Pakistan will soon get J10

[IceCold]

According to our military insider, China has promised to offer the PAF the J-10 with the AESA radar and the mature WS-10G engine, this is China's political duty.

He claims the deal will likely start around 2014 at the time when India has inducted Rafael, since J-10B is an older design with PESA back in years ago, so it is unlikely that Pakistan is going to take it.

If what you say is true, then this means that FC-20 would base on the C model and not B as previously rumored to be.
Apart from the AESA radar and the Chinese power plant, are there any other differences physically or otherwise?

No, he said J10A & B could be upgraded with AESA from the C version which will come only in the C version. If PAF wants J10 around the time MMRCA will be inducted, they have to take the B version with PESA radar. That's the problem with the fighter, too much is still unknown to really say how capable it really will be, because there are too less official statements on it.

There is no point in acquiring J-10 by 2014 and that too with a PESA radar. And if the earlier models are to be equipped with an AESA radar, even that does not make sense. Upgrades can be done at any time once they are available like that on the F-16s, there is no point in waiting. If PAF is waiting and if what Chinese Tiger says is true, then PAF is indeed going for the C version with local engine and an AESA radar. It makes alot of sense.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

If what you say is true, then this means that FC-20 would base on the C model and not B as previously rumored to be.
Apart from the AESA radar and the Chinese power plant, are there any other differences physically or otherwise?

No specification about the AESA, but the power plant should be around 145-155kN in afterburner.

BTW, this J-10 with code 1035 just got an AESA notch in its head, and its golden engine is definitely a new derivation of the TH engine.

But many online sources and posters labelled it as the "J-10B", which is already kinda of misleading.

And 1035 appeared in July 2011, which is much later after the finalization of the J-10B model.

But the Chinese govt should also be blamed, since they never officially told anyone what they are doing now.

 

[sancho]

bold part is the problem for India , as they dont know the capabilities of these fighters, MMRCA is not a issue with us, we know what these fighters are capable off, we will select what is good and not known by indians

A problem for Indians like me, who likes the J10 and wants to know more about it's capabilities. For Indian forces it is less of an issue, since they know they will have more capable fighters anyway, especially in a Indo - Pak scenario, where limited numbers of J10 doesn't make a difference anyway.

There is no point in acquiring J-10 by 2014 and that too with a PESA radar. And if the earlier models are to be equipped with an AESA radar, even that does not make sense. Upgrades can be done at any time once they are available like that on the F-16s, there is no point in waiting. If PAF is waiting and if what Chinese Tiger says is true, then PAF is indeed going for the C version with local engine and an AESA radar. It makes alot of sense.

You have to keep in mind that PAF and PLAAF have different requirements with this upgrade! PAF wants something technologically at a similar level as MKI or Rafale, while for PLAAF this is mainly a normal upgrade of capabilities for their older A versions (roughly 10 years after induction if I'm not wrong). They might not want all the features PAF wants today, because for them J10 is only their cost-effective low end, while for PAF it will be the high end.

 

[SQ8]

A problem for Indians like me, who likes the J10 and wants to know more about it's capabilities. For Indian forces it is less of an issue, since they know they will have more capable fighters anyway, especially in a Indo - Pak scenario, where limited numbers of J10 doesn't make a difference anyway.

The main contention is that the FC-20(which will be the version that Pakistan will get) is not a concrete concept..
Whether it will be based on the J-10B or a more advanced version.
Since currently no funds exist for procuring the aircraft.

In an Indo-Pak scenario.. any J-10 variant will pose a certain threat as a capable air to air fighter with a secondary strike capability... so while on paper 36 would seem a small number.. in a combined force scale.. they would be a good punch.

 

[sancho]

The main contention is that the FC-20(which will be the version that Pakistan will get) is not a concrete concept..
Whether it will be based on the J-10B or a more advanced version.
Since currently no funds exist for procuring the aircraft.

Imo, currently not the procurement cost might be an issue, but the cost of developing certain upgrades. Take the EF as a comparable example. EF partners don't need AESA now, because they don't buy T3B version and need it just around 2020 as upgrades for their older T2s. That's why the AESA development currently is not fully funded and it is mainly left to the industry and possible export customers to fund it, if they want it earlier.
So what if PLAAF don't need AESA now and is happy with an upgraded KJ 10 or a PESA version, while PAF wants AESA to have something comparable to MKIs and Rafales, not to mention something more capable than JF 17 B2. Isn't it likely that China then wants PAF to take at least shares of the AESA development costs? Can PAF pay for it now, since they might plan with AESA only from JF 17 B3 onwards?
To be honest, I don't understand the discussion about procurement costs, J10A was offered to export countries at around $41 million dollars, even with AESA and some upgrades it would be around $60 millions, which afail is still less than the F16 B52s costs and PAF wants to have more of them anyway. I think either PAF has the money to procure more fighters, or they haven't but if they have J10B with AESA would be more capable and more cost-effective to procure than more F16s.

In an Indo-Pak scenario.. any J-10 variant will pose a certain threat as a capable air to air fighter with a secondary strike capability... so while on paper 36 would seem a small number.. in a combined force scale.. they would be a good punch.

I disagree on that, because IAF has more capable fighter in higher numbers at the same time and the "currently known" upgrades are not that impressive to set it way ahead of JF 17 B2. I would rather have 50 x JF 17 B2 + 50 x B1 with AWACS support, than 36 x J10B with AESA, especially since both will use the same weapons anyway (in A2A and A2G).

 

[IceCold]

You have to keep in mind that PAF and PLAAF have different requirements with this upgrade! PAF wants something technologically at a similar level as MKI or Rafale, while for PLAAF this is mainly a normal upgrade of capabilities for their older A versions (roughly 10 years after induction if I'm not wrong). They might not want all the features PAF wants today, because for them J10 is only their cost-effective low end, while for PAF it will be the high end.

The case might be but PAF has its way with getting stuff from China which turns out to be more advanced and superior then what they are using for themselves. The example of F-7PG and JF-17 to FC-1 can be taken. PLAAF might be taking it as a normal upgrade but i disagree on the notion that J-10 is a low end for them because J-10 is their first true 4th generation fighter jet which they need in numbers to replace all the third generation ( 2nd interms of chinese generation) and considering the fact that opposition has advance 4th generation jets ( India Taiwan both ). Same is the case for PAF, as you mentioned they need FC-20 to be on par or even superior to both the MKI and Rafale, since we lack numbers. It makes absolute sense for PAF to wait and see how the planned upgrades turn out to be on FC-20 because most of them will also find their way to JF-17 latter block.

 

[SQ8]

Imo, currently not the procurement cost might be an issue, but the cost of developing certain upgrades. Take the EF as a comparable example. EF partners don't need AESA now, because they don't buy T3B version and need it just around 2020 as upgrades for their older T2s. That's why the AESA development currently is not fully funded and it is mainly left to the industry and possible export customers to fund it, if they want it earlier.
So what if PLAAF don't need AESA now and is happy with an upgraded KJ 10 or a PESA version, while PAF wants AESA to have something comparable to MKIs and Rafales, not to mention something more capable than JF 17 B2. Isn't it likely that China then wants PAF to take at least shares of the AESA development costs? Can PAF pay for it now, since they might plan with AESA only from JF 17 B3 onwards?
To be honest, I don't understand the discussion about procurement costs, J10A was offered to export countries at around $41 million dollars, even with AESA and some upgrades it would be around $60 millions, which afail is still less than the F16 B52s costs and PAF wants to have more of them anyway. I think either PAF has the money to procure more fighters, or they haven't but if they have J10B with AESA would be more capable and more cost-effective to procure than more F16s.



I disagree on that, because IAF has more capable fighter in higher numbers at the same time and the "currently known" upgrades are not that impressive to set it way ahead of JF 17 B2. I would rather have 50 x JF 17 B2 + 50 x B1 with AWACS support, than 36 x J10B with AESA, especially since both will use the same weapons anyway (in A2A and A2G).

At this point, PAF's funding is limited to paying off loans for the JF-17's, ZDK-03's and other hardware..
There is simply no space for funding a new fighter..or a new radar.

The JF-17's are going to stick to fighting on Pakistani turf..while aircraft like the F-16 block 52 and the Fc-20 were aimed at being able to take the fight deep into India and survive.
The increase in payload and internal space in the J-10 platform over the JF-17 offers a lot more room for heavy ECM systems along with a sizeable A2A and A2G payload.. coupled with the ability to carry it far.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

How many is Pakistan buying ?

 

[KRAIT]

How many is Pakistan buying ?

36 J-10B on soft loan...official confirmation...unknown...

 

[sancho]

PLAAF might be taking it as a normal upgrade but i disagree on the notion that J-10 is a low end for them because J-10 is their first true 4th generation fighter jet which they need in numbers to replace all the third generation ( 2nd interms of chinese generation) and considering the fact that opposition has advance 4th generation jets ( India Taiwan both ). Same is the case for PAF, as you mentioned they need FC-20 to be on par or even superior to both the MKI and Rafale, since we lack numbers. It makes absolute sense for PAF to wait and see how the planned upgrades turn out to be on FC-20 because most of them will also find their way to JF-17 latter block.

That's not correct, PLAAF has inducted Su 30 MKKs and the first J11Bs which are already 4th to 4.5 gen fighters (multi role capable, multi mode radars, modern avionics...). So they already have similar gen fighters in credible numbers and are inducting more of them to the higher end. J10B for them is just a low end multi role fighter, to complement the Flankers in a cost-effective way, similar to the F15/F16 combo for US forces.

At this point, PAF's funding is limited to paying off loans for the JF-17's, ZDK-03's and other hardware..
There is simply no space for funding a new fighter..or a new radar.

That's what I thought, so PAF is dependent on what upgrades China develops for the J10 now and has to take them, or remain with JF 17 and F16 to add J10C later.

The increase in payload and internal space in the J-10 platform over the JF-17 offers a lot more room for heavy ECM systems along with a sizeable A2A and A2G payload.. coupled with the ability to carry it far.

Agreed for the ECM systems, but not for the rest, because the J10 has actually some limitations that are similar to JF17s, especially in the deep strike role!
It has only 3 x heavy / wet stations, while the centerline station is size limited too. That means if PAF wants to integrate Raad, it either carries 1 on the centerline (if possible) with 2 fuel tanks, or the smaller centerline tank and 2 x at the inner wingstations (if the hardpoint limits makes this suitable).
JF 17 B1 will have the same refueling probe and most likely carries Raad on the centerline with 2 x fuel tanks as well. So it offers the same deep strike capability with Raad as J10B would and by the fact that Raad offers the advantage to launch in Pakistani airspace to hit target in India, a better ECM is not needed.
Another point is A2A, J10B has 3 x wingstations, just like JF 17! So either they both carry:

2 x WVR missiles
2 x BVR missiles
2 x fuel tanks
(centerline is free)

or

2 x WVR missiles
4 x BVR missiles
1 x fuel tanks on the centerline

So again, both offer the same weapon config and since the number of fuel tanks + IFR is the same it depends on which fighter has offers the higher range on internal fuel.
The J10 in general is the better fighter, but mainly because of the design and some features like bigger radar, IRST, (currently) IFR and in CAS the dedicated pod stations. But with the Block 2 upgrade of JF 17, it gets much closer to J10A and from what we know about B also to this version.

 

[ziaulislam]

That's not correct, PLAAF has inducted Su 30 MKKs and the first J11Bs which are already 4th to 4.5 gen fighters (multi role capable, multi mode radars, modern avionics...). So they already have similar gen fighters in credible numbers and are inducting more of them to the higher end. J10B for them is just a low end multi role fighter, to complement the Flankers in a cost-effective way, similar to the F15/F16 combo for US forces.




That's what I thought, so PAF is dependent on what upgrades China develops for the J10 now and has to take them, or remain with JF 17 and F16 to add J10C later.



Agreed for the ECM systems, but not for the rest, because the J10 has actually some limitations that are similar to JF17s, especially in the deep strike role!
It has only 3 x heavy / wet stations, while the centerline station is size limited too. That means if PAF wants to integrate Raad, it either carries 1 on the centerline (if possible) with 2 fuel tanks, or the smaller centerline tank and 2 x at the inner wingstations (if the hardpoint limits makes this suitable).
JF 17 B1 will have the same refueling probe and most likely carries Raad on the centerline with 2 x fuel tanks as well. So it offers the same deep strike capability with Raad as J10B would and by the fact that Raad offers the advantage to launch in Pakistani airspace to hit target in India, a better ECM is not needed.
Another point is A2A, J10B has 3 x wingstations, just like JF 17! So either they both carry:

2 x WVR missiles
2 x BVR missiles
2 x fuel tanks
(centerline is free)

or

2 x WVR missiles
4 x BVR missiles
1 x fuel tanks on the centerline

So again, both offer the same weapon config and since the number of fuel tanks + IFR is the same it depends on which fighter has offers the higher range on internal fuel.
The J10 in general is the better fighter, but mainly because of the design and some features like bigger radar, IRST, (currently) IFR and in CAS the dedicated pod stations. But with the Block 2 upgrade of JF 17, it gets much closer to J10A and from what we know about B also to this version.

j-10 can carry dual missles if needed on single point. Also there are 6 points under wings for BVRs
i dont know whether under fuselage points can carry BVRs too though

 

[sancho]

j-10 can carry dual missles if needed on single point. Also there are 6 points under wings for BVRs
i dont know whether under fuselage points can carry BVRs too though

When you check the JF 17 thread, you will see that there are speculations about the same dual launchers for JF 17 as well and no, J10 can't carry 6 x BVRs in a normal way, because it has 6 x wingstations and 2 of them will carry WVR missiles:

Replace the fuel tanks with BVR missiles and you have both loads that I mentioned in my earlier post.

 

[MiG-21]

Another point is A2A, J10B has 3 x wingstations, just like JF 17! So either they both carry:

2 x WVR missiles
2 x BVR missiles
2 x fuel tanks
(centerline is free)

or

2 x WVR missiles
4 x BVR missiles
1 x fuel tanks on the centerline

Actually J-10 does offer some advantage. JF-17's current block only carries 2 X BVR and 2 X WVR. 2 Under wing Wet stations are not BVR - WVR capable. Would be interesting to see if JF-17 Block 2 can achieve J-10's 4 X WVR.

 

[alimobin memon]

Actually J-10 does offer some advantage. JF-17's current block only carries 2 X BVR and 2 X WVR. 2 Under wing Wet stations are not BVR - WVR capable. Would be interesting to see if JF-17 Block 2 can achieve J-10's 4 X WVR.

We are not in war that jf17 carries 6 BVR or what bro, its a static display for consumers what it can carry. Tell me wouldn't that be awful to carry 2 BVR's for 4th gen fighter ?

 

[PakShaheen79]

We are not in war that jf17 carries 6 BVR or what bro, its a static display for consumers what it can carry. Tell me wouldn't that be awful to carry 2 BVR's for 4th gen fighter ?

They will only believe only when they will see a pic So, don't try to convince him. Let him remain in his world.