Replacing the F-16: Will Pakistan’s Top Fighter Squadron Transition to Chinese J-10Cs?

[messiach]

@araz @Signalian @Horus @The Eagle So from where is this information coming referring to purchase of J10. A wasted thread.

 

[PWFI]

@araz @Signalian @Horus @The Eagle So from where is this information coming referring to purchase of J10. A wasted thread.

From @Zarvan

 

[GriffinsRule]

@araz @Signalian @Horus @The Eagle So from where is this information coming referring to purchase of J10. A wasted thread.

PAF is on record as saying JF-17 is their destiny yet some people think they will stop after 30 Block IIIs and buy J-10 as a "stop gap".

 

[dbc]

Then why make a half-arsed point in the first place that neither contradicts or advances any form of argument?

Its Italian origins may be of trivial interest. But I'm still unclear on the point you're trying to make. I think I have a clue, but is suspect it has something to do with ego

you spoke of generations claiming the J10 is a generation ahead but it leverages design concepts from the 1950s. So why does J10 being a newer aircraft automatically bestow superior flight performance vis-a-vis the older F16? Your claim of superior high altitude and supersonic performance for divertless supersonic intake is also false. DSI reduces weight and complexity and improves LO with acceptable deterioration in supersonic, super cruise and high altitude performance over other designs such as 'gauzing panels' (YF-23) or variable duct (F-15) or perforated diverters (Typhoon). The performance trade off was acceptable for the F-35, and J10 but not acceptable for the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen or the F-22.

It's not an ego thing. Unless you have 500 hrs in the F-16 and the J-10 don't make claims about superior or inferior flight performance.

 

[PoondolotoPandalum]

yyou spoke of generations claiming the J10 is a generation ahead but it leverages design concepts from the 1950s So why does J10 being a newer aircraft automatically bestow superior flight performance vis-a-vis the older F16? Your claim of superior high altitude and supersonic performance for divertless supersonic intake is also false. DSI reduces weight and complexity and improves LO with acceptable deterioration in supersonic, super cruise and high altitude performance over other designs such as 'gauzing panels' (YF-23) or variable duct (F-15) or perforated diverters (Typhoon). The performance trade off was acceptable for the F-35, and J10 but not acceptable for the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen or the F-22.

It's not an ego thing. Unless you have 500 hrs in the F-16 and the J-10 don't make claims about flight performance.

Well, first of all, I didn't claim DSI was a Chinese innovation. Your default state-of-mind saw something that wasn't there.

"yyou spoke of generations claiming the J10 is a generation ahead but it leverages design concepts from the 1950s"

Well, first of all, I didn't claim DSI was a Chinese innovation. Your default state-of-mind saw something that wasn't there.

Those features individually aren't 4th+ gen in themselves. If you're that pedantic and less Egotastic, you could've also pointed out alexander's lipisch (or marcel Dassault for that matter) contribution to the delta wing, or the Shinden Kai having canard foreplanes, well in front of the center of the lift. It's the combination of design features that determin whichever generation an aircraft belongs to.

Modern delta-canard, with very high center-of-gravity-offset to center-of-lift offset, fly by wire, thrust vectoring control, canard foreplanes, use of composite materials, and computer optimized DSI means it is, at the very least, half a generation ahead over the F-16s design, which HAS not evolved in anyway. *edit*, I said in terms of fundamental designs, not avionics, materials, weopons, engines, etc

It's the same thing with the euro-canards. They look similar on paper to a teen series. But ask any typhoon, rafale, gripen-NG pilot on what their airplanes feel like, relative to teen series, or any other 4th gen platforms. In 4th gen platforms (F-16s, F-15s, Mirage-2000s), you need a stopwatch to carefully assess the performance (climb-rate, sustained turning rate at X speeds, etc etc) differences. On the typhoon, you FEEL it. The acceleration, high-speed maneuverability is that much higher. A typhoon can pull 9G's at 50,000ft effortlessly, something an F-16 can never do.

In the case of J-10 and J-10C, I suspect the performance is probably * edit* isn't there with the EFT and Rafaele. But the choice of a delta-canard config suggests it will have many of the performance attributes expected of such.

Unless you can point to specific performance data or technical implications of particular design features, there isn't a single performance parameter where F-16V has any parity with J-10C.

It's not a dig on the F-16, but a 1970s platform will only get you so far. No supercruise, small wings, and static intakes. They had a DSI F-16 prototype, but like a lot of highly modified F-16 prototypes, they never saw their way into service, for whatever reasons. You can argue they wouldn't have added much value, but that's a separate topic.

 

[PoondolotoPandalum]

" DSI reduces weight and complexity and improves LO with acceptable deterioration in supersonic, super cruise and high altitude performance over other designs such as 'gauzing panels' (YF-23) or variable duct (F-15) or perforated diverters (Typhoon) "

Typhoon also has variable ramps at the front of the intakes, designed for better pressure recovery at high Mach numbers. Rafale has a simple static intake with hidden compressor blades. They prioritized low observability overpressure recovery at higher Mach numbers. Initial J-10s also had Eurofighter-square style intakes

In general, DSI designs are almost certainly better than fixed intakes at pressure recovery over high Mach numbers. So it's not at all far-fetched to suggest, J-10C is better optimized for higher speeds. Whether you think that has any relevance in modern combat or not, is a separate matter. The fact is F-16s intakes, along with its general configuration, on the whole, were designed for the sort of tactical maneuvers expected from the late 60s air-combat school of thought. Other than newer engines, and slightly larger intakes (on GE variants), the F-16 has not evolved in any other way, to keep up with the high-speed, supersonic performance of modern delta-canards.

With modern CFD optimization, DSI inlets can be optimized to a much higher extent than made previously. Comparing a 60s era DSI, with a 2010s era one, areas the rear spoiler of a Plymouth Superbird, with the rear spoiler of a formula-1 car.

 

[LeGenD]

Hold on - too much theory in your posts without any data to substantiate it.

Do you understand aerodynamic benefits of cropped delta wing design? Informed by Boyd and Christie’s Energy-Maneuverability Theory for air combat maneuvering to maintain high energy in all maneuver regimes? This is F-16 in nutshell.

J-10C is pure delta wing design with canards; this ensure stability in low speeds - I give you this.

J-10C is better optimized for higher speeds and supercruise? LMAO ... This just gets better now.

 

[Zarvan]

From @Zarvan

Not me Mr @Blacklight is the main source and also confirmed by Mr @TaimiKhan

 

[dbc]

Modern delta-canard, with very high centre-of-gravity-offset to centre-of-lift offset, fly by wire, thrust vectoring control, canard foreplanes, use of composite materials, and computer optimised DSI means it is, at the very least, half a generation ahead over the F-16s design, which HAS not evolved in any way.

you are using random technical jargons - high COG offset to COL offset - what does that even mean?

the first f-16 that rolled out of General Dynamics in Fort Worth had 3% composite content by weight by 2003 that ratio increased to 13% and it is much higher now. There have been internal improvements as well, composite struts and clamps have replaced metal parts even the the bubble canopy on the F-16 has evolved over the years. conformal tanks, carbon composite tail and stabilizers , the spine is different. Here I speak only of changes that having a bearing on flight characteristics. So to say that the F-16 hasn't evolved is simply not a true statement.

DSI and delta canard configuration have their own trade offs, which is why both Russia and the US have stayed awake from tail first designs. LO, higher fuel fraction - reduced range, sensitivity to change in CG, twitchy nose are some of the many trade offs.

This doesn't mean the F-16 is superior or inferior to the J-10. It means the F-16 is easier to handle while a J-10 pilot will need many more flight hours to achieve the same training currency, such as midair refueling, landing or bombing run. Plus the wartime pilot workload may induce more life threatening mistakes on a platform that is more challenging to fly vs. one that is more precise in response to pilot input.

It isn't a coincidence that nations with experience in air combat have so far stayed away from a tail first configuration. Finally, you place too much emphasis on flight performance, on full internal fuel most fighters have 2-3 minutes of full afterburner. At the end of a pilots career most can count on their fingers the number of times they flew supersonic or even pulled more than 6G. Apart from the F-22, Typhoon and the F-15 I can't think of a production fighter that can hit Mach 2 plus and in combat load only the F-22* is capable of Mach 2 plus.

* EDIT: Forgot SU 57

 

[PWFI]

Not me Mr @Blacklight is the main source and also confirmed by Mr @TaimiKhan

I was joking bro

 

[PoondolotoPandalum]

" you are using random technical jargons - high COG offset to COL offset - what does that even mean? "

There isn't an easy way to describe this, without using diagrams and some maths, but I shall try. Aerodynamics concepts aren't immediately intuitive

Conventional (stable, IE non-fighter-like airplanes) have their COG ahead of the COL, for stability. The tailplane is there to produce downforce, to compensate for the torque generated by the COG and COL. Foreplanes on the other hand help the main lift generate additional lift, as it produces vortices ahead of it. In a conventional tailplane configuration, the main wings must compensate for both the downforce (generated by the tail) and COG. Foreplaned airplanes need to generate lift to oppose the torque generated by the COG and COL (much like a tailplane, but at a different location). In plain terms, it significantly reduces wing load, in comparison to a conventional wing and tail design, which better facilitates maneuverability.

Foreplanes had their drawbacks which were only circumnavigated with the aid of FBW, computational optimization, and modern actuators. Aerodynamic surfaces placed behind the COG in a plane (or more important missile) are stabilizing. Placed ahead of it, makes them destabilizing. This is why delta-canards use canard foreplanes well ahead of the wings, and therefore, well ahead of both COG and COL. It makes a much more of an unstable platform, enhancing agility.

It allows the preservation of the traditional strengths associated with deltas. Like its ability to dissipate supersonic shockwaves more efficiently than conventional, or even cropped deltas. Which means tremendous acceleration and speed. But more importantly, it makes them overcome their weaknesses, such as high trim drag, and high energy bleed during sustained turns. For max speed and acceleration, the delta wing is the ideal config (providing you also want it to turn reasonably well).

" So to say that the F-16 hasn't evolved is simply not a true statement."

I didn't say it did not evolve, I said its fundamental design has not, despite several design studies and proposals to overcome some of its shortcomings. The changes you've mentioned gave it industry-leading service life and reliability, but little to no improvement over kineatmic performance.

" DSI and delta canard configuration have their own trade-offs, which is why both Russia and the US have stayed awake from tail first designs. LO, higher fuel fraction - reduced range, sensitivity to change in CG, twitchy nose are some of the many trade offs"

Russia was actually interested in a delta canard config with the MiG 1.44. It was a Eurofighter on steroids, with over TWICE the thrust. Though it had twin tails, as it was designed for much higher speeds (over mach 2.6). The design was abandoned due to very high RCS, even for Russian standards.

The Americans priorities low RCS over everything else and have therefore abandoned delta-canard designs.

All European nations, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, UK, Sweden (IE the EFT consortium + Dassault + SAAB) have come to the same conclusion, which was to use a delta-canard config. Stealth was not a priority. High-speed supersonic agility, climb rate (particularly emphasized by the RAF, with their interception duties), and acceleration were priorities. Only with their 6th gen designs (like Tempest), when they're finally looking into "full stealth", have they abandoned this well-proven configuration.

The J-10 series was developed with far fewer resources than the EFT, Rafale, Gripen. And on that basis alone, I speculate, it isn't as capable. But it's still is a delta-canard config, with a fairly powerful engine. Later variants incorporate some advanced features like TVC and DSI intakes. And they have demonstrated incredibly high (approaching 90 degrees) angle of attack maneuvers over public airshows, such as Zhuhai, etc.

" It means the F-16 is easier to handle while a J-10 pilot will need many more flight hours to achieve the same training currency,"

Not wanting to sound like a dick, but I honestly don't see how you've come to that conclusion. All FBW airplanes are easy to handle. In fact, you can argue the stall speeds of delta-winged platforms like J-10Cs are much more forgiving, making for easier landings. Reliability is another factor. Even the Chinese don't claim they've reached parity in reliability as Western jets just yet. But I don't think there is anything intrinsic about the F-16, that makes it easier to fly and fight in than a J-10. Unless you know something I don't

As far as emphasizing flight performance over all else. It may sound like that. But I was comparing the airplanes based on what's actually known. That's all. I did not make a final conclusion on which is a better platform as of now.

 

[mdmm]

F-16 , J-10 C and JF-17 Block3 are modern superior quality jet fighters (recognized by millions of flight engineers) today with state of the art Missiles, Radar and electronics . After contract Pakistan will get 36 J-10C this year. So now Pakistan army proudly own F-16 , ,JF-17 Blk3 and J-10 C jet fighters . A better combination to fight all 4th Gen fighters.

 

[iLION12345_1]

There is ample information about J-10 variants on the web but I do not get the hype of J-10C in particular. I have posted some information in previous post (fixed 1st image as well). There is virtually nothing to suggest that sensor systems of J-10C are in the league of sensor systems of F-16 Block 70/72, let alone the notion of "J-10C has superior EW and radar capabilities to F-16V" can even be entertained. If the gap is big in this area, what more there is to talk about? The talk simply ends here.


There are noticeable differences in the airframe of F-16 variants and J-10 variants to begin with. DSi is helpful in terms of mitigating RCS spikes of canards and other details in J-10C; the jet fighter have external payload nevertheless.

F-16 Block 70/72 have sufficient sensor fidelity to detect and track airborne objects having RCS around 1 m^2 mark from afar (solid BVR engagement envelope for targets of the sort). J-10C will be noticed and tracked from afar - no issue.

Rafale F3R can also detect elusive airborne objects around 100 KM mark with onboard EO/IR solution being active at this point, and the likes of J-10C beforehand.

Therefore.


It looks like you skimmed my previous post.

"Building on decades of proven performance, Lockheed Martin has updated the sensor suite of the F-16 to even further increase its capabilities. The new variation of the IRST21® (Infrared Search and Track) sensor suite, named Legion-ES™ (Embedded System), is designed for the F-16 Block 70/72 fleet to optimize aircraft performance.

Legion-ES is a fully integrated, embedded IRST system providing critical technology to detect and track airborne threats with weapon-quality accuracy, increasing pilot reaction time and enhancing warfighter survivability. The configuration is complementary to other on-board and off-board aircraft sensors, enabling multispectral engagement capability. For example, if a pilot spots something of uncertainty on his or her radar, Legion-ES can be used as the long-wave infrared sensor to determine what the threat may be."

Lockheed Martin Unveils Upgraded Sensor Suite for New Production F-16

Building on decades of proven performance, Lockheed Martin has updated the sensor suite of the F-16 to even further increase its capabilities.

www.lockheedmartin.com

LOL

AIM-120D can be used to engage airborne targets around 150 KM mark in BVR engagements - this is very close to maximum of PL-15. AIM-120D is also one of the most reliable A2A missiles ever built. How many PL-15 kills out there?

Having long-range A2A missiles is helpful but you need to keep in mind what they can do in EW-heavy environments.

BVR kills might not be easy to achieve in many situations depending upon what type of adversary you are up against.


6000 kg is maximum limit of J-10 variants. There will be performance penalties otherwise. You cannot expect miracles from increasingly lighter airframes.


No.


J-10C will have better range in Pakistan's case due to IFR ???

F-16s are designed to operate in all weather conditions and can be used to conduct strikes deep inside India with CFTs in current times - how will J-10C fit the bill without reliable CFTs?

Unless PAF gets something like J-16 or Eurofighter Typhoon?

F-16s do not suffer much performance loss in case of protracted engagements either (solid blend of airframe and engine performance parameters). This is important consideration as well.

Americans have decided that there won't be political compromises in exports of F-16 Block 70/72 to interested parties.

New F-16s Will All Be Sold In A Single Base Model Configuration With A Standardized Price

Lockheed Martin says the new sales concept will save time and money, both in the contracting process and when it comes to actually producing the jets.

www.thedrive.com

Good thing I suppose?


WE are expecting too much from select suppliers TBH. Pakistan should try its best to cultivate solid relations with as many countries as possible in coming years; wider set of options are much better for launching new programs and making off-the-shelf purchases in times of urgency.

Thank you for your response, I like a person who can have a good conversation by presenting sources and explaining clearly, rare sight these days, and it helps me learn more too, I’m not the best with aircraft.
I would like to continue but currently I’m hospitalized, so I’ll have to leave it there. Sorry, but thanks for the effort

 

[Blacklight]

Not me Mr @Blacklight is the main source and also confirmed by Mr @TaimiKhan

I just said East & West. No names.

 

[Blacklight]

Thank you for your response, I like a person who can have a good conversation by presenting sources and explaining clearly, rare sight these days, and it helps me learn more too, I’m not the best with aircraft.
I would like to continue but currently I’m hospitalized, so I’ll have to leave it there. Sorry, but thanks for the effort

Hope nothing serious. Get well soon.