J-10 might not needed as they don't add anything to PAF's capability

[MastanKhan]

Has to be a stealth aircraft to be able to strike and come back.
.

Hi,

No---it does not have to be stealth---.

It is better to ask---.

The first lesson I learnt in engineering school in the U S---. When working on a car or machinery---keep a owners manual handy---rather than assuming---open the owners manual---if you don't know something---ask---it is better to ask---the more times you ask---the more things you will learn---then the more things you will be able to tell others.

Heres the problem fighters like the JF-17 and J-10 are like experiments. the F-16 isn't its a proven commodity. china can come out with planes that look nice but when you turn on the engine the story may not be so great. Theres a goddamn reason why China has been reverse engineering Sukhois for almost 20+ years, the J-20 might turn out like a hell of aircraft so might the J-10C but if your a customer you want a certainty that this airoplane will do the job. thats why countries would prefer western/russian equipment as it provides that reassurance. (this is the reason why the JF-17 hasn't been doing so great on the international market).
having both JF-17 and J-10 is a big risk. J-10 has yet to fielded in combat to garner how good they actually are. its only in a war time scanario you realize deficiencies in your weapons systems so its always a risk having unproven weapons systems then proven ones. In the current operations against the terrorists i sure as hell wouldnt be shocked if PAF found deficiencies which are now currently trying to be address in the form of targetting pods, loitering capabilities etc in the JF-17, this is the reason why PAF would rather go on and buy second hand F-16s rather then something Chinese. its like buying laptops or phones you'd rather go for an apple or samsung phone rather then huawei

Hi,

All deployed fighter aircraft are " proven "---the process of flight---weapons---pilot integration that they go thru for many a years---that is called proving--.

All these aircraft are put thru their paces----the real air battle paces in these excercizes---not once---not twice---not thrice---but every day---every other day---.

When the pilot takes off on his mission---he is simulating some kind of battle condition---you train so hard---that when the time for battle arrives---you transition into it smoothly---just like your everyday routine---but this time the bullets are real---.

The aircraft has already been set thru its paces---the aircraft does not have any problems---it is already tested---it is the PILOT that may have issues---.

The problem is always with the PILOT---if he is a PROVEN commodity or not.

 

[Signalian]

Hi,

No---it does not have to be stealth---.

It is better to ask---.

The first lesson I learnt in engineering school in the U S---. When working on a car or machinery---keep a owners manual handy---rather than assuming---open the owners manual---if you don't know something---ask---it is better to ask---the more times you ask---the more things you will learn---the more things you will learn---then the more things you will be able to tell others.

ask what

 

[Tipu7]

I beg to differ with you based on 2 points
1. Russian/Chinese Air force and doctrine are based on SU series having similar kind
2. RD93 VS AL31 (IF PAF is happy with smokey engine whats the problem with AL31)

It will be only fair for this discussion to end logically if some one can differentiate between the two

I am talking from PAF perspective.
RD93 is stop gap, it's cheap engine and comparatively less maintenance prone compared to AL31 series.
And we are moving ahead to replace RD93 with better RD33MK single jet version (which probably will be called RD93MK).
Thus there is absolutely no need to induct a new air craft with completely different engine which has history of failures in air.
So nope, J10 is not a valid option for PAF untill war broke out ....

 

[Syed_Adeel]

I am talking from PAF perspective.
RD93 is stop gap, it's cheap engine and comparatively less maintenance prone compared to AL31 series.
And we are moving ahead to replace RD93 with better RD33MK single jet version (which probably will be called RD93MK).
Thus there is absolutely no need to induct a new air craft with completely different engine which has history of failures in air.
So nope, J10 is not a valid option for PAF untill war broke out ....

This is sane approach keeping in mind the economic perspective.
What about the chinese engine in j10 ?
i think thats the main reason that PAF is going after used f16s because f16s are reliable, tried and tested platforms and PAF has extensive experience as well as mature infrastructure and proven concepts for the aircraft.

 

[Viper0011.]

This is sane approach keeping in mind the economic perspective.
What about the chinese engine in j10 ?
i think thats the main reason that PAF is going after used f16s because f16s are reliable, tried and tested platforms and PAF has extensive experience as well as mature infrastructure and proven concepts for the aircraft.

As much as I would like to see the PAF get more and moreF-16's, its time to add another plane to the Hi. Ever wasted day will take that much longer to sign a contract and then get the new platform and then train pilots. Time to let the F-16 be the second top aircraft. Not the ONLY top aircraft in the PAF.

@MastanKhan : I am sure you'd like to add something here

 

[Tipu7]

This is sane approach keeping in mind the economic perspective.
What about the chinese engine in j10 ?
i think thats the main reason that PAF is going after used f16s because f16s are reliable, tried and tested platforms and PAF has extensive experience as well as mature infrastructure and proven concepts for the aircraft.

Chinese engines, be it WS10 or WS13 are not mature. It's risky to rely up in them. Since China is in initial stages of jet engine development so it's wise to assume that their engines right now lags behind their Western & Russian counterparts in capability, safety and reliability.......

 

[New World]

no point arguing with a joke like you lol when you cant even read the full post.

Joke, you are calling jets that are based on combat jet proven and are in service almost a decade..

 

[volatile]

So nope, J10 is not a valid option for PAF untill war broke out ....

If some how i agree to your comments but this is some thing which breaks the argument and any points you have made ,In war PAF is looking for some thing which will be prone to accidents ? as per your arguments similarly RD93 who says its less maintenance incentive than AL series ,both engines have computer diagnostic panels both are plug and play and AL taking the lead by employing it self to bigger platforms ,If RD series was that good it would have taken up at least some of the SU series .So your arguments are not valid there must be other reasons too ,Also if J10 is inducted in peace time then it will sere our doctrine more by employing training and tactics

 

[Tipu7]

If some how i agree to your comments but this is some thing which breaks the argument and any points you have made ,In war PAF is looking for some thing which will be prone to accidents ?

In war you will need J10 as stop gap, an urgent solution which fill up number of air craft losses and still provide you credible capability to hit enemy air force and ground units. Its not long term package.

similarly RD93 who says its less maintenance incentive than AL series ,both engines have computer diagnostic panels both are plug and play and AL taking the lead by employing it self to bigger platforms ,If RD series was that good it would have taken up at least some of the SU series

You are comparing two very different engines. For PAF RD93 is less maintenance prone as we have necessary experience with engine and this is reason we will be updating our fleet with better version of RD series not AL series.
And if you want to compare the competency of both engines, have a look at engine failure incidents of Su30 in IAF (34 in past three years) and J10 crashes (nearly dozen in past 5 years).

,If RD series was that good it would have taken up at least some of the SU series

Can you power up your Truck with car engine?
AL series engine do not fit in JFT fuselage. and this is ENOUGH reason to stay away from this engine.

,Also if J10 is inducted in peace time then it will sere our doctrine more by employing training and tactics

For example? what ''new'' training and tactics you want to learn from it? When you already have developed better tactics and operate better air crafts?
Your Blk3 is going to be superior than even J10B, and unlike 36 J10b you can induct them in large numbers.

 

[happybirthdaytoyou]

https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/tag/j-10c/

This is an interesting article

 

[volatile]

In war you will need J10 as stop gap, an urgent solution which fill up number of air craft losses and still provide you credible capability to hit enemy air force and ground units. Its not long term package.

All our strategies are stop gap ,RD engine stop gap ,J10 stop gap ? Any long term policy for PAF are we so rich country?

You are comparing two very different engines. For PAF RD93 is less maintenance prone as we have necessary experience with engine and this is reason we will be updating our fleet with better version of RD series not AL series.
And if you want to compare the competency of both engines, have a look at engine failure incidents of Su30 in IAF (34 in past three years) and J10 crashes (nearly dozen in past 5 years).

Yes with RD the more older ones so AL being newer one should be better than RD series .

Can you power up your Truck with car engine?
AL series engine do not fit in JFT fuselage. and this is ENOUGH reason to stay away from this engine.

Mig series uses RD series lets compare there heavies

For example? what ''new'' training and tactics you want to learn from it? When you already have developed better tactics and operate better air crafts?
Your Blk3 is going to be superior than even J10B, and unlike 36 J10b you can induct them in large numbers.

You misses fundamentally net centricity concept ,its not a lone rider war any more ,Combat commander school tactics

 

[Tipu7]

All our strategies are stop gap ,RD engine stop gap ,J10 stop gap ? Any long term policy for PAF are we so rich country?

I mentioned a possibility. Not a solid decision.

Yes with RD the more older ones so AL being newer one should be better than RD series .

Mig series uses RD series lets compare there heavies

You misses fundamentally net centricity concept ,its not a lone rider war any more ,Combat commander school tactics

Say what?

 

[thrilainmanila]

Joke, you are calling jets that are based on combat jet proven and are in service almost a decade..

you have some kind of learning impairment. a 10 year old kid can understand what i'm saying. China is new to 4th generation aircraft technology DO YOU UNDERSTAND. J-10 is there first plane and they haven't mass produced them to the same extent as the flankers. F-16 is a proven comodity its been flying for 40+ Years and has evolved. J-10 is an untested platform in this regard so is the JF-17 just because both aircraft are flying in skies does not make them proven even LCA is flying in the sky does that make it combat proven? having 2 platforms that are untested in combat is 2 much of a risk especially when its from a country that is NEW to making 4th generation fighter tech.

 

[MastanKhan]

I am talking from PAF perspective.
RD93 is stop gap, it's cheap engine and comparatively less maintenance prone compared to AL31 series.
And we are moving ahead to replace RD93 with better RD33MK single jet version (which probably will be called RD93MK).
Thus there is absolutely no need to induct a new air craft with completely different engine which has history of failures in air.
So nope, J10 is not a valid option for PAF untill war broke out ....

Sir,

What a strange post---.

What do you mean RD93 is a cheap engine---.

So war breaks out and then you want to get J10---.

You kids write without thinking. You think pilots jump into a new aircraft and point their nose at the enemy and start fighting air battle.

" Time factor and integration " has been discussed to death over here---and still this post.

In war you will need J10 as stop gap, an urgent solution which fill up number of air craft losses and still provide you credible capability to hit enemy air force and ground units. Its not long term package.



And if you want to compare the competency of both engines, have a look at engine failure incidents of Su30 in IAF (34 in past three years) and J10 crashes (nearly dozen in past 5 years).




Can you power up your Truck with car engine?
AL series engine do not fit in JFT fuselage. and this is ENOUGH reason to stay away from this engine.



For example? what ''new'' training and tactics you want to learn from it? When you already have developed better tactics and operate better air crafts?
Your Blk3 is going to be superior than even J10B, and unlike 36 J10b you can induct them in large numbers.

7 crashes in 1980----15 in 1981---22 in 1982--and on and on and on----23 in 1983---22 in 1984---21 in 1985---26 in 1986---23 in 1987---31 in 1988---34 in 1989----28 in 1990

This is the number of crashes for the F16's---here is the link

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/

Is their a limit to you kids stupidity---learning disability and understanding---

255 crashes / accidents in the first 11 years.

Instead of taking the thought process and learning to the next level up---you kids bring it down a couple of notches.

I clicke further---

and 41 crashes in 1991 ( a couple in iraq war )----37 in 92---38 crashed 1993---28 in 1994---30 in 1995---20 in 1996---31 in 1997---25 in 1998----28 in 1999---26 in 2000----21 in 2001

335 crashed / accidents in the 2nd 10 years.

@Tipu7

Young man---when you don't do your homework---and careless and callous in your approach---and have no clue about major weapons systems---that is when you post these stupid posts that you are posting---.

Rather than being mad---step back---re-assess---read and understand---re-align your thinking---to be a better knowledgeable poster.

590 F16's crashed during the first 20 years fro 1981---2001

 

[New World]

China is new to 4th generation aircraft technology DO YOU UNDERSTAND.

So was America when we bought F-16 in 80's..

J-10 is there first plane and they haven't mass produced them to the same extent as the flankers.

what do you mean by mass produced?
260 of J-10A were in service as of Feb-2014 and unknown no. of J-10B are produced.
J-10's design is based on F-16 which is proven aircraft now.

F-16 is a proven comodity its been flying for 40+ Years and has evolved.

when we bought F-16, it was untested in war, and we are the 2nd nation of the world which used F-16 in war and made wonderful kill with it.

J-10 is an untested platform in this regard so is the JF-17 just because both aircraft are flying in skies does not make them proven

if that is what you say than, Rafale, Euro Typhoon and JS-39 are also untested platform, because they just drop bomb in Libya without any air or SAM resistance..