What's new

Pakistan will soon get J10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Under wing Wet stations are not BVR - WVR capable.

Already discussed and the same would apply to J10 as well, but since it's wrong it doesn't really matter. The fact is, both have the same number of wingstations and the same limitations in terms of heavy / wet stations, that's why most weapon config will be the same, with advantages for the J10 only with LGBs + LDP. J10 is the better fighter, but not in terms of carrying capability!
 
.
i am always in favour of release more funding for jft III with serious upgrade with 100kn.engine/AESA//more composite/more payload

and order a 2-3 squardens of j11B 2014 onward for strike role

this combination is much better

odd 80 f16
36-50 j11bs
50 jft I
100 jft 2



and later on jft III
 
.
That's not correct, PLAAF has inducted Su 30 MKKs and the first J11Bs which are already 4th to 4.5 gen fighters (multi role capable, multi mode radars, modern avionics...). So they already have similar gen fighters in credible numbers and are inducting more of them to the higher end. J10B for them is just a low end multi role fighter, to complement the Flankers in a cost-effective way, similar to the F15/F16 combo for US forces.

Yes Su-30 MKK was inducted back at the time but it is russian and may i add inferior to J-10 in all aspects apart from the payload capacity since its twn engine. J-11 yes it can be termed as 4.5 after the upgrades being done to it, still in all the combats against the J-10 it lost. Chinese members can verify my claim and while these fighters were initially inducted to supplement the obsolete Chinese air force and also to study them for their own fighter program. J-10 is their true 4.5th indigenous fighter. Point being its the J-10 that will form the back bone of the PLAAF and not the J-11 and certainly not the Su-30.
Your analogy about the F-15/16 will be correct once the J-20 is inducted with J-20 being the higher end and J-10 the lower.
 
.
sancho@

the jft 3rd and 5th hardpoint would be able to hold raad because if you open the info pool of jft

the news about increasing the wing strength and they said it is improved 200%

bt would be appliedcin jft 2 only
 
.
Already discussed and the same would apply to J10 as well, but since it's wrong it doesn't really matter.
I know, I was in the discussion. What's the "wrong"?

And BTW - http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1421/20041005j10bo0.jpg
6 BVRs! And there are photos floating around with dual racks. So total 10 possible BVRs? Not bad! Or is that pic a photoshop that I'm not aware of? I don't follow J-10 much.

Edit: *facepalm* Knew IT!! Chinese fanboys and their photoshops!! http://i47.tinypic.com/2qsyob8.jpg
So 4 X BVR which includes 2 underwing wet stations points, unlike the JF-17 Block 1. Then we have the dual racks in testing. So 4 BVRs now, with possible 6 with dual racks, on J-10a. Not Bad!

Edit 2: LoL... talk about unhealthy obsession
http://dcn.or.kr/files/attach/images/175/264/018/J-10 공대공 완전무장.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/...20%C7%AA%B8%A5%20%C3%A2%B0%F8%C0%B8%B7%CE.jpg
 
.
Yes Su-30 MKK was inducted back at the time but it is russian and may i add inferior to J-10 in all aspects apart from the payload capacity since its twn engine. J-11 yes it can be termed as 4.5 after the upgrades being done to it, still in all the combats against the J-10 it lost. Chinese members can verify my claim and while these fighters were initially inducted to supplement the obsolete Chinese air force and also to study them for their own fighter program. J-10 is their true 4.5th indigenous fighter. Point being its the J-10 that will form the back bone of the PLAAF and not the J-11 and certainly not the Su-30.
Your analogy about the F-15/16 will be correct once the J-20 is inducted with J-20 being the higher end and J-10 the lower.

Dude ! Please .....

We can F with anyone ... just don't F with the great design which is the sweetest manifestation of science.
 
. .
Yes Su-30 MKK was inducted back at the time but it is russian and may i add inferior to J-10 in all aspects apart from the payload capacity since its twn engine.
J-11 yes it can be termed as 4.5 after the upgrades being done to it, still in all the combats against the J-10 it lost.

In the WVR combats, but other than that J10A is clearly inferior compared to most Flanker versions. Be it radar range, better speed, can carry more weapons, variety of weapons and longer range in general...

J-10 is their true 4.5th indigenous fighter. Point being its the J-10 that will form the back bone of the PLAAF and not the J-11 and certainly not the Su-30.
Your analogy about the F-15/16 will be correct once the J-20 is inducted with J-20 being the higher end and J-10 the lower

J10A is a 4th gen fighter and will be upgraded to 4.5 gen with the B version and btw, the backbone of an air forces is always the less capable fighter in higher numbers! F16 backbone, F15 high end, J10 backbone, Flanker varients high end, JF 17 backbone, J10B/F16 high end, F35 back bone, F22 high end...
 
.
In the WVR combats, but other than that J10A is clearly inferior compared to most Flanker versions. Be it radar range, better speed, can carry more weapons, variety of weapons and longer range in general...



J10A is a 4th gen fighter and will be upgraded to 4.5 gen with the B version and btw, the backbone of an air forces is always the less capable fighter in higher numbers! F16 backbone, F15 high end, J10 backbone, Flanker varients high end, JF 17 backbone, J10B/F16 high end, F35 back bone, F22 high end...

Each fighter is better suited to its weight class(Hence the MMRCA was the medium multirole combat aircraft)..
Otherwise an upgraded Su-30MKI would do it all for the IAF. Each AF has its own requirements, drawn up by its key decision planners ..in the case of the PAF its the ASR or Air Staff requirement.
Back in the 80's.. the PAF had an ideal ASR for a new fighter it needed, even before the F-16.. but when the F-16 came along, it was so well suited to PAF's ASR that it was nothing short of ideal for it.
Which is why the PAF's love affair with the aircraft has been that long, it was everything the PAF wanted and more.

Today, the JF-17 is one aircraft designed around an ASR. It meets all the requirements the PAF planners set for an aircraft to fit a particular slot in the PAF warmachine to carry out particular tasks. At the same time, the F-16's in the PAF have particular goals and tasks set out for them(the sq assigned to them having their own war time goals.
The last ASR niche(for a 2018 timeline) was to be fulfilled by the FC-20(since the other ideals..the Rafale and Eurofighter were either too expensive or came with too many strings attached) ,since whatever requirements were set by the PAF after assessing all future adversaries and threats, and after assessing its own possible financial limitations .
This FC-20 was based on taking the basic J-10 airframe, and along the lines of the F-7PG ..making improvements to suit the PAF.
As time went on, and the JF-17 came up with the DSI intake.. this FC-20 concept mutated into the J-10B with much more improved capabilities thanks to a (in the pipeline) new engine, radar, avionics, ECM, airframe changes etc.
As of now, the FC-20 is still a fluid concept due to funding restrictions.. however.. PAF representatives and engineers at Chengdu and otherwise have access to the J-10B design section..and give their input, their preferences, their ideas to keep refining that concept(which the Chinese appreciate since it ends up helping them have an improved product for their own use as well)..
Concepts that would include dual rails, further RCS reduction, Improved ECM, Improved man-machine interface..etc.

Now.. such a fighter, improved from the basic J-10B ...may end up being more potent many scenario's of A2A combat than a larger sukhoi due to many factors that effect A2A engagements..from Radar detection range, RCS, Missile range, Energy efficiency.. etc.
BUT, can the same aircraft perform as good as the large sukhoi in many other parameters of range, weapons payload, survivability..etc? NO, each aircraft is designed to match a forte, a niche.. no matter how many permutations of the "role" tag are put in their. A Rafale may be able to engage A2A and A2G targets simultaneously.. but it cannot do so 1500km deep into Enemy territory without compromising on payload, speed and fighting ability...something that the Sukhoi -30 series excels at.
 
.
Actually J-10 does offer some advantage. JF-17's current block only carries 2 X BVR and 2 X WVR. 2 Under wing Wet stations are not BVR - WVR capable. Would be interesting to see if JF-17 Block 2 can achieve J-10's 4 X WVR.
it has been answered five dozen times that JF-17 carries 4 BVRs but you troll,nothing surprising though
same goes for j-10
PL-12+Dual+racks+testing+on+J-10A+B+SD-10+BVR+AAM+4+FC20+%25281%2529.jpg
 
.
Now.. such a fighter, improved from the basic J-10B ...may end up being more potent many scenario's of A2A combat than a larger sukhoi due to many factors that effect A2A engagements..from Radar detection range, RCS, Missile range, Energy efficiency.. etc.

That's the reason why I consider it as the main threat for IAF in this decade (operated with PLAAF), because with a good AESA and some other upgrades for A2A combats, it would be a very good base with upgraded J11Bs on the higher end and would form a very capable counterpart to Rafale / Super 30 combo. However, too much is still unclear about the J10B and recent infos from Chinese members don't look that promising to me.
 
.
it has been answered five dozen times without proof that JF-17 carries 4 BVRs but you troll,nothing surprising though
Fixed!

same goes for j-10
I found just one pic of J-10 with the 2 wet station hardpoints loaded with Pili-12/SD-10. But the pic is way back from 2004, and dunno if its photo shopped or not. http://image02.wiki.livedoor.jp/n/2/namacha2/ba24a04644817258.jpg But still I gave it the benefit of the doubt and I went with my previous reply where I said 4 X BVR normal and 6 X BVR with dual racks under testing. So don't accuse me of trolling. But it does leave one wondering why there aren't any other pics like the one before with wet stations loaded with Pili-12, while there are plenty of dual rack pics.

About my reply in the previous page, my apologies, should have been 4 X BVR , not 4 X WVR. I actually meant BVR but somehow typed WVR.
 
.
Fixed!


I found just one pic of J-10 with the 2 wet station hardpoints loaded with Pili-12/SD-10. But the pic is way back from 2006, and dunno if its photo shopped or not. http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/p/2006-06-28/U1220P27T1D380005F3DT20060628094818.jpg But still I gave it the benefit of the doubt and I went with my previous reply where I said 4 X BVR normal and 6 X BVR with dual racks under testing. So don't accuse me of trolling. But it does leave one wondering why there aren't any other pics like the one before with wet stations loaded with Pili-12, while there are plenty of dual rack pics.

About my reply in the previous page, my apologies, should have been 4 X BVR , not 4 X WVR. I actually meant BVR but somehow typed WVR.

In the pic you gave the link, one missile is PL-12, while the other one on the middle hard point is PL-11 missile.

Plus, from your post i don't get what you are trying to say. what is your point which you are trying to make.
 
.
Oh.. thanks! They look so alike.

I'm just looking for a pic with PL-12 loaded on to the innermost underwing hardpoint(a.k.a the wet station hardpoint), like the one in the above pic. That pic was taken in 2004, long before PL-12 became operational in 2007. So looking for a recent pic.
 
.
if we strictly go to PLAAF, the numbers they have is more important issue for indians..
like over 250 j-10s and as many Su-30s..and God knows how much to come
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom