PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[Corax]

J-10 isn't optimized for ground strike roles till now by PLAAF. I thinks it's mainly employed by PLAAF as an interceptor with some multirole capabilities. Because PLAAF has a lot of flankers and dedicated fighter bombers to do that task. JF-17 is better optimized for multirole capabilities than the J-10. But it could all change when it comes into the hands of the PAF.

PAF would love to explore the capabilities of the J-10C platform which it couldn't fulfill by the JF-17, like Air Launched Cruise Missile etc. The induction of J-10C would make our obsolete Mirages completely redundant and they could be easily retired/replaced in the future with no compromises in the capabilities. Same would be the case with the F-16s, they would be dethroned by the J-10CP in the PAF's inventory as a premium fighter jet. And would made the F-16s redundant as well, so less reliant on the US supply chain. I am in no intention to degrade or belittle any of the platforms, they are all top notch in their own right.

Yes, I've said exactly the same thing. The PLAAF don't use the J-10C in strike because they have Flanker variants and strategic bombers. I was referring to the actual design of the aircraft - high internal fuel fraction and relatively large delta wing for load carrying capability. As I've mentioned previously, given the PAF can't upgrade Vipers with SOWS, the J-10C provides a readily capable and easy medium weight platform in lieu of the Vipers to take on the strike role, and eventually replace the Mirages. The PAF shouldn't have any issues such as adding local SOWS (RAAD, REK, etc) as well as potentially the AselPod from Turkey, in addition to AShM and other Chinese SOWS.

 

[The Terminator]

For 6 bvr , the two chin mounted pylons have to be used . Any additional ones will have to take up "wet " pylons I e . Have to put dual racks on fuel tank pylons

Picture source serenity, translated by vi-va. Both the members here.

It shows 6 BVRs, 2 short range, and one centerline fuel tank

 

[The Terminator]

6+2=8. If u use the inner wing stations ( usually occupied by external fuel tanks) then add 4. Total is 12 .

How have you calculated 12? Can you elaborate a bit! Or a graphical representation would be even better

 

[Talon]

So Tail Choppers and Saf Shikkan (previously Cobras) assets would relocate to Rafiqui, opening up two squadron slots at Minhas.That means both J-10 squadrons would be based at Kamra.About right??

Tail Choppers moved to Rafiqui more than a year ago

 

[tphuang]

bless you man.
I was just going to write that last bit.
how would PAF verify J10 capability and its integration in its doctrine without putting it against airforce other than China?

There is a huge difference between flying J-10C against a couple of non-NATO or Turkish air forces vs what you were proposing. What level of access to you think America would demand in return for essentially giving upgraded F-16Vs to Pakistan for very little? In terms of radar signature, even ROCAF can provide the basic radar signature data to USAF since they see J-10C flying by on a weekly basis. USAF does not need to exercise with J-10C to get that information. NATO countries would want to know things like the strength weaknesses in its radar or EW suite. The actual capabilities of PL-10 and PL-15. All these are things that are entirely relevant to not J-10C but also J-20.

China is not Russia. It doesn't need the export sales to prop up its defense industry. It's exporting basically the same version of J-10C that PLAAF uses to PAF due to long standing relationship with Pakistan. There are a lot of people inside PLA with long standing ties to Pakistani military. Just look at how quickly this deal came together and the aircraft got delivered to PAF. If Pakistan views its relationship with China/PLA as purely transactional, then this is hugely problematic for the future ties between the two countries.

 

[The Terminator]

Yes, I've said exactly the same thing. The PLAAF don't use the J-10C in strike because they have Flanker variants and strategic bombers. I was referring to the actual design of the aircraft - high internal fuel fraction and relatively large delta wing for load carrying capability. As I've mentioned previously, given the PAF can't upgrade Vipers with SOWS, the J-10C provides a readily capable and easy medium weight platform in lieu of the Vipers to take on the strike role, and eventually replace the Mirages. The PAF shouldn't have any issues such as adding local SOWS (RAAD, REK, etc) as well as potentially the AselPod from Turkey, in addition to AShM and other Chinese SOWS.

We own the source code of JF-17 thunder, but not sure how much we can do with the J-10C especially when it comes to the third party suppliers like Aselsan for example. If both the Chinese and Turks agree to mutually cooperate to equip J-10CP then it's quite possible to do so.

 

[The Terminator]

There is a huge difference between flying J-10C against a couple of non-NATO or Turkish air forces vs what you were proposing. What level of access to you think America would demand in return for essentially giving upgraded F-16Vs to Pakistan for very little? In terms of radar signature, even ROCAF can provide the basic radar signature data to USAF since they see J-10C flying by on a weekly basis. USAF does not need to exercise with J-10C to get that information. NATO countries would want to know things like the strength weaknesses in its radar or EW suite. The actual capabilities of PL-10 and PL-15. All these are things that are entirely relevant to not J-10C but also J-20.

China is not Russia. It doesn't need the export sales to prop up its defense industry. It's exporting basically the same version of J-10C that PLAAF uses to PAF due to long standing relationship with Pakistan. There are a lot of people inside PLA with long standing ties to Pakistani military. Just look at how quickly this deal came together and the aircraft got delivered to PAF. If Pakistan views its relationship with China/PLA as purely transactional, then this is hugely problematic for the future ties between the two countries.

Can't agree more. And no, PAK-China ties had never been transactional. They are more than strategic partnership and brotherly neighborhood. A bromance you might call it.

 

[Engima Chaudhry]

How have you calculated 12? Can you elaborate by putting dual racks on

How have you calculated 12? Can you elaborate a bit! Or a graphical representation would be even better

View attachment 821322

Picture source serenity, translated by vi-va. Both the members here.

It shows 6 BVRs, 2 short range, and one centerline fuel tank

I just counted the bvr in the last line of the graph u shared. There it shows two bvrs together, signifying dual rack.
It totales to 12, including 2 wvrs
Regards

View attachment 821322

Picture source serenity, translated by vi-va. Both the members here.

It shows 6 BVRs, 2 short range, and one centerline fuel tank

In this graph . The last line on the bottom right depiction.
I can't share any pics ,( don't know how),

I just counted the bvr in the last line of the graph u shared. There it shows two bvrs together, signifying dual rack.
It totales to 12, including 2 wvrs
Regards


In this graph . The last line on the bottom right depiction.
I can't share any pics ,( don't know how),

Hope that suffices?

 

[Zarvan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1500382687399661572

 

[Rafi]

There is a huge difference between flying J-10C against a couple of non-NATO or Turkish air forces vs what you were proposing. What level of access to you think America would demand in return for essentially giving upgraded F-16Vs to Pakistan for very little? In terms of radar signature, even ROCAF can provide the basic radar signature data to USAF since they see J-10C flying by on a weekly basis. USAF does not need to exercise with J-10C to get that information. NATO countries would want to know things like the strength weaknesses in its radar or EW suite. The actual capabilities of PL-10 and PL-15. All these are things that are entirely relevant to not J-10C but also J-20.

China is not Russia. It doesn't need the export sales to prop up its defense industry. It's exporting basically the same version of J-10C that PLAAF uses to PAF due to long standing relationship with Pakistan. There are a lot of people inside PLA with long standing ties to Pakistani military. Just look at how quickly this deal came together and the aircraft got delivered to PAF. If Pakistan views its relationship with China/PLA as purely transactional, then this is hugely problematic for the future ties between the two countries.

I can tell you for sure, that the PAF would NEVER compromise on Chinese OPSEC requests, the Pak-China relationship is far too important for us, to be damaged in any way.

Everybody needs to calm down.

 

[SD 10]

There is a huge difference between flying J-10C against a couple of non-NATO or Turkish air forces vs what you were proposing. What level of access to you think America would demand in return for essentially giving upgraded F-16Vs to Pakistan for very little? In terms of radar signature, even ROCAF can provide the basic radar signature data to USAF since they see J-10C flying by on a weekly basis. USAF does not need to exercise with J-10C to get that information. NATO countries would want to know things like the strength weaknesses in its radar or EW suite. The actual capabilities of PL-10 and PL-15. All these are things that are entirely relevant to not J-10C but also J-20.

China is not Russia. It doesn't need the export sales to prop up its defense industry. It's exporting basically the same version of J-10C that PLAAF uses to PAF due to long standing relationship with Pakistan. There are a lot of people inside PLA with long standing ties to Pakistani military. Just look at how quickly this deal came together and the aircraft got delivered to PAF. If Pakistan views its relationship with China/PLA as purely transactional, then this is hugely problematic for the future ties between the two countries.

The days of US dictating Pakistan is gone but some people just cant live with it, they are in love with the west and calling west out is a blasphemy in their opinion, best not reply these people, as their sole purpose is to derail the entire thread with their mental masturbation!!!!!

 

[TopGun786]

A very informative video about J10

 

[Deino]

I think so.
@Deino

In theory yes, but I must admit, I haven't see any J-10 carrying any AAm on the inner station.

A question @Deino
F-35 can carry 14 BVR missiles
F-15 can carry 14 BVR missiles
F/A-18 super Hornet can carry 10 BVRs
F/A-18 Hornet can carry 8 BVRs
How many J-10 can carry only 4 ?View attachment 821310

It seems, the mosta realistic load is 6

6+2=8. If u use the inner wing stations ( usually occupied by external fuel tanks) then add 4. Total is 12 .

Not sure how to come to 12. Only the other wing stations are wired for PL-10, the center wing stations for 4 AAMs on twin-launcher and again, the inner wing stations have never been seen carrying AAMs. And please forget the fuselage hardpoints, they cannot carry AAMs.

As such the number is 6, not less but also not more.

 

[The Terminator]

I just counted the bvr in the last line of the graph u shared. There it shows two bvrs together, signifying dual rack.
It totales to 12, including 2 wvrs
Regards


In this graph . The last line on the bottom right depiction.
I can't share any pics ,( don't know how),

View attachment 821342


Hope that suffices?

I can't read Chinese but pretty much sure those rows show different possible options of the load out but shouldn't be added up to reach a humongous grand total like that.

@Deino

 

[Deino]

I can't read Chinese but pretty much sure those rows show different possible options of the load out but shouldn't be added up to reach a humongous grand total like that.

@Deino

Just see my reply above your post