What's new

PAF New Batch J-10 C Spotted

talking about the J-10, a formidable platform to counter the Rafale IK air to air combat. Similar thrust but much lighter.
Not a similar thrust : 122 kN at max in full after burner and in the 80 Kn dry, to compare to 150KN / 100 KN. 20% difference

I don't have the information about the weight. Some source say 8500kg, ie 1 ton lighter than single seater Rafale C less than 15% difference.

so formidable? not really. But another threat than JF-17 for sure.
 
.
Not a similar thrust : 122 kN at max in full after burner and in the 80 Kn dry, to compare to 150KN / 100 KN. 20% difference

I don't have the information about the weight. Some source say 8500kg, ie 1 ton lighter than single seater Rafale C less than 15% difference.

so formidable? not really. But another threat than JF-17 for sure.
Hi,

Your information is missing some information---.

The real thing is how fast---how quick is that thrust available---.

Just like in a car---when you want to accelerate---is the max torque available at 4000 RPM's or at 6500 RPM's---.

In fighter aircraft engines---how quickly the engine reacts to the need of higher thrust---( spool up time ).
 
Last edited:
.
Not a similar thrust : 122 kN at max in full after burner and in the 80 Kn dry, to compare to 150KN / 100 KN. 20% difference

I don't have the information about the weight. Some source say 8500kg, ie 1 ton lighter than single seater Rafale C less than 15% difference.

so formidable? not really. But another threat than JF-17 for sure.

New information, from multiple sources claim the thrust is higher with the WS-10B engine then what you cite, which I presume are for the AL-31F previously used.

The WS-10B specs are: 92kn Dry/144 kn Wet (4-8% less in thrust then the Rafales two Snecma engines combined)

We can debate the authenticity of these sources, but this is the performance range currently being mentioned, and as you said a 15% lighter platform.

“我们可以估计一下,涡扇10B军推92KN最大144KN,包线强于AL31F,那么经过如上暴力改装的涡扇10C,推力特性可能已经逼近增推前的的F119PW100(军推105KN最大156KN),但是寿命则大幅下降”
Source is supposedly from the PLAAF: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/563422250?utm_id=0
 
Last edited:
.
New information, from multiple sources claim he thrust is higher with the WS-10B engine: 92kn Dry/144 kn Wet (a 4-8% difference in thrust)

We can debate the authenticity of these sources, but this is the performance range currently being mentioned, and as you said a 15% lighter platform.

“我们可以估计一下,涡扇10B军推92KN最大144KN,包线强于AL31F,那么经过如上暴力改装的涡扇10C,推力特性可能已经逼近增推前的的F119PW100(军推105KN最大156KN),但是寿命则大幅下降”
Source: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/563422250?utm_id=0
J10CE can carry ~3800 KG of fuel internally.
f-16 blk 50/52 has 3200 kg internal fuel.

question is what is the fuel consumption of this J10CE engine? is it same as F-16 engine or worst or better?

is 3800 kg of internal fuel of j10ce is equivalent to 4200kg of f16 C blk 50/52 or vise versa?
 
.
J10CE can carry ~3800 KG of fuel internally.
f-16 blk 50/52 has 3200 kg internal fuel.

question is what is the fuel consumption of this J10CE engine? is it same as F-16 engine or worst or better?

is 3800 kg of internal fuel of j10ce is equivalent to 4200kg of f16 C blk 50/52 or vise versa?
What’s the comparable level in the Rafale?
 
. . .
What’s the comparable level in the Rafale?
Someone with more knowledge and with analytical skills should do j10ce, f16 blk 52 and Rafael fuel consumption with military thrust and with reheat
 
Last edited:
.
Someone with more knowledge and with analytical skills should do j10ce, f16 blk 52 and Rafael fuel consumption with military thrust and with reheat
And probably include the Eurofighter, as it is the closest comparable platform optimized for A2A and another metric of a 4.5 Gen fighter, by which to compare the other three.

Much in the way the JF-17 was compared to the F-16 to guide its performance goals, the J-10 can look to the performance of the Rafale and the Eurofighter as well as the F-16 Block 70 for performance benchmarks, to obtain and surpass, IMHO, at the very least to increase exports and build military relations with other countries.

For example the Colombians maybe about to acquire 12-18 Rafales and the Brazilians are operating the Gripens. The Argentinians may ultimately go for used F-16s and in this context, with potential serviceability issues for the Venezuelans and their Flankers and F-16s, they might be inclined to procure the J-10; the best non-stealth fighter China is able to export. It would, therefore, need to be in the same league on all parameters as the Eurocanards and the F-16, if it’s to keep up with the aircraft in its region.
 
Last edited:
.
Among the most beautifull bird actually on the market.

Hi,

Your information is missing some information---.

The real thing is how fast---how quick is that thrust available---.

Just like in a car---when you want to accelerate---is the max torque available at 4000 RPM's or at 6500 RPM's---.

In fighter aircraft engines---how quickly the engine reacts to the need of higher thrust---( spool up time ).
In the M88 case, it is able to go from iddle to full reheat in less than 4 seconds.
 
.
What’s the comparable level in the Rafale?
4700kg on internal tanks.

Despite having eurofighter typhoon the UK purchase f35???? Ummm
Because EF2000 is made for air to air, with a low air to ground capacity (limited in store jettison : FBW limits. See also the external tanks : only small to medium can be used)
 
.
Any data on the difference in fuel consumption of the WS-10B, M-88, EF-200, and F-100/F-110 engines of the F-16?

If all things being close to equal, and if the J-10’s range doesn’t need to be extended, a further development of the WS-10 engines to a max thrust of 155-160 kn would make it comparable in TWR to the Eurofighter, from its current 144 kn.

If the CFTs are added to give it an additional 450 kg on each side, particularly for a naval mission and or carry heavier munitions (such as longer range A2A; something like the planned Aim-260 and the YJ-12 supersonic Anti-Ship missiles), a 165-170 kn engine will probably be what is required to maintain a similar TWR, with comparable internal fuel as a Rafale.

A WS-10 variant maybe cleared for export while a WS-15 may not get the approval for export or maybe needed for the J-20 production.

But all this is just my “back of the envelope” math.
 
Last edited:
.
Any data on the difference in fuel consumption of the WS-10B, M-88, EF-200, and F-100/F-110 engines of the F-16?

If all things being close to equal, and if the J-10’s range doesn’t need to be extended, a further development of the WS-10 engines to a max thrust of 155-160 kn would make it comparable in TWR to the Eurofighter, from its current 144 kn.

If the CFTs are added to give it an additional 450 kg on each side, particularly for a naval mission and or carry heavier munitions (such as longer range A2A; something like the planned Aim-260 and the YJ-12 supersonic Anti-Ship missiles), a 165-170 kn engine will probably be what is required to maintain a similar TWR, with comparable internal fuel as a Rafale.

A WS-10 variant maybe cleared for export while a WS-15 may not get the approval for export or maybe needed for the J-20 production.

But all this is just my “back of the envelope” math.
for M88, early version, it was : from 0,8 à 1,7 kg/daN. h (full dry and full reheat).
The newer model are at least 4% less greedy.
 
.
Beyond improving the performance of the engines, extending the range via CFT, and better weapons and better electronics, the evolution of signature reduction (RCS, IR, Electronic) is key to reduced detection and improved survivability.

Following the benchmark of the Eurofighter at 0.5 m^2 RCS, the J-10 can go along way in relatively minor modifications and application of RAM paint or panel technology to make it more survivable a relatively modest cost.

It would go along way in making the J-10 able to deal with how the evolving threat of the Rafale F4 and Meteor. The PAF needs to maintain a qualitative edge within its relatively modest budget, and we don’t known when the funding will be available for T-FX acquisition. If the J-10 is going to be operating in numbers such as 90-100+ And act as the tip of the spear for the next 15-20 years, planning for its evolution needs to be done ASAP.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom