Identifying 50 Issues with J-10A for PAF

[loanranger]

He made Jf-17 but his narrative does not matches the Air force .The truth is that F-16 shot down both the aircrafts.It is confirmed now but he still believes that Jf-17 shot down indian jets.

He's promoting the jet he made. It's a white lie.

 

[GumNaam]

If Pakistan still can get or buy F-16 from USA, J-10 wouldn't be chosen by PAF, no matter there are issues or not.

F16s were only stop gap until the JF17s became operational...JF17s are the cutting edge now, not the F16s.

 

[loanranger]

Abid has zero knowledge regarding air crafts. i remember when shahid latif told him about radar and bvr his expressions were unbelievable.

You just reminded me now of his signature pose while asking idiotic questions to Shahid Latif with his finger on his face. Once Shahid Latif was telling about JF-17 and abid asked like an absolute idiot "tou sir ap nay kabhi chalaya hai" and poor guy had to say sheepishly no....

 

[Trango Towers]

Shahid latif is immature person .He told that Jf-17 shot down Indian jets but later we found out that F-16 too the shorts .

Immature....as opposed to you. Seriously man. I know the guy personally and he is the most loyal guy put there. And served his country. You sit here moaning. Please do something for Pakistan. I would respect you even a small thing.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Ok. Two tweets were made yesterday by Alan Warnes

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181105100267372544

Then he asked ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181106138659659777

Now I think no one, except PAF, can answer all 50 issues he is referring to regarding PAF evaluating J-10A back in 2006-2008 but if we can have a serious debate can we unearth few of them here to understand better what PAF actually wanted from this plane and why it got rejected. Also, Is J-10C/CE has overcome those issues.

Everyone is welcome to participate.

Bcz American Technology is BETTER than Chineese one
F16s are better than J 10s

 

[NA71]

At One time, in not distinct past, declared officially that they are going to acquire FC-20 (J-10A) and now someone with credibility has revealed that there were some issues with that plane and history proved it correct as PAF didn't went for it while in the same time, our enemy kept acquiring MKIs and upgraded Mirages 2000, to me it does concern PAF. But that thing is apart, I want to have this discussion on more academic level to gauge the mindset of PAF with respect to acquiring new platform. We must not forget, EF-2000 and Rafale were also tested by PAF aroudn the same time period and J-10 happens to be only feasible jet with design similarities (despite being single engine against Twin engine EF-2000 and Rafale) but then PAF informed Chinese about it shortcomings... then we saw two iterations of J-10 (B and C model). To me everything is connected. I still believe that J-10CE can be best stopgap fighter along with Block-IIIs, till the arrival of Azm which is 15-20 years away from operational life ( that too if everything comes out as planned).

If all this is not concerned to PAF, I don't know what will ....

Our Think Tanks are still heavily obsessed with "16" ...in hope for more, we lost many opportunities. And the cycle continues.

In other forum, it is being actively discussed by many seniors of PDF (including MK)...the decision on on J10C is about to be made ....

 

[khanasifm]

Ok. Two tweets were made yesterday by Alan Warnes

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181105100267372544

Then he asked ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181106138659659777

Now I think no one, except PAF, can answer all 50 issues he is referring to regarding PAF evaluating J-10A back in 2006-2008 but if we can have a serious debate can we unearth few of them here to understand better what PAF actually wanted from this plane and why it got rejected. Also, Is J-10C/CE has overcome those issues.

Everyone is welcome to participate.

One of last acm in an interview had mention better range, I am assuming he was comparing to jf and f-16

Current Boucher from avic states ferry range 50 miles less then jf 2950 vs 3000 km which is all internal and external fuel load range

Load and number of station a are greater then jf but without range no use

Also nose of jf and j-10 has not much difference, the size of radar would also be not much differ ?? Guessing

 

[messiach]

I am not aware of '50 issues'. This is something new to me. We had committed and spend money, time and effort, why would be now walk-off the project and go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with J10.

Ok. Two tweets were made yesterday by Alan Warnes

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181105100267372544

Then he asked ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181106138659659777

Now I think no one, except PAF, can answer all 50 issues he is referring to regarding PAF evaluating J-10A back in 2006-2008 but if we can have a serious debate can we unearth few of them here to understand better what PAF actually wanted from this plane and why it got rejected. Also, Is J-10C/CE has overcome those issues.

Everyone is welcome to participate.

 

[SQ8]

I am not aware of '50 issues'. This is something new to me. We had committed and spend money, time and effort, why would be now walk-off the project and go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with J10.

not the original fighter. We spent considerable time requesting changes to the aircraft before we would accept it - much as we did with the F-7.

That input reflected onto the changes in the J-10B MMI and sub-systems. our efforts however were of little RoI to us.


I believe 50 here is a figure of speech however .

 

[PakShaheen79]

I am not aware of '50 issues'. This is something new to me. We had committed and spend money, time and effort, why would be now walk-off the project and go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with J10.

not the original fighter. We spent considerable time requesting changes to the aircraft before we would accept it - much as we did with the F-7.

That input reflected onto the changes in the J-10B MMI and sub-systems. our efforts however were of little RoI to us.


I believe 50 here is a figure of speech however .

It is all new to me as well. That's why made this thread.
If we made requests for improvement, why PAF didn't go for it despite the fact that J-10 now has own engine, AESA, Sensors etc. nothing Russian anymore. J-10C ... called "Standard" version is out there? F-16s are one explanation but it is little hard for me to digest that PAF put all the hopes on F-16's availability fully knowing the growing threat across the border. And more importantly, now when it has standardized, Is PAF going to get it as stopgap fighter / replacement of Mirages etc?

Sir Oscar! You brought F-7 and possibility that 50 might be figure of speech; now if we look at J-7 and F-7PGs, I remember reading somewhere that both has more than 100 improvements between them. But the best thing would be to ask Alan if it was a figure of speech or if he is aware of exact number of changes PAF wanted in J-10. I am also monitoring Gen. Bajwa's meeting with Chinese military high command. We saw him sitting in J-10C and we also heard rumors that PLAAF was not very forth coming as far as export of J-10C to PAF considering US threats as J-10 serves as mainstay fighter in PLAAF. Let's wait and see ...

 

[GriffinsRule]

The changes could be small and 50 might not be entirely out of the norm. Changes to the cockpit ergonomics alone could lead to a dozen or so. Right off the bat, I think the PAF would have said no to the patch up job the Chinese did with strengthening the older intake by adding additional ribs on the outside. Engine would be another issue as mentioned, along with perhaps a more robust FBW? There were a lot of crashes of J-10 in the early years and we dont really know the reasons behind them, but maybe there were issues with engine integration or in certain flight regimes. BTW, I think J-10 was the first FBW jet for the Chinese so it must have been a learning curve for them. I can think that the early radar was perhaps missing modes that PAF would have liked as well and maybe issues with Chinese ECM/EW gear. We are using European ones on the Thunder as well. Ejection seat is another obvious one.

Regardless of what was found lacking, PAF opted not to buy a fighter that was going to be on par with what we were planning to build ourselves, and that makes total sense to me. On the other hand, the F-16s bought capabilities to the PAF ten years ago that the J-10 still does not have (nor the Thunder) and that is in the ISR and EW domain. So it was love affair with capability it offered and not the machine in of itself as some people here like to repeat mindlessly. Any sane person would have gone the F-16 route as well (that includes putting the fleet through MLU)

 

[Aamir Hussain]

We should have this discussion as it gives us a fair idea what is going to happen next. I am sure and based upon history, this aircraft will be inducted at some point in time. PAF had evaluated both F6 (F6 was rushed into service and changes were made during its service in PAF) & F7 and suggested changes. If I remember it correctly 28 changes were incorporated in the later versions of F-7 that were pointed out by PAF.


IMHO following points can be start of a discussion on the J-10:


1. Engine thrust (Thrust to weight ratio)

2. Origin of the engine

3. Full FBW

4. Radar (AESA, Range, simultaneous Multi Track and Engagement envelope etc.)

5. Helmet Mounted Sights

6. Onboard Flight Computer

7. Cockpit ergonomics

8. Number of Hard points

9. Range

10. Weight

11. Modular Approach or lack of it

12. Ease of engine maint. & Supply of spares and new engines etc.

13. Weapons load out


Please do keep in mind that this a/c would have been evaluated keeping in mind Block 52 performances by PAF.


I think PLAAF would have also wanted it to be evaluated vs block 52. That is to their advantage.


I believe, engine has and is the biggest short-coming, HMCS/slaving, and Radar Capability (Not just the range for scan but other parameters as well)


My 2C worth!

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Shahid latif is immature person .He told that Jf-17 shot down Indian jets but later we found out that F-16 too the shorts .

My dear just because of one mis information you are putting his all carrier and experience on knife. Its not fair IMHO

 

[GriffinsRule]

We should have this discussion as it gives us a fair idea what is going to happen next. I am sure and based upon history, this aircraft will be inducted at some point in time. PAF had evaluated both F6 (F6 was rushed into service and changes were made during its service in PAF) & F7 and suggested changes. If I remember it correctly 28 changes were incorporated in the later versions of F-7 that were pointed out by PAF.


IMHO following points can be start of a discussion on the J-10:


1. Engine thrust (Thrust to weight ratio)

2. Origin of the engine

3. Full FBW

4. Radar (AESA, Range, simultaneous Multi Track and Engagement envelope etc.)

5. Helmet Mounted Sights

6. Onboard Flight Computer

7. Cockpit ergonomics

8. Number of Hard points

9. Range

10. Weight

11. Modular Approach or lack of it

12. Ease of engine maint. & Supply of spares and new engines etc.

13. Weapons load out


Please do keep in mind that this a/c would have been evaluated keeping in mind Block 52 performances by PAF.


I think PLAAF would have also wanted it to be evaluated vs block 52. That is to their advantage.


I believe, engine has and is the biggest short-coming, HMCS/slaving, and Radar Capability (Not just the range for scan but other parameters as well)


My 2C worth!

Add to that what was mentioned in the interview ... universal software for weapons or any other system integration. I am guessing, with the J-10, PAF could not swap out Chinese equipment with Western counterparts.

 

[alimobin memon]

As a Pakistani, let me tell you with full confidence and faith in terms of PAF that it was PAF whose evaluation made Chinese make new variants and overcome issues with J 10 especially. Pretty sure it was thoroughly evaluated and PAF helped resolve issues with it. Later with JF17 getting matured. PAF instead started working on Azm project.