PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[serenity]

Simply cost. Putting TVC on J-10 will make it more expensive and harder to keep in operational readiness when the whole point of inexpensive single engine J-10 in PLAAF's structure is to use as lower tier fighter for most tasks and supporting fighter for even heavy threat tasks.

TVC itself is much heavier and sacrifices some thrust. Therefore is it worth it? That will only balance out extra agility and option for certain movements. So basically nothing gained in balance and only extra cost and maintenance nightmares. Even that for a TVC J-10 to PLAAF is not worth it and considered a demonstrator for study only.

They rumored about J-10D either with improved WS-10 engine or some WS-10 TVC engine or even some suggest WS-15 engine or stealthified J-10D. I do not think any of that is smart. Why develop a whole new J-10D that is stealthified. To commit all that money and engineering power and still carry weapons either outside or in stealth pods. When you can put that money into Dark Sword UCAV and twin seater J-20 combined.

As for WS-15 engine on J-10, as we now think, WS-15 may be TVC. Of course that also means you can easily make a non TVC WS-15 version and it'll be easier, more reliable, cheaper, and lighter with even more thrust. However initial production of an engine is not going to be enough for J-20s and J-10s. Depending on the cost of the WS-15, it'll maybe not even be worth the extra performance for J-10.

Any J-10 development will likely just be electronics and software upgrades. Maybe specific new tasks that require a totally new piece of equipment for example being part of observer network for directing sensor and shooter chains that J-10 currently is not a part of but PLAAF wants it to be for future weapons. Something like that. WS-15 upgrade to J-10 may not even be worth it if it is able to be integrated. Any better WS-10 of course would be used and it'll still be J-10C.

 

[MH.Yang]

Simply cost. Putting TVC on J-10 will make it more expensive and harder to keep in operational readiness when the whole point of inexpensive single engine J-10 in PLAAF's structure is to use as lower tier fighter for most tasks and supporting fighter for even heavy threat tasks.

TVC itself is much heavier and sacrifices some thrust. Therefore is it worth it? That will only balance out extra agility and option for certain movements. So basically nothing gained in balance and only extra cost and maintenance nightmares. Even that for a TVC J-10 to PLAAF is not worth it and considered a demonstrator for study only.

They rumored about J-10D either with improved WS-10 engine or some WS-10 TVC engine or even some suggest WS-15 engine or stealthified J-10D. I do not think any of that is smart. Why develop a whole new J-10D that is stealthified. To commit all that money and engineering power and still carry weapons either outside or in stealth pods. When you can put that money into Dark Sword UCAV and twin seater J-20 combined.

As for WS-15 engine on J-10, as we now think, WS-15 may be TVC. Of course that also means you can easily make a non TVC WS-15 version and it'll be easier, more reliable, cheaper, and lighter with even more thrust. However initial production of an engine is not going to be enough for J-20s and J-10s. Depending on the cost of the WS-15, it'll maybe not even be worth the extra performance for J-10.

Any J-10 development will likely just be electronics and software upgrades. Maybe specific new tasks that require a totally new piece of equipment for example being part of observer network for directing sensor and shooter chains that J-10 currently is not a part of but PLAAF wants it to be for future weapons. Something like that. WS-15 upgrade to J-10 may not even be worth it if it is able to be integrated. Any better WS-10 of course would be used and it'll still be J-10C.

I don't think it is necessary for J10D to use TVC. On the basis of not changing the aerodynamic shape of J10C, we can upgrade avionics, strengthen electronic countermeasure system and enhance battlefield situation awareness and data processing capability. The body surface is coated with absorbing paint, and active stealth and beam cancellation technologies are adopted to improve its stealth performance. The flexibility and multi-purpose performance are further improved by using EWP hanging cabin, semi buried hanger and other measures. That's enough. And I don't think the WS-15 will be in service so soon.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

From today's FM's visit to AHQ... I think this is the first time J10 model has been shown by the ACM's side... there is also mention of PAF Modernisation Program in the official text...View attachment 811518

Qureishi: "How many JS-10s are we getting?"
ACM: "....69."
Qureishi: "Nice!"

@JamD

 

[baqai]

69? Really?

with those two gentlemen in picture ... lets just call BINGO and RTB!

 

[Nomad40]

Qureishi: "How many JS-10s are we getting?"
ACM: "....69."
Qureishi: "Nice!"

@JamD

Emphasis on the 69, how ever what will be of immense interest and true force multiplier would be what has been chosen or given for the J-10 to deploy.

 

[siegecrossbow]

69? Really?

69? Really?

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Exactly one month to this thread. Still tight lips. Feb end looks promising for actual deliveries.

 

[Big_bud]

Explained in detail,
.Why are US jet superiority fighters like the F-15 or F-16 not equipped with canards or thrust vectoring to make them more agile & maneuverable?
The role of the thrust vectoring control (TVC) is mostly misunderstood as I can judge by the ppl.
The absolute flight performance is not increased by the TVC. For turning capability, you need lift force. A lot. If a plane is in a 4G turn the lift force on the airframe is 4 times is the weight of the plane. The thrust of the plane provides the power to keep the speed in turn.
Let’s just assume a Su-30 with 25 tons weight at M0.5. This is ASF (air superiority) configuration. It’s engine produces at M0.5 at 3 km alt about 80 kN thrust based on AL-31 data. Two engines produce 160 kN.
Assuming 30 degrees vectoring the lift increase for thrust is only 80 kN (using trigonometry) while even in 1G level flight weight of the plane is 245kN in a 4G turn it is almost 1000 kN. For this meaningless lift increase (+8%) the Su-30 sacrificed the forward thrust component which is reduced from 160 kN to 138.5 kN. (-14%)
It is simply not worth it. And I assumed only 4G turn which cannot be considered high not even at medium altitude at M0.9.

The TVC has speed limitation. This is for Su-30s.

The TVC is useful at slow speed and high AoA cases and it also helps to initiate and stop turns quicker.
The control surfaces provide the 3 axis control which keeps the plane is a certain AoA position. The TVC extends the capabilities of the control beyond (lower) stall speed. It does nothing else. You can produce forces to control the plane in 3 axis where the conventional way has very little or no effect.

This is a very impressive stunt and it is an amazing engineering feat but in combat, it has 0 usefulness this maneuvers.
Sukhoi Su-35 at Airshow Moscow
But in many vs many air combat flying slow is a very, very bad idea. And the real life is not 1v1. The “super maneuverability” is just a marketing term (BS) nothing else…
Canards is the same case. You can achieve good performance without this. It is just a possible “tool” from the many solutions. The Su-30 have two evolution branches. Only one has canards. The Su-35 also does not have it.

In WVR fights TVC helps in increasing turn rate of the aircraft. In a one circle or rate fight, an SU30 MKI or SU35 or J10c would be able to point the nose, lock the target and release the missile much quicker than the aircraft without TVC. A good western aircraft would almost match the TVC aircraft from Russia/China in one circle. But "almost" makes all the difference. You might be able to see the enemy aircraft but if it is outside your radar's lock range, you can't lock and release the missile. A couple of degree difference in where the nose is pointing can change everything. TVC is an added advantage but an western designers think they'd rather focus on other features than developing TVC variants. There are many situations in a WVR fight where TVC can help in pointing the nose better may it be at expense of speed. But yes in BVR it won't be of much help.

 

[redtom]

In 2018, J10B TVC only revealed China's ability to manufacture TVC engines. It's easy to assume that PLAF must have made some TVC J10s for evaluation and air combat games. But until now, no TVC version of J10 or J11 has appeared.

I suspect that the benefits of TVC don't count for much as the technology evolves. Engine power is more valuable for powering more electronics than TVC.It's also clear that countries are trying to put more electronic devices on planes.

 

[aliyusuf]

In WVR fights TVC helps in increasing turn rate of the aircraft. In a one circle or rate fight, an SU30 MKI or SU35 or J10c would be able to point the nose, lock the target and release the missile much quicker than the aircraft without TVC.

HOBS missile slaved with HMS greatly diminishes the need to do what you have mentioned above. Merely turning his head, the pilot wearing the HMS and cueing off a shot towards the target renders aligning the fighter's nose towards the target redundant and much less effort and skill to do so.

 

[Deino]

Can we please stop with this irrelevant TVC- related discussions? It is at best an academic excurse, since there is no PLAAF J-10C with TVC and therefore also unlikely for Pakistan to get such a version.

 

[TopGun786]

Can we please stop with this irrelevant TVC- related discussions? It is at best an academic excurse, since there is no PLAAF J-10C with TVC and therefore also unlikely for Pakistan to get such a version.

Yes, so much time wasted on a discussion that does not even have solid foundations.

 

[cssniper]

The pilots' opinions on TVC engine matter much more than ours.
If they think TVC is necessary,then the airforce will get it.
Since there is capablility for J10B/C to use TVC engine, it is PAF's call to decide whether to have it or not.
Have to say that many arms Pakistan purchased have differences from the original design.
The suitable one is the best one.

 

[Falcon26]

From today's FM's visit to AHQ... I think this is the first time J10 model has been shown by the ACM's side... there is also mention of PAF Modernisation Program in the official text...View attachment 811518

not the first time, it’s been there for the past few months.

 

[Deino]

The pilots' opinions on TVC engine matter much more than ours.
If they think TVC is necessary,then the airforce will get it.
Since there is capablility for J10B/C to use TVC engine, it is PAF's call to decide whether to have it or not.
Have to say that many arms Pakistan purchased have differences from the original design.
The suitable one is the best one.

Yes for sure … but if the PAF wants this capability then Pakistan has to pay for its development and that’s the point: not the PLAAF, but CAC tested a single J-10B and most likely it was only a demonstrator for the WS-15‘s nozzle and not to develop or explore this capability for the PLAAF. As such, it is as we say in Germany, it is a useless discussion about „noch ungelegte Eier“!