Replacing the F-16: Will Pakistan’s Top Fighter Squadron Transition to Chinese J-10Cs?

[dbc]

Why has China not inducted CFTs on their J10s

because delta canards are sensitive to centre of gravity, fuel sloshing about in conformal tanks increase the risk of departure from controlled flight. The Europeans have all but given up on the idea.

 

[SQ8]

because delta canards are sensitive to centre of gravity, fuel sloshing about in conformal tanks increase the risk of departure from controlled flight. The Europeans have all but given up on the idea.

So is any other aircraft built for instability - hence CG control is part of the flight control computer. The issue isn’t sensitivity to fuel sloshing about since it sloshed about in every tank its in but how far the CG is impacted from it. The Eurocanards have not abandoned it because of that reasons - the EF did not find takers for the CFT in terms of investment and availability of AAR. The same goes for the Rafale - for the Viper the issue was letting it carry more ordinance than range which is what the Israelis wanted(eventually the benefit of range also came into play). Longitudinal stability may not be the problem for the J-10 with CFT, it may be the lateral stability that was excessively impacted due to the way the CFTs were arranged. In addition, with plenty of J-11’s and J-16s on the way for longer range operations, there may be no operational requirement for development. @Deino and others can comment better.

 

[dbc]

So is any other aircraft built for instability - hence CG control is part of the flight control computer. The issue isn’t sensitivity to fuel sloshing about since it sloshed about in every tank its in but how far the CG is impacted from it. The Eurocanards have not abandoned it because of that reasons - the EF did not find takers for the CFT in terms of investment and availability of AAR. The same goes for the Rafale - for the Viper the issue was letting it carry more ordinance than range which is what the Israelis wanted(eventually the benefit of range also came into play). Longitudinal stability may not be the problem for the J-10 with CFT, it may be the lateral stability that was excessively impacted due to the way the CFTs were arranged. In addition, with plenty of J-11’s and J-16s on the way for longer range operations, there may be no operational requirement for development. @Deino and others can comment better.

In tail first designs, the FCS can't easily counter a sudden and dramatic shift in CG especially down the spine. Neither does the FCS extend the physical limits of control surfaces a phenomenon known as actuator saturation. Remember the delta canard or tail first design already has a tendency to pitch up in level flight countered by FCS and constant actuation of control surfaces particularly the canard resulting in increased drag and reduced range. The addition of conformal fuel tank disturbs the longitudinal stability of the aircraft worsening its pitch sensitivity to the point where the aircraft becomes difficulty to handle particularly fully loaded. The FCS can counter asymmetric load on the wing far more effectively than it can counter longitudinal dynamic shift in CG. Simulations and real world tests confirm the conformal tanks cause the CG to shift enough to the rear to cause the canard to stall before the wing resulting in departure conditions. Short of adding thrust vector there isn't any other way to fix the problem. But then TVC on a tail first design is another can of worms.

The French would love to incorporate conformal tanks and free up hard points for more weapons. But they haven't yet found a way to do it without compromising the carefree handling characteristics of the aircraft. Carrier landings and mid-air refueling currency is already much harder to achieve for the French compared to the Rhino driver, the difference is quite apparent when the French operate from our carriers.

 

[LegionnairE]

In tail first designs, the FCS can't easily counter a sudden and dramatic shift in CG especially down the spine. Neither does the FCS extend the physical limits of control surfaces a phenomenon known as actuator saturation. Remember the delta canard or tail first design already has a tendency to pitch up in level flight countered by FCS and constant actuation of control surfaces particularly the canard resulting in increased drag and reduced range. The addition of conformal fuel tank disturbs the longitudinal stability of the aircraft worsening its pitch sensitivity to the point where the aircraft becomes difficulty to handle particularly fully loaded. The FCS can counter asymmetric load on the wing far more effectively than it can counter longitudinal dynamic shift in CG. Simulations and real world tests confirm the conformal tanks cause the CG to shift enough to the rear to cause the canard to stall before the wing resulting in departure conditions. Short of adding thrust vector there isn't any other way to fix the problem. But then TVC on a tail first design is another can of worms.

The French would love to incorporate conformal tanks and free up hard points for more weapons. But they haven't yet found a way to do it without compromising the carefree handling characteristics of the aircraft. Carrier landings and mid-air refueling currency is already much harder to achieve for the French compared to the Rhino driver, the difference is quite apparent when the French operate from our carriers.

But the delta canards usually have more lift (therefore more payload capacity) and more hardpoints so this shouldn't be an issue right?

And the ability to get rid of your drop tanks is a great advantage in a merge as the CFTs will remain there adding mass and drag to your plane.

If I remember correctly this was why TurAF gave the CFT mounted Block 50+ planes to a couple of squadrons that usually do air-to-ground roles. Though I'm guessing due to India's geographical size, Pakistani air force would want both CFTs and drop tanks.

 

[SQ8]

In tail first designs, the FCS can't easily counter a sudden and dramatic shift in CG especially down the spine. Neither does the FCS extend the physical limits of control surfaces a phenomenon known as actuator saturation. Remember the delta canard or tail first design already has a tendency to pitch up in level flight countered by FCS and constant actuation of control surfaces particularly the canard resulting in increased drag and reduced range. The addition of conformal fuel tank disturbs the longitudinal stability of the aircraft worsening its pitch sensitivity to the point where the aircraft becomes difficulty to handle particularly fully loaded. The FCS can counter asymmetric load on the wing far more effectively than it can counter longitudinal dynamic shift in CG. Simulations and real world tests confirm the conformal tanks cause the CG to shift enough to the rear to cause the canard to stall before the wing resulting in departure conditions. Short of adding thrust vector there isn't any other way to fix the problem. But then TVC on a tail first design is another can of worms.

The French would love to incorporate conformal tanks and free up hard points for more weapons. But they haven't yet found a way to do it without compromising the carefree handling characteristics of the aircraft. Carrier landings and mid-air refueling currency is already much harder to achieve for the French compared to the Rhino driver, the difference is quite apparent when the French operate from our carriers.

Actuator saturation would entail if the maximum deflection is already achieved in modes of flight without CFT. I would be surprised that a close coupled in-plane design like the Rafale reached max deflection on a regular basis.
Either way, the FCS would know what control authority and limits to provide if an aircraft is fully loaded configuration. I understand carefree characteristics being compromised and even the viper can be put into a deep stall but that doesn’t mean the FCS doesn’t fight it all the way.
The “jittery” aspects you advise seem to reflect that of a non-fbw aircraft.

 

[MajesticPug]

true but j10 was not ready. was should have happened is had a few as a colab... just like j-7 became j-7p.

I kept reading Paks saying J10C not ready and it's better to get J35 and it's great to get JF-17 blk3, etc. First of all, why is it not ready when China is fielding a couple hunreds of these birds? China made small quantities in J10A using the Russian engines and some J10B. Then a greater number of J10B as W10B engines became mature. A J10B even demonstrated some of the hardest moves made by single engine jets -- cobra and falling leaves. PLAAF started fielding large quantities of J10C with the TVC-capable WS10B engines. J10C has demonstrated repeatedly it could take down the Russian Su-35 and in occasions even China's own J16's (J16 has a larger air frame that can host a more powerful AESA). J10C uses many of J20 techs including AESA, IRST, helmets, and missiles.
Here's something Pak friends should consider: Due to its airframe size, JF-17's AESA is underpowered compared to that of J10C and probably to F16V and Rafale's too. J10C is classified as a light but actually a mid-weight fighter. It could host a larger-diameter AESA radar than JF-17, F16V, and Rafale can.
Then another consideration: When will JF-17C be readY and fielded by the PAF? India already has enough Rafale's to take out PAF's older F16 and JF-17. Remember the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Armenia lost badly because its military techs were backwards compared to Azerbaijan's. In today's wars, if you go cheap on your techs, then forget about winning. This is especially true against an enemy superior in quantities.
Then the J35 ... China has not said J35 will be for export and Pak friends should not plan its PAF based on unrealistic hopes. As far as I see it, J35 will be deployed on aircraft carriers and their chief enemies will be Japan, US, Australia, and other Western countries. Last but not least, I do not think China wants to export J35 so its enemies could find out J35's capabilities. This is the same reason J16 and J20 will not be exported.

 

[MajesticPug]

Just asked in return:
Who told you all this? ... since when is the WS-10 not reliable or do you have data of TBF?
... and even more since when is "PAC now master of RD-93 engines"?
PAC would be master of RD-93 if they would manufacture, assemble and modify it on their on, but from my understanding they are doing nothing but putting pre-delivered Russian RD-93 into an airframe.

As such the term "even Block-03 have a better engine" is at best speculative and a very vague term, IMO highly questionable if not completely false.

I have a bit the feeling that you think Chinese types are at best second grade options for Pakistan and they should either ignore or wait for something better from Turkey!?

Anyway in comparison to the F-16C/D they are eventually indeed onyl second grade, but to portray the Block 3 a better aircraft than the J-10C - which is a more capable fighter in any way and built by the same manufactor - is a bit naive IMO!
Even more there won't come anything from Turkey ... at least not soon.




What!!

"Chinese engines in the testing phase"!?? ,... since 2009 NO J-11 has been built using an AL-31F and even if only recently J-10C and J-20 are using it, you can barely say they are still in testing with hundreds of Flanker in service and at least by my understanding they are not falling off the sky like Indian fighters. And by the way to your suggestion to better use Russian AL-31: In fact they are the main reason for J-10 crashes since years.

Well said, Deino. Heard enough of these Pak posters saying W10B not ready when J10B with WS10B demonstrated cobra and falling leaves, PLAAF skip Russian engines to field a couple hundred J10C with WS10B engines. Earlier J10's crashed because they used AL-31's.
Oh wait, they said PAF is waiting for J35 deliveries. Well, it's not going to happen. J35's will be deployed against the West's F35, F22, F15, F16, and possibly Rafale's in East Asia and in the oceans China's aircraft carriers sail. As such, China probably doesn't want to export J35 so other countries could find out its capabilities through India and countries that exercise with PAF. China could afford not to export J35.

 

[araz]

because delta canards are sensitive to centre of gravity, fuel sloshing about in conformal tanks increase the risk of departure from controlled flight. The Europeans have all but given up on the idea.

Thank you for your response. So what you are saying is that it may not be possible on the J10 but is it possible on the JFT? The advantages of 2 free HPs in a small fighter are perhaps too numerous to ignore
A

 

[White and Green with M/S]

I kept reading Paks saying J10C not ready and it's better to get J35 and it's great to get JF-17 blk3, etc. First of all, why is it not ready when China is fielding a couple hunreds of these birds? China made small quantities in J10A using the Russian engines and some J10B. Then a greater number of J10B as W10B engines became mature. A J10B even demonstrated some of the hardest moves made by single engine jets -- cobra and falling leaves. PLAAF started fielding large quantities of J10C with the TVC-capable WS10B engines. J10C has demonstrated repeatedly it could take down the Russian Su-35 and in occasions even China's own J16's (J16 has a larger air frame that can host a more powerful AESA). J10C uses many of J20 techs including AESA, IRST, helmets, and missiles.
Here's something Pak friends should consider: Due to its airframe size, JF-17's AESA is underpowered compared to that of J10C and probably to F16V and Rafale's too. J10C is classified as a light but actually a mid-weight fighter. It could host a larger-diameter AESA radar than JF-17, F16V, and Rafale can.
Then another consideration: When will JF-17C be readY and fielded by the PAF? India already has enough Rafale's to take out PAF's older F16 and JF-17. Remember the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Armenia lost badly because its military techs were backwards compared to Azerbaijan's. In today's wars, if you go cheap on your techs, then forget about winning. This is especially true against an enemy superior in quantities.
Then the J35 ... China has not said J35 will be for export and Pak friends should not plan its PAF based on unrealistic hopes. As far as I see it, J35 will be deployed on aircraft carriers and their chief enemies will be Japan, US, Australia, and other Western countries. Last but not least, I do not think China wants to export J35 so its enemies could find out J35's capabilities. This is the same reason J16 and J20 will not be exported.

welcome to the forum but you're new to the forum please do research before you post, JF17 block 3 has larger diameter AESA than Indian RAFALE, that's doesn't means Block3 has a more advance AESA than RAFALE, and J 10C/JF 17/ and RAFALE have a almost same dimensions (length wise) they almost have same diameter AESA on them, Few centimeter larger or smaller doesn't make one of them superior or inferior, and tactics against the enemy also matter

And J 35 is not ready either, it will have a first flight in later this year. we need a replacement of our aging mirages and J10C has capability to replace them

And another reason to not to export J 16 to other countries That IT IS BASED ON SOVIET/RUSSIAN DESIGN (Su 30MKK/MKK2), IN FACT ALL YOUR J 11 SERIES OF JETS BASED ON RUSSIAN DESIGN (FLANKER SERIES) HENCE THESE JETS CAN'T BE EXPORTED WITHOUT RUSSIAN APPROVAL (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF RUSSIA)

 

[Deino]

Thank you for your response. So what you are saying is that it may not be possible on the J10 but is it possible on the JFT? The advantages of 2 free HPs in a small fighter are perhaps too numerous to ignore
A

That might be correct, but another point was ignored so far: what does it cost to develop CFTs for the Block 3 And is Pakistan willing to pay for them alone?
How long will it take to develop, test and certify them for service?
Does the benefit for these - and IMO rather small CFTs - outweigh cost?

 

[MajesticPug]

welcome to the forum but you're new to the forum please do research before you post, JF17 block 3 has larger diameter AESA than Indian RAFALE, that's doesn't means Block3 has a more advance AESA than RAFALE, and J 10C/JF 17/ and RAFALE have a almost same dimensions (length wise) they almost have same diameter AESA on them, Few centimeter larger or smaller doesn't make one of them superior or inferior, and tactics against the enemy also matter

And J 35 is not ready either, it will have a first flight in later this year. we need a replacement of our aging mirages and J10C has capability to replace them

And another reason to not to export J 16 to other countries That IT IS BASED ON SOVIET/RUSSIAN DESIGN (Su 30MKK/MKK2), IN FACT ALL YOUR J 11 SERIES OF JETS BASED ON RUSSIAN DESIGN (FLANKER SERIES) HENCE THESE JETS CAN'T BE EXPORTED WITHOUT RUSSIAN APPROVAL (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF RUSSIA)

I thought it's a tacit gesture from China not to export any jets of Flanker design. But for replacing PAF's older jets and to counter India's Rafales, J10C should be imported until large quantity of JF-17C's can be fielded. My guess would be at least 2023 even if all the testings go smoothly. PAF needs only a squadron or two J10C to avoid the mistake made by Armenia. The alternative cost of losing a war is so, so much greater than two squadrons of J10C's.

 

[Signalian]

Lethality of F-16 comes from the EW pods it carries and BVR AMRAAM. If J-10C can match both these and offer more then it can compliment F-16.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

A renowned Chinese Defence Analysts is Claiming Pakistan will receive 50 J-10CE.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1413248582279368715

 

[dbc]

Thank you for your response. So what you are saying is that it may not be possible on the J10 but is it possible on the JFT? The advantages of 2 free HPs in a small fighter are perhaps too numerous to ignore
A

Not impossible but difficult conformal tanks on the the jF17 is far easier. There are similarities between the JF17 and Rhino F/A 18, Boeing was able to add conformal tanks in less than a year.

Yes of course, more hard points is always better.

 

[araz]

That might be correct, but another point was ignored so far: what does it cost to develop CFTs for the Block 3 And is Pakistan willing to pay for them alone?
How long will it take to develop, test and certify them for service?
Does the benefit for these - and IMO rather small CFTs - outweigh cost?

All worthy quedtions and tbe utility of it in the presence of IFR is/a big question mark. However @messiach a knowledgeable poster very long time ago mentioned that CFTs are being planned for JFTs. I guess future plans of aur forces remain fluid depending on cost and utility.
A