What's new

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

I would love to see CFT incorporated into future versions of the JF-17 or even J-10. This version could replace the Mirage 5 for long range strike missions and would provide the PAF a long range strike capability without the need to arial refueling.

Even having a few dozen of each jet with CFT to compliment the existing F-16 block C/D would be a huge force multiplier providing the PAF capabilities that only the Israeli Air force has in the region.
It seems like animportant topic to discuss. Why has China not inducted CFTs on their J10s. Ithink with a hefty fleet of twin engines and fifth generation coming online PLAAF has not felt the need for CFTs. Incase of PAF we may want them but do we want to pay for the developmental cost of them? The second question is whether the WS10 is powerful enough to support CFTs. I think there may be some issues on accou t of which we may not see CFTs on J10. If PAF wants they may think along the lines of incorporating CFTs when RD 93MA comes online.
I have however been salivating at the thought of J10 with AL41s incorporated for the extra punch. I guess that too will remain a dream.
A
 
. .
Need your expert opinion.
Q1- what do you mean by CFT ?
Q2- How will PAF defend ,if there is air attack from East by a dozen of Rafale fighters on Pakistan, ??
 
.
Who told you all this?
Sooner or later, Relations will be normalized. 2nd Turk AESA radar will be available near future, probably 2023. J-10C from avionics side is a great aircraft but its engine whether Ws-10 or Al-31 is not reliable.
3rd induction of new aircraft require complete new infrastructure and time which require money.
Why i did not mention weapons of J-10C because all weapons of J-10C and JF-17 block 3 are same. So no need to induct an additional Chinese aircraft.
Even Block-03 have a better engine, also PAC is now master of RD-93 engines.


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.


Need stable engine. Chinese engines in the testing phase. If Russian releases AL31 , then Pak should go right away without any delay.

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.
 
.
....

As early mentioned that JF-17bk-03 much more advance than J-10C (my opinion). It is a hybrid of J-10C and J-20.
It will have MAWS of J-10C and have the same weapon package of J-20, which even we did not see on J-10C.
Look at helmet of JF-17C which have closed resemblance to J-20. Which is 5th gen aircraft.


You are able to tell us that the helmet used in that tiny Block 3 image is exactly the one used by the J-10C and J-20?? ... and from this you conclude it is more advanced than the J-10C (which by the way uses this helmet + HMD since years) and is therefore almost a 5th generation fighter?
Even more you tell us the Block 3 WILL "have the same weapon package of J-20, which even we did not see on J-10C" and deliberately ignore that EXACTLY the J-20's weapon package - aka the PL-10 and PL-15 - is operational on PLAAF J-10Cs since years already?

So how could a fighter, that uses confirmed the same weapons package of the J-20 and confirmed the same systems like HUD, HMD and so on be worse than a smaller, lighter aircraft from the same manufactor than has - besides the PL-10E - none of the mentioned systems confirmed??
IMO it could be systemwise at best reach the same level since it then will use the same systems, but why it should be better is a twisted logic at best! :what:

@Akh1112
 
Last edited:
.
You are able to tell us that the helmet used in that tiny Block 3 image is exactly the one used by the J-10C and J-20?? ... and from this you conclude it is more advanced than the J-10C (which by the way uses this helmet + HMD since years - and is therefore almost a 5th generation fighter? Even more you tell us the Block 3 WILL "have the same weapon package of J-20, which even we did not see on J-10C" and forget that EXACTLY the J-20's weapon package - aka the PL-10 and PL-15 - is operational on PLAAF J-10Cs.

Not sure what a twisted logic is this!
Very Logical response, however respectfully, can you remove the emoji at the end ? it kinda a cheapens it.
 
.
It seems like animportant topic to discuss. Why has China not inducted CFTs on their J10s. Ithink with a hefty fleet of twin engines and fifth generation coming online PLAAF has not felt the need for CFTs. Incase of PAF we may want them but do we want to pay for the developmental cost of them? The second question is whether the WS10 is powerful enough to support CFTs. I think there may be some issues on accou t of which we may not see CFTs on J10. If PAF wants they may think along the lines of incorporating CFTs when RD 93MA comes online.
I have however been salivating at the thought of J10 with AL41s incorporated for the extra punch. I guess that too will remain a dream.
A

China has flankers and J-20s for long range sorties. J-10s fill the defense role and do not need them.
 
.
China has flankers and J-20s for long range sorties. J-10s fill the defense role and do not need them.
Birader.
You have not read my post. I have answered the query.If this was the only answer why would the US in the presence of the 15s and 18s put CFTs on the block 50/52s? I do think there may be a capability gap as well but then F6s had a gondola type tank so the issue is not as clear. It may have something to do with engine thrusts as well.
A
 
Last edited:
.
Birader.
You have not read my post. I have answered the query. If this was the only answer why would the US in the presence of the 15s and 18s put CFTs on the block 50/52s? I do think there may be a capability gap as well but then F6s had a gondola type tank so the issue is not as clear. It may have something to do with engine thrusts as well.

A
 
Last edited:
.
You are able to tell us that the helmet used in that tiny Block 3 image is exactly the one used by the J-10C and J-20?? ... and from this you conclude it is more advanced than the J-10C (which by the way uses this helmet + HMD since years) and is therefore almost a 5th generation fighter?
Even more you tell us the Block 3 WILL "have the same weapon package of J-20, which even we did not see on J-10C" and deliberately ignore that EXACTLY the J-20's weapon package - aka the PL-10 and PL-15 - is operational on PLAAF J-10Cs since years already?

So how could a fighter, that uses confirmed the same weapons package of the J-20 and confirmed the same systems like HUD, HMD and so on be worse than a smaller, lighter aircraft from the same manufactor than has - besides the PL-10E - none of the mentioned systems confirmed??
IMO it could be systemwise at best reach the same level since it then will use the same systems, but why it should be better is a twisted logic at best! :what:

@Akh1112

Deino, you're using rationality, logic, and facts...that's wasted on some people here.
 
.
You are able to tell us that the helmet used in that tiny Block 3 image is exactly the one used by the J-10C and J-20?? ... and from this you conclude it is more advanced than the J-10C (which by the way uses this helmet + HMD since years) and is therefore almost a 5th generation fighter?
Even more you tell us the Block 3 WILL "have the same weapon package of J-20, which even we did not see on J-10C" and deliberately ignore that EXACTLY the J-20's weapon package - aka the PL-10 and PL-15 - is operational on PLAAF J-10Cs since years already?

So how could a fighter, that uses confirmed the same weapons package of the J-20 and confirmed the same systems like HUD, HMD and so on be worse than a smaller, lighter aircraft from the same manufactor than has - besides the PL-10E - none of the mentioned systems confirmed??
IMO it could be systemwise at best reach the same level since it then will use the same systems, but why it should be better is a twisted logic at best! :what:

@Akh1112
JF-17bk-03 have same weapon package of J-10C,
Better and reliable RD-93MA engine,
Advance AESA radar.
And will have an HMD system.
Then why, we will choose same platform,
We need a platform which can counter Rafale
there are only three contenders which can compete them are F-16 bk72, EF-2000 Tranche 3 and J-20.
Dear sir, Pakistan AIr force 1st choice is F-16 bk72.
So please sell us J-20 rather than J-10C.
 
.
JF-17bk-03 have same weapon package of J-10C,
Better and reliable RD-93MA engine,
Advance AESA radar.
And will have an HMD system.
Then why, we will choose same platform,
We need a platform which can counter Rafale
there are only three contenders which can compete them are F-16 bk72, EF-2000 Tranche 3 and J-20.
Dear sir, Pakistan AIr force 1st choice is F-16 bk72.
So please sell us J-20 rather than J-10C.
J20 is not for export, offcourse PAF first choice will be F16 block 70, but depend if we got them and then number.
 
.
China has flankers and J-20s for long range sorties. J-10s fill the defense role and do not need them.

Exactly, but for the PAF a CFT designed J-10 would be very useful. Chinese do not need J-10s for long range strike mission yet they still are their with arial refueling capabilities.
 
.
so far we have put almost all available technology in Block3 ...seems it is now overloaded....even someone may wake up and claim it will have 6th gen system ...bas kar do ....
 
.
No, No, No ... :fie:

JF-17bk-03 have same weapon package of J-10C, ... eventually but none of your points make the Block 3 better than a J-10C
Better and reliable RD-93MA engine, ... highly questionable, IMO plain incorrect!
Advance AESA radar. ... yes, but the J-10C has an advanced AESA too and an even larger and eventually more powerful one
And will have an HMD system. ... yes, but the J-10C too
Then why, we will choose same platform, .... since the J-10C is a medium weight fighter like the Rafale with longer range and greater weapon capabilities
We need a platform which can counter Rafale ... that's correct
there are only three contenders which can compete them are F-16 bk72, EF-2000 Tranche 3 and J-20.
Dear sir, Pakistan AIr force 1st choice is F-16 bk72. ... maybe not impossible, but politically highly unlikely
So please sell us J-20 rather than J-10C. ... impossible, since NOT for sale


So in summary I corrected your post:

As such again, why should a barely visible "helmet mount sight system validate any point that the PAF does not need new Chinese fighter?
View attachment 757488View attachment 757489View attachment 757490
Based on all above, the JF-17bk-03 NOT much more advance than J-10C and in no way a hybrid of J-10C and J-20. Yes, it has MAWS ans like the J-10C the same weapon package of J-20, which has long been confirmed on J-10C. And even if the helmet of JF-17C resemblance the one of the J-20 it will never be a 5th gen aircraft.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom