PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

[MastanKhan]

I never asked a question.

Hi,

Ok---it was a statement seeking an answer---or input.

 

[GriffinsRule]

PAF prefers to acquire MRFs

Yes, though J-10 is lacking in it's A-G role vs it's contemporaries. Hopefully it will get there as PAF can't afford to have niche role fighters.

 

[lcloo]

J10C is a multi-role fighter jet. You don't see much of the A-G weapon configuration is because Chinese airforce have more than 800 in total of J16, JH7A dedicated strike jets and H6 bombers for air to ground strike roles, J10A/B/C (and J20) are primary used in air-superiority in PLAAF.

J10CE can be turned into A-G configuration any time, if PAF had purchase the A-G missile/bombs as well as electronic pods.

J10B with A-G configuration on static display on 2019 PLAAF Open Day in Chanchun, China. Weapon load shown : A-A missile, A-G missile, LGB bombs, targeting pod and electronic counter measure pod.

 

[Signalian]

Yes, though J-10 is lacking in it's A-G role vs it's contemporaries. Hopefully it will get there as PAF can't afford to have niche role fighters.

Any comparison of J-10 done with JF-17 and F-16C regarding range ?

H-2, H-4, Ra'ad carrying capability ?

 

[ghazi52]

..,.,

 

[Princeps Senatus]

Yes, though J-10 is lacking in it's A-G role vs it's contemporaries.

How so?

 

[blain2]

Disappointing. This would mean JFT's A2G arsenal has to grow.

I did not mean to suggest that it cannot be used in that role. I think PAF see the J-10 as multi/omni role platform.

My point is that the primary purpose of the J-10 is to provide persistence in the air for our offensive fleet/strike packages. By persistence, I mean greater loiter times, less IFR meet ups with the tankers in hot situations, more missiles (both BVR and WVR) and a massive AESA to see much further out beyond the capabilities of JF-17. The simple calculation for the JF-17s was that their air to air loadout is at a disadvantage in the face of Indian Rafale induction. Trying to put 2 PL-15s would impact the performance of the JF-17 significantly along with a couple of WVR AAMs. This is where J-10 provides the advantage. It has more range, can carry more offensive standoff missiles and would allow JF-17s to be used in the same way the USAF uses the F-15 and F-16 combination. The former to use its large load carrying capacity with BVR missiles to whittle down adversarial aircraft numbers and allowing the F-16s more freedom of action.

In reality, the J-10 could even do the same for our F-16 fleet since its reach with AIM-120C would also be somewhat limited compared to PL-15s.

For surface attack/air to ground missions, J-10 is definitely an option, however we have F-16s with better targeting pods and also the growing armed UCAV fleet.

 

[blain2]

Under Indian maintenence...yes sure it can

I think we should assume the following:

a) Rafales bring new maintenance methodology/systems to the IAF which would improve availability/readiness.
b) The best aircrews and maintenance personnel would be assigned to the Rafale sqns so their efficiency rates would be higher.
c) When platforms are new, they have less wear and tear and can be more highly available.
d) No problems with supply of spares.

When you consider all of the above, and other factors as well, I believe Rafale will be a highly available platform for the IAF.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

New Batch 22-103
22-104
looks cool

where is JF 17 Block 3 ?

Its been 1 and half years and no batch was officially delivered.

 

[blain2]

Assume that Indians live on the moon as well

Perhaps.
I think it would be best to not underestimate.

 

[Trango Towers]

Perhaps.
I think it would be best to not underestimate.

No need reality is evident

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I did not mean to suggest that it cannot be used in that role. I think PAF see the J-10 as multi/omni role platform.

My point is that the primary purpose of the J-10 is to provide persistence in the air for our offensive fleet/strike packages. By persistence, I mean greater loiter times, less IFR meet ups with the tankers in hot situations, more missiles (both BVR and WVR) and a massive AESA to see much further out beyond the capabilities of JF-17. The simple calculation for the JF-17s was that their air to air loadout is at a disadvantage in the face of Indian Rafale induction. Trying to put 2 PL-15s would impact the performance of the JF-17 significantly along with a couple of WVR AAMs. This is where J-10 provides the advantage. It has more range, can carry more offensive standoff missiles and would allow JF-17s to be used in the same way the USAF uses the F-15 and F-16 combination. The former to use its large load carrying capacity with BVR missiles to whittle down adversarial aircraft numbers and allowing the F-16s more freedom of action.

In reality, the J-10 could even do the same for our F-16 fleet since its reach with AIM-120C would also be somewhat limited compared to PL-15s.

For surface attack/air to ground missions, J-10 is definitely an option, however we have F-16s with better targeting pods and also the growing armed UCAV fleet.

I agree. I think, in its initial years, the PAF will primarily use the J-10CE in the air-to-air role. One major point of this purchase was to plugin the gap left by the lack of F-16s (the US isn't letting us get used A/Bs nor is it helping us co-finance the new Vs). When engaging India, our F-16s are primarily an A2A asset. So, for the short-term, the J-10CEs are meant to shore up our ability to thwart the Rafale threat in A2A.

Likewise, the PAF is clearly tuning the JF-17 for the A2G/S role. Already, the 'old' Block-I is capable of deploying the C-802A AShM, for example. Likewise, the Block-IIs can support the C-802A AShM as well as the IREK PGB and LD-10 ARM. The next phase is integrating the Ra'ad-I/II, REK-III (a rocket-assisted glide-bomb similar to the H-4), and possibly even SMASH or HD-1A supersonic-cruising AShM to the JF-17 Block-III and JF-17B. Funds permitting, the PAF can do some crazier stuff with the JF-17s, like fitting the Block-Is with the GB6 to give it a JSOW-type capability (a stand-off range bomblet dispenser for anti-armour ops), YJ-9E air-to-ground missiles, etc.

That said, the PAF wouldn't invest in a net-new fighter asset without committing to at least 90 units for the long run. Be it the Mirage III/5, F-16, or even JF-17, the PAF has always set a minimum 90-unit requirement for any new major fighter asset. I think we can realistically expect the J-10CE fleet to grow to over 90 units through the rest of this decade (the PAF can order in incremental batches). So, we might see some J-10CEs become available for the A2G/S role.

OTOH, I'm still not sure how much-added utility you'd get from an A2G-configured J-10CE versus the JF-17. Sure, there's a difference, but it isn't as game-changing as getting that big twin-engine asset like the F-15 or Su-30. Even the PLAAF is primarily leaning on those larger designs for the strike role. So, yes, a JF-17 carrying 2 big SOWs or 4 small SOWs isn't ideal, but it gets the job done in our current environment (India is literally "right there"). Not only that, but the PAF can field JF-17s in ample numbers so that it has more strike-capable jets on hand, and can source them relatively more affordably.

Overall, the PAF isn't going to get its 'ideal' strike platform until the NGFA comes online. Be it the Turkish TFX or Chinese J-35/21, the PAF itself said it wants a twin-engine fighter as its NGFA. I think the PAF set the twin-engine need because it wanted a "proper" strike-capable and maritime-capable design. So, from the 2030s, the PAF's "offensive edge" will be a combination of the J-10CE (in the A2A role) and the NGFA (in the A2G/S role).

 

[Bin Laden]

I agree. I think, in its initial years, the PAF will primarily use the J-10CE in the air-to-air role. One major point of this purchase was to plugin the gap left by the lack of F-16s (the US isn't letting us get used A/Bs nor is it helping us co-finance the new Vs). When engaging India, our F-16s are primarily an A2A asset. So, for the short-term, the J-10CEs are meant to shore up our ability to thwart the Rafale threat in A2A.

Likewise, the PAF is clearly tuning the JF-17 for the A2G/S role. Already, the 'old' Block-I is capable of deploying the C-802A AShM, for example. Likewise, the Block-IIs can support the C-802A AShM as well as the IREK PGB and LD-10 ARM. The next phase is integrating the Ra'ad-I/II, REK-III (a rocket-assisted glide-bomb similar to the H-4), and possibly even SMASH or HD-1A supersonic-cruising AShM to the JF-17 Block-III and JF-17B. Funds permitting, the PAF can do some crazier stuff with the JF-17s, like fitting the Block-Is with the GB6 to give it a JSOW-type capability (a stand-off range bomblet dispenser for anti-armour ops), YJ-9E air-to-ground missiles, etc.

That said, the PAF wouldn't invest in a net-new fighter asset without committing to at least 90 units for the long run. Be it the Mirage III/5, F-16, or even JF-17, the PAF has always set a minimum 90-unit requirement for any new major fighter asset. I think we can realistically expect the J-10CE fleet to grow to over 90 units through the rest of this decade (the PAF can order in incremental batches). So, we might see some J-10CEs become available for the A2G/S role.

OTOH, I'm still not sure how much-added utility you'd get from an A2G-configured J-10CE versus the JF-17. Sure, there's a difference, but it isn't as game-changing as getting that big twin-engine asset like the F-15 or Su-30. Even the PLAAF is primarily leaning on those larger designs for the strike role. So, yes, a JF-17 carrying 2 big SOWs or 4 small SOWs isn't ideal, but it gets the job done in our current environment (India is literally "right there"). Not only that, but the PAF can field JF-17s in ample numbers so that it has more strike-capable jets on hand, and can source them relatively more affordably.

Overall, the PAF isn't going to get its 'ideal' strike platform until the NGFA comes online. Be it the Turkish TFX or Chinese J-35/21, the PAF itself said it wants a twin-engine fighter as its NGFA. I think the PAF set the twin-engine need because it wanted a "proper" strike-capable and maritime-capable design. So, from the 2030s, the PAF's "offensive edge" will be a combination of the J-10CE (in the A2A role) and the NGFA (in the A2G/S role).

Newbie question :
How many jf17's (block I) are still in their orignal configuration, Weren't they all upgraded to Block II spec?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Newbie question :
How many jf17's (block I) are still in their orignal configuration, Weren't they all upgraded to Block II spec?

I'm not sure there's a full upgrade track to Block-II. The Block-I may have gotten some of the Block-II's subsystems, but overall, each JF-17 block is structurally different.

 

[MastanKhan]

I agree. I think, in its initial years, the PAF will primarily use the J-10CE in the air-to-air role. One major point of this purchase was to plugin the gap left by the lack of F-16s (the US isn't letting us get used A/Bs nor is it helping us co-finance the new Vs). When engaging India, our F-16s are primarily an A2A asset. So, for the short-term, the J-10CEs are meant to shore up our ability to thwart the Rafale threat in A2A.

Likewise, the PAF is clearly tuning the JF-17 for the A2G/S role. Already, the 'old' Block-I is capable of deploying the C-802A AShM, for example. Likewise, the Block-IIs can support the C-802A AShM as well as the IREK PGB and LD-10 ARM. The next phase is integrating the Ra'ad-I/II, REK-III (a rocket-assisted glide-bomb similar to the H-4), and possibly even SMASH or HD-1A supersonic-cruising AShM to the JF-17 Block-III and JF-17B. Funds permitting, the PAF can do some crazier stuff with the JF-17s, like fitting the Block-Is with the GB6 to give it a JSOW-type capability (a stand-off range bomblet dispenser for anti-armour ops), YJ-9E air-to-ground missiles, etc.

That said, the PAF wouldn't invest in a net-new fighter asset without committing to at least 90 units for the long run. Be it the Mirage III/5, F-16, or even JF-17, the PAF has always set a minimum 90-unit requirement for any new major fighter asset. I think we can realistically expect the J-10CE fleet to grow to over 90 units through the rest of this decade (the PAF can order in incremental batches). So, we might see some J-10CEs become available for the A2G/S role.

OTOH, I'm still not sure how much-added utility you'd get from an A2G-configured J-10CE versus the JF-17. Sure, there's a difference, but it isn't as game-changing as getting that big twin-engine asset like the F-15 or Su-30. Even the PLAAF is primarily leaning on those larger designs for the strike role. So, yes, a JF-17 carrying 2 big SOWs or 4 small SOWs isn't ideal, but it gets the job done in our current environment (India is literally "right there"). Not only that, but the PAF can field JF-17s in ample numbers so that it has more strike-capable jets on hand, and can source them relatively more affordably.

Overall, the PAF isn't going to get its 'ideal' strike platform until the NGFA comes online. Be it the Turkish TFX or Chinese J-35/21, the PAF itself said it wants a twin-engine fighter as its NGFA. I think the PAF set the twin-engine need because it wanted a "proper" strike-capable and maritime-capable design. So, from the 2030s, the PAF's "offensive edge" will be a combination of the J-10CE (in the A2A role) and the NGFA (in the A2G/S role).

Hi,

People are forgetting----the JF17 was manufactured for ground strike primarily and not for air superiority.

Someone can dig up old statements by the PAF stalwarts.

You are correct about J10---that it does not bring a lot more in ground strike capability & the difference in ability between the two is not much.

With modern day smart weapons---JF17 will do the job right.