PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[dbc]

Based on what reference or proof?

I said suspect, I don't have any proof. I do know the M88 is reliable based on ECMS data with an impressive 'O' hours between TBO. I can't say the same about the WS-10 - there is no data, our Chinese members indicate it doesn't approach Russian levels of reliability thus far.

 

[Great Janjua]

I said suspect, I don't have any proof. I do know the M88 is reliable based on ECMS data with an impressive 'O' hours between TBO. I can't say the same about the WS-10 - there is no data, and our Chinese members indicate it doesn't approach Russian levels of reliability thus far.

What a joke the j-10 is a frontline Chinese fighter that should tell you enough China already has incorporated many indigenous parts in their Sukhoi copies if the ws-10 engine was that bad you wouldn't see china using them and certainly not PAF.

Technological advancement is not limited to certain western countries anymore it's the modern age wake-up.

 

[dbc]

the last report hasn’t been kind to availability
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-aircraft-availability-on-long-downward-trend-cbo-says/

Unless you have some other “inside” sources - thats from CBO.

“For a more granular look, the CBO examined the F-15C/D and F-16C/D and found that their availability declined from just under 70 percent for both aircraft in 2000 to about 55 percent for the F-16 in 2020, while the F-15 came in about 45 percent.”

Unless the IAF operate F-16s or F-15s I'm not sure what I'm to make of your post? True, operational units may rotate some aircraft into storage but that's a budgetary exercise. With a bulk of the training now done on realistic DIS multi force simulator some wings choose to deprioritize flight hours and use the money for something else. The CBO report is not a true reflection of ground realities.

 

[SQ8]

Unless the IAF operate F-16s or F-15s I'm not sure what I'm to make of your post? True, operational units may rotate some aircraft into storage but that's a budgetary exercise. With a bulk of the training now done on realistic DIS multi force simulator some wings choose to deprioritize flight hours and use the money for something else. The CBO report is not a true reflection of ground realities.

You mentioned availability as a metric with an incorrect figure which I corrected and now made a tangent so frankly I’m not sure what to make of your post. Training is tangential to aircraft availability for combat operations - you aren’t using a DIS simulator when deploying units to a combat theatre . Flight HOURS aren’t the metric here - availability is. If the availability is 75% for 100 aircraft its 75 aircraft available for getting off the ground and into a fight.

Whether you put pilots with 50/50 sim/real flight hours or 80/20 mix is irrelevant to the aircraft being available.

There’s drinking your own kool-aid and there’s calling Dortioes Kool Aid to try and prove a point.

I said suspect, I don't have any proof. I do know the M88 is reliable based on ECMS data with an impressive 'O' hours between TBO. I can't say the same about the WS-10 - there is no data, our Chinese members indicate it doesn't approach Russian levels of reliability thus far.

Do you know why they quote that figure?

The M-88 isn’t the only component in the aircraft. A brand new Viper V will have similar levels of availability throughout its first 3-5 years of operations.

 

[dbc]

You mentioned availability as a metric with an incorrect figure which I corrected and now made a tangent so frankly I’m not sure what to make of your post. Training is tangential to aircraft availability for combat operations - you aren’t using a DIS simulator when deploying units to a combat theatre . Flight HOURS aren’t the metric here - availability is. If the availability is 75% for 100 aircraft its 75 aircraft available for getting off the ground and into a fight.

Whether you put pilots with 50/50 sim/real flight hours or 80/20 mix is irrelevant to the aircraft being available.

There’s drinking your own kool-aid and there’s calling Dortioes Kool Aid to try and prove a point.

again, what does USAF rates have to with the IAF and Rafale? You speak of tangents, and here we are - you took a sharp left and flew off a tangent cliff. I didn't mention any figures, and surely when a detachment commander of the Rafale fleet says the Rafale enjoyed a 100% availability rate during the entirety of the Libya campaign, I'm supposed to ignore that because it upsets you?

I can't believe you have me defending the Rafale on PDF, if you rather I didn't speak my mind make it so - you have the power.

Now back to the USAF, and perhaps @gambit can explain this better than I can. Sustaining high peace time availability rates costs money, given most training currencies can now be obtained in a simulator fewer aircraft are needed to made available by the crew for training missions. You may point to the CBO report and say the USAF fleet has poor availability rates and pilots log fewer flight hours. You are right, but the lack of availability may have nothing to do with the reliability of the platform. The truth is since the advent of "rapid roger" operationally deployed units have manipulated these numbers to do whatever makes sense and is operationally relevant, never mind the bean counters in the Pentagon.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Based on what reference or proof?


the last report hasn’t been kind to availability
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-aircraft-availability-on-long-downward-trend-cbo-says/

Unless you have some other “inside” sources - thats from CBO.

“For a more granular look, the CBO examined the F-15C/D and F-16C/D and found that their availability declined from just under 70 percent for both aircraft in 2000 to about 55 percent for the F-16 in 2020, while the F-15 came in about 45 percent.”

I would expect these rates to go back up as their legacy fleet goes through Block 70 standard modernization, which will replace a lot of systems that would be now harder to maintain or get spares for as they are no longer being manufactured.

 

[gambit]

The problem with complex machinery is that if they do not run, fly, or swim on a regular basis, they break when you turn them on. But that is not all, when your wing reduces flying hrs, Maintenance is affected because they do not have the experience of doing what they do best -- maintain -- the jets. New maintainers takes longer to certify even on the basics of whatever their specialty, and experienced maintainers gradually lose proficiency. Maintenance records contributes to that misleading availability statistics. If once a jet is signed off as mission capable but does not fly for a couple weeks, the odds of something go wrong on engine start increases. A typical squadron have about 12 to 20-something jets, depending on the platform. When I was active duty, we did not have simulators like today, so each of our jets take off at least once a week, assuming the standard 5 days flying schedule. This would create the truer Mission Capable (MC) rate.

If a jet is 'available' it does not mean it is 'mission capable'. The Thunderbirds F-16s can be made 'available' with a stroke of the pen -- they are flying -- but would hardly be 'mission capable'. Not without a lot of hangar time.

If a jet is at Depot level maintenance, the jet is literally off base and with the manufacturer. But if a jet is at Phase level maintenance, the jet is still on base and in wing possession but is not in flyable condition. Here is where the 'fudge' factor come in. A jet in Phase maintenance can be rendered flyable condition in a few days, then passed the Functional Check Flight (FCF) and become Mission Capable (MC) again. The jet in Phase maintenance can be fudged into the MC rate.

The Aircraft Available (AA) rate is based on all the jets the squadron own. The Mission Capable (MC) rate is based on actual flyable jets.

Let us say a squadron have 20 jets. Five are at Depot which make 15 on base. The AA rate is 15/20 or %75. However, of that 15 on base, three are in Phase maintenance leaving 12 on the ramp. The MC rate is 12/15 or %80. War planning with the 12 jets on the ramp would be realistic because that is all the squadron is capable to send even though the 3 jets in Phase could be out in a week. Similarly, if a mission require 20 jets but the squadron have only 12, either the squadron would be partnered with another squadron or be dismissed from the mission.

Platform reliability affects both the AA and MC rates, however, its greatest contribution is at the MC rate. In wartime, Depot and Phase maintenance schedules would be discarded. Some time compliance maintenance schedules, such as an engine change after X flight hrs, would be delayed, but not entirely discarded. Platform reliability is critical if the mission is expeditionary where the longer the physical logistics distance, the greater the vulnerability of that supply chain.

Platform reliability must have few, preferably zero, system errors that 'Cannot be duplicated' or 'Retest OK'.

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil

This study focuses on the aircraft avionic maintenance problems of cannot duplicate CND and retest-ok RTOK for three sampled F-16 wings.​

CND/RTOK events occurs more often than most people think. Even civilian airliners have them. What happens is that the pilot write up the jet but Maintenance cannot find the error, so the jet is taken off MC status for further investigation. Avionics produce the most CND/RTOK write-ups. Other systems such as engine or environmental have more mechanical components in them so they usually produce hard errors. Of course, taking a 20 mm round will definitely produce a hard error no matter what system. CND/RTOK write-ups negatively affects logistics because LRUs that are removed for troubleshooting must be tested before they can returned to the supply chain. Any jet that have intermittent CND/RTOK write-ups in wartime will be removed from the lineup and cannibalized for parts.

 

[SQ8]

I would expect these rates to go back up as their legacy fleet goes through Block 70 standard modernization, which will replace a lot of systems that would be now harder to maintain or get spares for as they are no longer being manufactured.

That would be a given - as systems get older their availability and mission readiness (especially for complicated aircraft) declines.

again, what does USAF rates have to with the IAF and Rafale? You speak of tangents, and here we are - you took a sharp left and flew off a tangent cliff. I didn't mention any figures, and surely when a detachment commander of the Rafale fleet says the Rafale enjoyed a 100% availability rate during the entirety of the Libya campaign, I'm supposed to ignore that because it upsets you?

I can't believe you have me defending the Rafale on PDF, if you rather I didn't speak my mind make it so - you have the power.

Now back to the USAF, and perhaps @gambit can explain this better than I can. Sustaining high peace time availability rates costs money, given most training currencies can now be obtained in a simulator fewer aircraft are needed to made available by the crew for training missions. You may point to the CBO report and say the USAF fleet has poor availability rates and pilots log fewer flight hours. You are right, but the lack of availability may have nothing to do with the reliability of the platform. The truth is since the advent of "rapid roger" operationally deployed units have manipulated these numbers to do whatever makes sense and is operationally relevant, never mind the bean counters in the Pentagon.

Hardly - you shot the tangent on the Rafale versus the J-10 without figures and then went to the USAF, and are now whining about free speech when I am asking for the proof in the pudding?

The Rafale detachment commander may be absolutely right but that comes from a key metric - having the LRUs available to do the rapid turnarounds and age. The 0 hours MTBO you cite for the M-88 comes from its modular structure where a defective module can be taken out without having to put the engine through an overhaul which would be warranted on a F-100.

However, those modules aren’t cheap nor are they plentiful for which both cases you oddly were defending the Rafale of which you are complaining of. I have no issues with the Rafale having a higher availability because not just that its a mean piece of kit it is brand new. But to cite spares supply from the Chinese or other aspects for which you frankly know nothing about seems dishonest

 

[dbc]

That would be a given - as systems get older their availability and mission readiness (especially for complicated aircraft) declines.


Hardly - you shot the tangent on the Rafale versus the J-10 without figures and then went to the USAF, and are now whining about free speech when I am asking for the proof in the pudding?

The Rafale detachment commander may be absolutely right but that comes from a key metric - having the LRUs available to do the rapid turnarounds and age. The 0 hours MTBO you cite for the M-88 comes from its modular structure where a defective module can be taken out without having to put the engine through an overhaul which would be warranted on a F-100.

However, those modules aren’t cheap nor are they plentiful for which both cases you oddly were defending the Rafale of which you are complaining of. I have no issues with the Rafale having a higher availability because not just that its a mean piece of kit it is brand new. But to cite spares supply from the Chinese or other aspects for which you frankly know nothing about seems dishonest

I didn't mention the USAF not once until you cited the CBO report - go back and read my post once again. Now, an entire detachment of eight Rafale's maintained a 100% availability rate for two months clocking 2,200 hours in Libya. You have trouble accepting the IAF Rafale's can maintain a 100% availability for three months - my original assertion.

You claim M88 modules were replaced to sustain a 100% availability rate for two months in Libya. There is no evidence to support your claim, the M88-4E is rated for 4000 TAC cycles, unless the engine is at the end of a cycle in the middle of an air campaign there is no reason to replace a module. A six hour air patrol typically clocks 2-3 TAC cycles, while an hour long flight with frequent throttle movements as is typical in close in air to air combat can rack up 10 TAC cycles.FYI, the latest F-16 GE 110 engine is rated at 6,000 TAC cycles. Now, is it so hard to believe that a new M88 engine or an engine that has just returned from the depot can last three months through war time operational tempo without replacement of expensive modules?

As for the Chinese engine you are right, I know nothing about them which is why I tempered my opinion saying "I suspect", Basing my opinion on feedback from Chinese members. Now if you are convinced Chinese engines are on par or superior- tell us why.

 

[Signalian]

NCADE​

NCADE (Network Centric Airborne Defense Element) is a program to develop an air-launched anti-missile interceptor missile using AMRAAM components. The NCADE missile replaces the AIM-120's radar seeker with the IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker of the AIM-9X Sidewinder, and changes the propulsion system to a two-stage rocket. The latter consists of an AIM-120 first stage and a new Aerojet second stage, which can provide a thrust of 0.55 kN (125 lb) for more than 25 seconds. NCADE's airframe, flight control system and aircraft interface are essentially the same as on the AIM-120, making the missile immediately compatible with many existing launch platforms.

The NCADE missile is intended to intercept short- to medium-range ballistic missiles in the boost, ascent, or terminal phase. To achieve this, the missile is fired upwards by the first-stage motor in a very steep angle. At high altitude, the IIR seeker can acquire a target, and then the missile will use its long burning second-stage motor for the intercept.

At the time of this writing, the NCADE program is undergoing component tests (propulsion and seeker). No planned timeframe for a test of an all-up NCADE round has been announced so far.


Is there a PL-XX series equivalent under development ?

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

Getting better all the time.

 

[Deino]

Getting better all the time.
View attachment 858621

Oh come on ... do your homework and spare us time and bandwidth with any random image you find but do not understand!
What is going better? It shows one of the original J-10B prototypes - most likely in fact even the very first one numbered 1031 and NOT a J-10CE for Pakistan,

As such you cannot deduct anything from it ...

Seems as if you only post random images for getting clicks and +-points! Is this really necessary?

 

[arslank03]

I didn't mention the USAF not once until you cited the CBO report - go back and read my post once again. Now, an entire detachment of eight Rafale's maintained a 100% availability rate for two months clocking 2,200 hours in Libya. You have trouble accepting the IAF Rafale's can maintain a 100% availability for three months - my original assertion.

You claim M88 modules were replaced to sustain a 100% availability rate for two months in Libya. There is no evidence to support your claim, the M88-4E is rated for 4000 TAC cycles, unless the engine is at the end of a cycle in the middle of an air campaign there is no reason to replace a module. A six hour air patrol typically clocks 2-3 TAC cycles, while an hour long flight with frequent throttle movements as is typical in close in air to air combat can rack up 10 TAC cycles.FYI, the latest F-16 GE 110 engine is rated at 6,000 TAC cycles. Now, is it so hard to believe that a new M88 engine or an engine that has just returned from the depot can last three months through war time operational tempo without replacement of expensive modules?

As for the Chinese engine you are right, I know nothing about them which is why I tempered my opinion saying "I suspect", Basing my opinion on feedback from Chinese members. Now if you are convinced Chinese engines are on par or superior- tell us why.

Source for your claim of 100% availability? thanks

Edit:

Found your source, it says they "logged zero no fly days"... they being the rafale detachment. This is very different from 100% availability lol. If the detachment logged zero no-fly days, that means there was no days where zero aircraft were available. If they logged 100% availability then this is a claim that would have been screamed from the mountains by dassault.

Please try reading and comprehending what you parrot, before spreading it like gospel, as it is incorrect.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Getting better all the time.
View attachment 858621

If anything, it shows how poor the A-G capability is for this fighter, even worse when you consider its a delta wing.

 

[dbc]

Source for your claim of 100% availability? thanks

Edit:

Found your source, it says they "logged zero no fly days"... they being the rafale detachment. This is very different from 100% availability lol. If the detachment logged zero no-fly days, that means there was no days where zero aircraft were available. If they logged 100% availability then this is a claim that would have been screamed from the mountains by dassault.

Please try reading and comprehending what you parrot, before spreading it like gospel, as it is incorrect.

comprehend this..

in just over two months of operations, no missions were aborted because of aircraft unavailability, and detachment commander Lt. Col. Pierre G. says that the availability rate is close to 100%. Libya, Rafale in combat "for War Dummies" This is a must read article written by Giovanni de Briganti for Defense Aerospace -Reproduced here for the record- RAFALETOWN, Corsica ... rafalenews.blogspot.com