What's new

PAF should've invested more on J-10s rather than JF-17s

Thrust Vector Engines for the J-10 and Carrier News

Russian sources stated that China and the Russian Salyut engine concern were in the process of negotiating a future sale of the AL-31FN engine, but with a axisymmetric thrust vectoring nozzle. These sources would not state the number of engines in this package, but did confirm previous statements that the thrust vectored engines were intended to support a Chinese Navy version of the Chengdu J-10 fighter--presumably for aircraft carrier use. In 2005 a Russian source had noted China’s interest in the thrust vectored modified version of the AL-31FN, but in 2007 it is now apparent that such a sale is under negotiation. With its forward stabilizer “canard” configuration, thrust vectoring for the J-10 could conceivably allow a lower landing speed, or enable a faster recovery take-off from a “Bolter,” or a failed arrested carrier deck landing. Both capabilities would be of interest to the PLA Navy to increase operational safety. In addition, other sources indicate the PLA will use the thrust-vectored J-10 version to better enable useful payloads to be lifted from the high-altitude bases of the Tibetan Plateau just north of India. Otherwise, thrust vectoring would add more to the already inherit high maneuverability of the J-10’s canard configuration. Russian sources claim that the thrust vectoring nozzle will not add additional weight to the engine, which might then require airframe or ballast modifications for aircraft.

Possible Russian Engine Upgrades

Russian sources are also “confident” that China will purchase new advanced higher thrust versions of the AL-31 to modernize existing PLA Sukhoi fighters, and potentially, to comprise future engine orders for the J-10. For example, the AL-31M-3 is intended to produce a 15,000 kg thrust engine, a bit less than that for the Pratt Whitney PW119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22A fifth generation fighter. These sources were also confident that Russia would produce a new generation engine to support Russia’s 5th generation fighter program. This engine would also be in the 15 ton thrust range and be able to support a “supercruise” mission, or supersonic flight for an operational distance without recourse to fuel guzzling afterburners.

Russian sources also confirmed that China continues to make steady progress in her decade long drive toward the completion of its first modern high power fighter turbofan, sometimes called the WS-10A Taihang. These sources expected that the J-10 would transition from primary reliance on Russian engines to the Chinese engine in less than five years. In late 2006 the “Taihang” emerged with some publicity after a long period of Chinese development. Since then, Chinese sources have suggested that China may soon develop its own advanced 15,000kg thrust capable version of the Taihang. China’s engine sector has long been viewed as the “Achilles Heel” of its aircraft sector, but this is changing fast, the Russian sources concede.

Russian 5th Generation Tidbits

Commenting on Russia’s 5th generation fighter plans, one Russian source affirmed that a first flight for their new generation fighter would take place in 2009. Other Russian sources were less optimistic, noting the 5th generation fighter might fly by 2012. Russian Premier Ivanov recently noted the first flight would occur in 2010. This fighter would combine 5th generation levels of advance in terms of stealth, supercruise and advanced electronic systems, to include a new active phased array radar system. While responding to unique Russian requirements, this source asserted the new 5th Generation fighter would be “better than the F-35” and close to competitive with the F-22. Such a distinction flows more from Russia’s unique requirements for its 5th generation fighter which does not include a requirement to match or exceed the F-22 in all aspects. This source also suggested that there would be a naval carrier version of this new aircraft. Fully aware of the Russian government’s gathering commitment to build a new fleet of up to six nuclear powered aircraft carriers, this source noted, “if there is a new ship there should be a new aircraft.” This source noted that existing Russian naval aircraft designs like the Su-27KUB would not be the design to meet future Russian naval combat aircraft requirements.

Four To Six Chinese Aircraft Carriers?

Interestingly, a U.S. source that recently spoke with high PLA Navy officers relayed to the IASC that these officers stated that China would eventually build four to six aircraft carriers. In 2007 Chinese officials have been more willing to acknowledge their ambitions to build large aircraft carriers, an ambition that had previously been consistently denied. China is known to have had extensive contact with Russian aircraft carrier design and component manufacturing companies, and is now refurbishing the former Russian/Ukrainian carrier Varyag in Dalian harbor. In addition, PLA Navy officers have visited the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle, which may also influence China’s eventual choice of carrier size and configuration.

Since 2005 this analyst has tracked China’s aggressive pursuit of its carrier air wing. This has included negotiations to purchase modified Sukhoi Su-33 carrier fighters, which have yet to reach any conclusion, as well as the Shenyang Aircraft Co.’s efforts to copy the Su-33, which have included the purchase of Su-33 prototypes from Ukraine. But an additional PLA Navy carrier air wing candidate might be the naval version of Russia’s 5th generation fighter. Or, perhaps a naval version of China’s 5th generation fighter. In November a Chinese commentator asserted that China’s 5th generation fighter could fly as early as 2014 to 2015. Chinese sources indicate that China is developing a 15-ton maximum thrust version of the Taihang engine, which conceivably could support a Chinese “5th generation” supercruise mission. Chinese sources have also recently suggested that China is actively developing unmanned combat aircraft for carrier operations.

Twin Seat JF-17 Back On


A Pakistani official stated that the Pakistan side has elected to proceed with the development of a twin-seat version of the Chengdu FC-1 or JF-17 in Pakistan service. A CATIC official refused to comment on this development. The Pakistan Air Force’s requirement for a twin seat version of this fighter was first noted to the author by Pakistan Air Force officials in 2004. However, subsequent reports have noted that China was not interested in such a twin-seat version of the FC-1. The Pakistani official at the Dubai show stated, however, that Pakistan has elected to pay for the development of the twin seat version, and that is now proceeding. This official explained that as Pakistan is sharing in the full spectrum of production, usage and sales of the JF-17, that it therefore requires the twin seat version to fully exploit this aircraft. The twin seat version will be used to support training missions and will also be developed into a dedicated attack model. This same official noted that Pakistan will only purchase the Chengdu J-10 fighter, which is therefore of less industrial interest to Pakistan. Other sources have noted that Pakistan intends to purchase an initial force of 40 J-10 fighters.

Since the Dubai show Russia’s Kommersant has reported that Russia has approved the Klimov RD93 engine in the FC-1/JF-17 for re-export to six countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Re-export to Pakistan had been an issue of serious contention between Russia and India, which uses the RD33, the basis for the RD93, in its MiG-29 fighters. Russia’s decision is a blow for Delhi, which will now face the JF-17 in significant numbers not only in Pakistan but also potentially in Bangladesh. China will also soon be able to arm the FC-1/JF-17 with 5th generation air-to-air missiles, such as the PL-10 derived from the South African Denel A-DARTER, and another radar-guided missile derived from the Denel R-DARTER. These weapons will greatly increase the combat potential of this low-cost but modern platform. At the same time, it is a major boost for Pakistan’s and China’s effort to promote the FC-1/JF-17 as the pre-eminent low-cost 4th generation multirole fighter. Until South Korea can market a single-seat combat version of its T/A-50 trainer, the FC-1/JF-17 will face no competition in its price range. The willingness of China and Pakistan to transfer full co-production capability will enhance the attractiveness of this fighter to many countries also looking to bolster their developing aerospace industries.

International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Chinese Dimensions of the 2007 Dubai Airshow
 
. .
J10 looks very good in design. Very much like Typhoon or Rafael.

BUT chinease don,t have engine to match Typhoon/Rafael or the Radar and electronics as Yet.

Also to say its better than SU30MKI is also grossly over optmistic.

If you bothered to do some research you wude realise the IAF have already PENCILED MLU for mki which include

AESA Ibris (which will come from pak fa)

New Ramjet bvr missle with 200km range

And new Smart Skin as revealed at Paris Air show (massive improvement on RCS and electronic jammers) to 5TH generation levels.

MKI is currently a formidable foe but will be even more modern post 2015.. upto su35 levels at least.

China & J10 just don,t have the technonolgy or experience as yet of the Russians.

Nevertheless its still good fighter
 
.
J10 looks very good in design. Very much like Typhoon or Rafael.

BUT chinease don,t have engine to match Typhoon/Rafael or the Radar and electronics as Yet.

Also to say its better than SU30MKI is also grossly over optmistic.

If you bothered to do some research you wude realise the IAF have already PENCILED MLU for mki which include

AESA Ibris (which will come from pak fa)

New Ramjet bvr missle with 200km range

And new Smart Skin as revealed at Paris Air show (massive improvement on RCS and electronic jammers) to 5TH generation levels.

MKI is currently a formidable foe but will be even more modern post 2015.. upto su35 levels at least.

China & J10 just don,t have the technonolgy or experience as yet of the Russians.

Nevertheless its still good fighter

the specs of FC20 are not known as yet and i dont see a point that Pakistan will go for something inferior to IAF assets!
even if it is not ble to out smart the Su30 it will surely be on-par. i tke it a bit too speculated to comparing two planes not in existence! i mean the Fc20 and the upgraded Su30!!!!

regards!
 
.
Can anyone tell me why is China not buying any JF-17/FC-1 planes for its own airforce PLAAF?
 
.
Can anyone tell me why is China not buying any JF-17/FC-1 planes for its own airforce PLAAF?

china have money to buy J10 in huge numbers whereas Pakistan need a cheap, cost effective front line fighter and JF17 perfectly fits on these reqirements
 
.
Yep, i don't think they have any light fighter requirement anymore.They definately need big fighters with lots of range.
 
.
Well PLAAF has so far not confirmed that they won't be buying the FC-1.

Prototype#06 is being flown by the chinese, which has chinese communications antennas, which may suggest that it is still under evaluation or may be chinese are waiting for its further evolution.

One other factor to make PLAAF not go for FC-1 for the time being is the engine. They are already using russian engines for their top line fighters, so another type of russian engine may bring further complications.

So lets wait, till the chinese engine is completed, then we will see does china buys them or not.

PLAAF has thousands of fighters, most are very old and not capable enough for modern air war doctrine.

Similarly, China will have to maintain a strength of a few thousand aircraft to maintain a deterrence.

They will need one lightweight fighter for local defence & offensive purposes, an aircraft which is less cheap, reliable & easy to maintain. As more the expensive the fighter ac is, the more maintenance & cost it incurs.

And FC-1 can satisfy this role. J-10s, J-11s are heavy weight contenders.

So till confirm news of PLAAF not buying FC-1 comes out, we can't just speculate, If PLAAF doesn't buys FC-1, the export prospects get a hit, as if the native manufacturing country does not uses the aircraft, why will another country go for it.
 
.
he newer block F-16s however, are great for low altitude air-to-ground missions. The high wing loading favors low fliers and the moderate wing sweep helps handling at lower speeds often necessary during ordnance delivery.

The J-10 is thus not ideal for the CAS role. However, because of the range and payload advantages, the J-10 can be considered an effective deep striker.

CAS was never a pressing need for the PLAAF, and the PAF has the JF-17 which is ideal for that role.




JF-17s would not only allow PAF to counter numbers, but also allow her to maintain larger numbers of FC-20s and F-16s for war-time and lower their depreciation - providing a low cost training aircraft to fly liberally during peacetime. This would be a similar arrangement to how the Israeli Air Force uses F-16s to keep meet the flight time allocations of its F-15 pilots



in post no. 91
 
.
Yep, i don't think they have any light fighter requirement anymore.They definately need big fighters with lots of range.

Isn't J10 a light fighter too? since its single engined.
Also, apart from J10 PLAAF uses J11 as their frontline aircraft. J11 is basically Chinese version of Russian Su27, which is predecessor of Su30. Many Pakistani sources claim that JF17 is as good as Su30 which India has. Why would China use a foreign fighter as its frontline fighter, instead of its own designed and developed fighter which is as capable plane?
On a side note, how does JF17 compare with J11 or J11B?
 
.
Isn't J10 a light fighter too? since its single engined.
Also, apart from J10 PLAAF uses J11 as their frontline aircraft. J11 is basically Chinese version of Russian Su27, which is predecessor of Su30. Many Pakistani sources claim that JF17 is as good as Su30 which India has. Why would China use a foreign fighter as its frontline fighter, instead of its own designed and developed fighter which is as capable plane?
On a side note, how does JF17 compare with J11 or J11B?

This is totally false,no one here claim that.You can say its comparable to F-16 A/B.
 
.
Isn't J10 a light fighter too? since its single engined.
Also, apart from J10 PLAAF uses J11 as their frontline aircraft. J11 is basically Chinese version of Russian Su27, which is predecessor of Su30. Many Pakistani sources claim that JF17 is as good as Su30 which India has. Why would China use a foreign fighter as its frontline fighter, instead of its own designed and developed fighter which is as capable plane?
On a side note, how does JF17 compare with J11 or J11B?
Engine does not define a medium or light fighter.Checkout the payload/range of Jf-17 and compare it with J10.SU serious are heavy class fighters which can be used for long ranges and deep penetration strikes as you have plenty of payload plus range.JF-17 is totally different class fighter...infact it will be most likely used as a interceptor in PAF and for CAP missions within P Air space because it has small range and payload.
 
.
The reason the chinease have not acquired JF17 or will not acquire JF17 is as follows.

1. Chinease hi low mix is as follws.

High altitude long range J11 & J10 low altitude short range J10.

2. JF17 is a PAF specific fighter not built for PLAAF needs present or future.

China has better more suitable fighters in both J11 & J10 and will add their own J14 5th generation post 2020

Some estimates are that PLAAF will field upto 1000 J11/J10 fighters by 2020 with different blocks due to MLU.

ADD other fighters like J8 & JH7 there is no need for a low cost
meduim tech JF17.

JF17 to PLAAF is like F5 Tigercat was to USA in the 1960S IE purely for export.
 
.
I know these days everybody is being “small with better quality”. I however believe there are way too many J-7s to be replaced with only J-10 - even if we are talking reduced numbers.

Concerning CAS – lessons learnt in the current US wars are pushing thinking away “F-16 types” to even light and slower and cheaper Super Tucano or T-6A Texan II types. What do you think?
 
.
The reason the chinease have not acquired JF17 or will not acquire JF17 is as follows.

1. Chinease hi low mix is as follws.

High altitude long range J11 & J10 low altitude short range J10.

2. JF17 is a PAF specific fighter not built for PLAAF needs present or future.

China has better more suitable fighters in both J11 & J10 and will add their own J14 5th generation post 2020

Some estimates are that PLAAF will field upto 1000 J11/J10 fighters by 2020 with different blocks due to MLU.

ADD other fighters like J8 & JH7 there is no need for a low cost
meduim tech JF17.

JF17 to PLAAF is like F5 Tigercat was to USA in the 1960S IE purely for export.

But have we seen anything official to say the PLAAF will not induct the FC-1? ... ... We have reasobaly realiable articles from about 6 years ago saying the PLAAF was going to buy the FC-1.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom