR making a request or someone with a direct hotline between the military and the forum admin(s)?

Dont worry about Pakistan surviving. We'll survive just fine. And dont worry how info gets fed to PDF either.

J-10C plaque with the serial number of “21-601” and PAF squadron Bandits marking on it.

View attachment 806392

This was not a fan model picked up from a Hobby store.

 

[SQ8]

Why degenerate the discussion to name calling a fellow PDFer @luciferdd as shallow, childish? Since you have done so perhaps better enlighten us about your "hint". Let's move focus back to the fuselage not personal of fellow poster, the J-10A employs a splitter plate intake (and then DSI later) while F-16 employs pitot tube intake, how does this contribute to the "links" or "copy" story?

View attachment 806406

It is Childish and that user’s tone deserves it ,

and you are falling down the same train of thought that lies on “dont insult China!” Ego too.
If a F-16 wing box section specifically from behind the fuselage all the way to the tail was provided relatively intact to the Chinese.
https://i.postimg.cc/jSxthDbZ/Cutaway-GD-F-16-A.jpg

I would be disappointed if the Chinese were only capable of copying it. Smarter engineers(such as those who requested this from the third party country which had the crash) wanted to study the section at fabrication and welding technique along with any design cues - something akin to “design notes”.

As recently as 2017 - the third party was shipping off debris and parts off US weapons and equipment in Afghanistan to China for “design notes”

Thanks for correction; J8 was an ugly concoction of someone having a hangover and double vision .

It was a simple solution really considering the design expertise that existed then and the success of the Su-15. The J-9 was a really forward thinking design if only the Soviets would have provided them with the R-29 engine

 

[GumNaam]

should be on par with rafale unless the communist factories do commie corner cutting

the "communist factories" work on western standards. there's a reason why western nations can't survive without "communist" products.

 

[Shotgunner51]

It is Childish and that user’s tone deserves it ,

and you are falling down the same train of thought that lies on “dont insult China!” Ego too.

No, he was debunking your baseless "China bad" malicious intent with solid arguments that you can't counter, chose to evade and worse retaliate by insulting him:

1. You assume picking up a fuselage must lead straight to copying, while it could be used for other purposes say finding weakness, finding soft spots, avoiding mistakes, or even simply scrap as garbage if no value.
2. You blatantly ignore the fundamental difference in aerodynamic structure between the two air-frames.

If a F-16 wing box section specifically from behind the fuselage all the way to the tail was provided relatively intact to the Chinese.
https://i.postimg.cc/jSxthDbZ/Cutaway-GD-F-16-A.jpg

I would be disappointed if the Chinese were only capable of copying it. Smarter engineers(such as those who requested this from the third party country which had the crash) wanted to study the section at fabrication and welding technique along with any design cues - something akin to “design notes”.

As recently as 2017 - the third party was shipping off debris and parts off US weapons and equipment in Afghanistan to China for “design notes”

No need for "If", I can also show you a J-10 diagram as well, what's your argument?

My argument was clear, shall I repeat? On top of the fact that J-10A design employs a delta canard design which is entirely different from F-16, even we just focus on the fuselage, J-10A design employs a splitter plate intake (and then DSI later) while F-16 employs pitot tube intake, how does this contribute to the "links" or "copy" story?

Studying the sections, welds or even debris and look for any design clues, even if that has happened, is an entirely different thing from design "copying", let alone the end products turn out to be completely different things. I would be disappointed if Americans or American-wannabes are only capable of faking "China copy" stories without proof or even a single argument, and worse resort to insult when lies are debunked openly.

 

[Nefarious]

No, he was debunking your baseless "China bad" malicious intent with solid arguments that you can't counter, chose to evade and worse retaliate by insulting him:

1. You assume picking up a fuselage must lead straight to copying, while it could be used for other purposes say finding weakness, finding soft spots, avoiding mistakes, or even simply scrap as garbage if no value.
2. You blatantly ignore the fundamental difference in aerodynamic structure between the two air-frames.

No need for "If", I can also show you a J-10 diagram as well, what's your argument?

My argument was clear, shall I repeat? On top of the fact that J-10A design employs a delta canard design which is entirely different from F-16, even we just focus on the fuselage, J-10A design employs a splitter plate intake (and then DSI later) while F-16 employs pitot tube intake, how does this contribute to the "links" or "copy" story?

View attachment 806470

Studying the sections, welds or even debris and look for any design clues, even if that has happened, is an entirely different thing from design "copying", let alone the end products turn out to be completely different things. I would be disappointed if Americans or American-wannabes are only capable of faking "China copy" stories without proof or even a single argument, and worse resort to insult when lies are debunked openly.

They're definitely very different I don't think anyone can say that's a copy of F-16. Maybe it was more to do with the material etc in which case it's all speculation.