PAF J-35AE - News, Updates and Discussions

mythbuster said:
It may sound arrogant but I will say it ....just a few years ago PAF was teaching you how to fly .
Click to expand...
It may sound condescending - but since then they not only have gone a decade ahead in war-fighting concepts , but are responsible for providing you most of the technological capabilities and resources to be able to afford them.

At the end, what the PAF provided them may have been helpful “some years ago” - but without them the PAF and its pilots fly sanctioned piecemeal jets or museum pieces.

When you can barely pay the interest on the loans you took from them at very low rates to pay for them building you technical bases - arrogance is really the only way it sounds.
 
Oscar said:
It may sound condescending - but since then they not only have gone a decade ahead in war-fighting concepts , but are responsible for providing you most of the technological capabilities and resources to be able to afford them.

At the end, what the PAF provided them may have been helpful “some years ago” - but without them the PAF and its pilots fly sanctioned piecemeal jets or museum pieces.

When you can barely pay the interest on the loans you took from them at very low rates to pay for them building you technical bases - arrogance is really the only way it sounds.
Click to expand...
Agree with you , grateful to Chinese for that .
 
Oscar said:
It may sound condescending - but since then they not only have gone a decade ahead in war-fighting concepts , but are responsible for providing you most of the technological capabilities and resources to be able to afford them.

At the end, what the PAF provided them may have been helpful “some years ago” - but without them the PAF and its pilots fly sanctioned piecemeal jets or museum pieces.

When you can barely pay the interest on the loans you took from them at very low rates to pay for them building you technical bases - arrogance is really the only way it sounds.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's not condescending. At least, that was not at all what I had in mind when I wrote this.

Modern military development seeks systematized confrontation, not a competition of one particular weapon. When we describe a new weapon, we also associate it with its corresponding systematization. As in the example I cited earlier, take a 5G phone and use it in a place where there is no 5G network, and it is no longer a 5G phone.

The PLA is now working to build an advanced Army-wide integrated military information network. Its goal is to connect to every soldier and weapon. So far, we're still in the process of building it, and we haven't achieved that goal yet.
In the case of PLAAF, we want every warplane, every pilot, every missile, to be within this advanced information network. Currently, PLAAF still has a large number of older fighters and missiles that are not connected to this advanced information network. Therefore, PLAAF is not currently in the 5th Gen Air Force as a whole; it is still in a mixed 3rd, 4th, and 5th Gen mode.

There is no such thing as 4.5th Gen in the official documents. In Academician Yang Wei's paper there is this explanation:
Among the characteristics of the 5th Gen fighter, there are some characteristics that are fully integrated with the rest of the fighter. They cannot be transferred to the 4th Gen fighter through technology decentralization. These characteristics are also the signature characteristics of the 5th Gen fighter. Stealth, for example.
And the characteristics of the 5th Gen fighter's advanced avionics systems are characteristics that can be transferred to the 4th Gen fighter through technology devolution, thus enhancing the 4th Gen fighter's combat capabilities. And, these performance-enhanced 4th Gen fighters can make up for some of the shortcomings of the 5th Gen fighters, and the two generations of fighters can operate in tandem. These improved 4th Gen fighters can be called “4.5th Gen fighters”.
Therefore, we can consider that the 4.5th Gen fighter has the same or similar avionics system as the 5th Gen fighter. They are fully capable of operating together. Therefore, we can think in a reverse way that if the PAF's datalink and command system can fully support the 4.5th Gen fighters, then it can also support the 5th Gen fighters.

The PLA's official description of the J-10C is a 4th Gen fighter with avionics close to that of a 4.5th Gen fighter. Chinese official media partly adopts PLA's description and partly calls it a 4.5th Gen fighter. ------ China calls the J-16 a standard 4.5th Gen fighter.
Of course, we can also consider this a euphemism. We can totally consider J-10C/J-10CE as 4.5th Gen fighters (less controversy can be ignored).

==========================================

Modern airborne radar has limited detection range due to airframe size and engine power supply. The fire control radar locking range is about 30% to 50% less than its detection range. Even the most advanced fighter airborne radar has a detection range of about 200KM for a typical fighter target (RCS of about 5 square meters). Its attack lock range is reduced by 30%~50%.
The maximum range of PL-15 is more than 200 KM. it clearly exceeds the attack lock range of all fighter aircraft airborne radars. In order to realize its maximum range, it must use the “A-fire B-guide” mode of coordinated operation. PL-15 itself is designed for the 5th Gen fighter, of course, it fully supports the “A-fire B-guide” mode of coordinated operation.
The PL-15E's maximum range is limited to 145KM, which many believe is due to export restrictions. However, I personally believe that this is more likely to be due to the limitations of the J-10CE's on-board radar's attack lock range. Given the production capacity of the PL-15 production line, the PAF's 240 PL-15Es are not at all in the range that would require adjustments to the production line (to shorten the PL-15E's maximum range).
As a corollary, I don't think the PAF has the high speed data links and advanced command systems necessary to support the 4.5th Gen fighter for the time being. At least for the time being, we have seen no evidence of PAF using the PL-15E for “A-fire, B-guide” combat maneuvers. This is an introductory maneuver to the 4.5th Gen's systematization. If PAF can use JF-17B3, AWACS, UAVs, warships, ground radar and other facilities to guide PL-15E, then it will be a complete 4.5th Gen air combat system. Of course. I think PAF is currently trying to move in that direction. But at least for now we don't see it demonstrating its ability to do so. So I don't think PAF is in the 4.5th Gen Air Force simply because it introduced the “J-10CE + PL-15E”.

==========================================

I fully understand the impact of this view on the minds of our Pakistani friends. However, I do not see any problem in analyzing military issues in an objective and serious manner. So, those of my Pakistani friends who want me to apologize, please read and understand some of the basics carefully. I would prefer that we discuss the issue rationally rather than bluffing. According to my reasoning, IAF is also in 4th Gen Air Force like PAF, they are not in the caliber of 4.5th Gen Air Force. ------ Since neither IAF nor PAF currently have 5th Gen fighters, the term 4.5th Gen Air Force is used. The fact is that there isn't much of a systemic difference between the 5th Gen Air Force and the 4.5th Gen Air Force, they are differentiated by the 5th Gen fighters.

Across the board, PLAAF is currently only 40%-60% in the 4.5th/5th Gen air force range. We still have a large number of 3rd Gen and 4th Gen air forces waiting to be updated. We are not fully in the 4.5th/5th Gen air force at this time.
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
Oh, it's not condescending. At least, that was not at all what I had in mind when I wrote this.

Modern military development seeks systematized confrontation, not a competition of one particular weapon. When we describe a new weapon, we also associate it with its corresponding systematization. As in the example I cited earlier, take a 5G phone and use it in a place where there is no 5G network, and it is no longer a 5G phone.

The PLA is now working to build an advanced Army-wide integrated military information network. Its goal is to connect to every soldier and weapon. So far, we're still in the process of building it, and we haven't achieved that goal yet.
In the case of PLAAF, we want every warplane, every pilot, every missile, to be within this advanced information network. Currently, PLAAF still has a large number of older fighters and missiles that are not connected to this advanced information network. Therefore, PLAAF is not currently in the 5th Gen Air Force as a whole; it is still in a mixed 3rd, 4th, and 5th Gen mode.

There is no such thing as 4.5th Gen in the official documents. In Academician Yang Wei's paper there is this explanation:
Among the characteristics of the 5th Gen fighter, there are some characteristics that are fully integrated with the rest of the fighter. They cannot be transferred to the 4th Gen fighter through technology decentralization. These characteristics are also the signature characteristics of the 5th Gen fighter. Stealth, for example.
And the characteristics of the 5th Gen fighter's advanced avionics systems are characteristics that can be transferred to the 4th Gen fighter through technology devolution, thus enhancing the 4th Gen fighter's combat capabilities. And, these performance-enhanced 4th Gen fighters can make up for some of the shortcomings of the 5th Gen fighters, and the two generations of fighters can operate in tandem. These improved 4th Gen fighters can be called “4.5th Gen fighters”.
Therefore, we can consider that the 4.5th Gen fighter has the same or similar avionics system as the 5th Gen fighter. They are fully capable of operating together. Therefore, we can think in a reverse way that if the PAF's datalink and command system can fully support the 4.5th Gen fighters, then it can also support the 5th Gen fighters.

The PLA's official description of the J-10C is a 4th Gen fighter with avionics close to that of a 4.5th Gen fighter. Chinese official media partly adopts PLA's description and partly calls it a 4.5th Gen fighter. ------ China calls the J-16 a standard 4.5th Gen fighter.
Of course, we can also consider this a euphemism. We can totally consider J-10C/J-10CE as 4.5th Gen fighters (less controversy can be ignored).

==========================================

Modern airborne radar has limited detection range due to airframe size and engine power supply. The fire control radar locking range is about 30% to 50% less than its detection range. Even the most advanced fighter airborne radar has a detection range of about 200KM for a typical fighter target (RCS of about 5 square meters). Its attack lock range is reduced by 30%~50%.
The maximum range of PL-15 is more than 200 KM. it clearly exceeds the attack lock range of all fighter aircraft airborne radars. In order to realize its maximum range, it must use the “A-fire B-guide” mode of coordinated operation. PL-15 itself is designed for the 5th Gen fighter, of course, it fully supports the “A-fire B-guide” mode of coordinated operation.
The PL-15E's maximum range is limited to 145KM, which many believe is due to export restrictions. However, I personally believe that this is more likely to be due to the limitations of the J-10CE's on-board radar's attack lock range. Given the production capacity of the PL-15 production line, the PAF's 240 PL-15Es are not at all in the range that would require adjustments to the production line (to shorten the PL-15E's maximum range).
As a corollary, I don't think the PAF has the high speed data links and advanced command systems necessary to support the 4.5th Gen fighter for the time being. At least for the time being, we have seen no evidence of PAF using the PL-15E for “A-fire, B-guide” combat maneuvers. This is an introductory maneuver to the 4.5th Gen's systematization. If PAF can use JF-17B3, AWACS, UAVs, warships, ground radar and other facilities to guide PL-15E, then it will be a complete 4.5th Gen air combat system. Of course. I think PAF is currently trying to move in that direction. But at least for now we don't see it demonstrating its ability to do so. So I don't think PAF is in the 4.5th Gen Air Force simply because it introduced the “J-10CE + PL-15E”.

==========================================

I fully understand the impact of this view on the minds of our Pakistani friends. However, I do not see any problem in analyzing military issues in an objective and serious manner. So, those of my Pakistani friends who want me to apologize, please read and understand some of the basics carefully. I would prefer that we discuss the issue rationally rather than bluffing. According to my reasoning, IAF is also in 4th Gen Air Force like PAF, they are not in the caliber of 4.5th Gen Air Force. ------ Since neither IAF nor PAF currently have 5th Gen fighters, the term 4.5th Gen Air Force is used. The fact is that there isn't much of a systemic difference between the 5th Gen Air Force and the 4.5th Gen Air Force, they are differentiated by the 5th Gen fighters.

Across the board, PLAAF is currently only 40%-60% in the 4.5th/5th Gen air force range. We still have a large number of 3rd Gen and 4th Gen air forces waiting to be updated. We are not fully in the 4.5th/5th Gen air force at this time.
Click to expand...
I think you misinterpreted -
I meant that it is condescending for someone to state that the PAF was teaching PLAAF tactics a few years ago so somehow it grants some superiority or automatic “respect” to the PAF.

Air Forces learn - the PLAAF has learnt faster than most. I remember seeing a newsreel back in 2006-7 on forward units in PLAAF where J-7 pilots were shown training with a cardboard cutout of a cockpit and “practicing” maneuvers on the ground and talking tactics which were probably around from the 70s.

While it was great for that time. Today the PLAAF has simulators and as far as I know trainee pilots learn a lot more on everything from BVR tactics to networked warfare than those men from nearly twenty years ago.

I personally was narrated the story of the JF-17 by an individual who was both Chief Test Pilot , then Chief project director for the program. He was posted to CAC in the early 2000s and liased from the first prototype to the initial idea for Block-3. He was a former F-16 pilot.

He mentioned to me when he started on the project the JF-17 cockpit looked more like the F-7G. So he started working with the CAC team to push more of the “F-16” in - meaning push ideas he knew from his time flying the F-16(and other western jets he flew on deputation or was exposed to) into the JF-17.
Be it the HOTAS, cockpit layout , systems layout and so on - he made the JF-17 get closer to the western concepts. Showing the designers what was needed - what flows should happen and so on.

So when PT-04 came around and then serial production the aircraft was very very different.

The same way - around that timeframe the PAF detachment at Chengdu which at one point was above a hundred personnel were posted - they were working under and with the CAC team. Many of the PAF personnel were engineers who were graduates of western schools such as Cranfield, Georgia Tech and other places and were able to boost the CAC team working on the JF-17.


While they had no direct interaction with the J-10A team since the personnel were mostly different and in a different project phase but PAF was looking for a medium strike fighter after failed to secure Mirage 2000s - and it saw potential in the J-10. But just like it has done with all Chinese products - it provided a fairly large list of product changed and improvements - many of them taken from JF-17 because the CAC team had already done the research - to put those into the J-10 -

Now the PAF never bought the J-10A but the J-10B has many of the requirements that PAF had asked for.

The point I make is that knowledge is never exclusive - it is learnt and transferred back and forth. The PAF people who were introducing ideas for JF-17 had insufficient knowledge of actual manufacturing processes and how to fully make the fighter - they asked for that knowledge as part of the JF-17 contract.

Similarly - The Shaheen exercise held every year by PAF and PLAAF is just that - Knowledge exchange. Today PLAAF has more knowledge and is at a level higher than PAF in many domains - but there are some topics the PAF is exposed to more due to its relationships and training which the PLAAF does not know directly because of its geopolitical relationships.
 
Michael said:
As a corollary, I don't think the PAF has the high speed data links and advanced command systems necessary to support the 4.5th Gen fighter for the time being. At least for the time being, we have seen no evidence of PAF using the PL-15E for “A-fire, B-guide” combat maneuvers. This is an introductory maneuver to the 4.5th Gen's systematization. If PAF can use JF-17B3, AWACS, UAVs, warships, ground radar and other facilities to guide PL-15E, then it will be a complete 4.5th Gen air combat system. Of course. I think PAF is currently trying to move in that direction. But at least for now we don't see it demonstrating its ability to do so. So I don't think PAF is in the 4.5th Gen Air Force simply because it introduced the “J-10CE + PL-15E”.
Click to expand...
Do you actually have any basis for your claims?

Anything at all? Even an ounce of basis...?

I seriously wonder why you continue to talk about matters you have little to no clue about. This A fire B guide you keep referring to is called CEC. Offboard guidance has literally been a thing for decades, welcome to the modern age... The PAF has had the capability to be able to use data feeds from its airborne and also surface sensors, not only the PAF's sensors, but also the Army and Navy's via RedLine, Link Green, Link-17 and also VIA the RAMP to some extent. These all form pieces of the puzzle that is CEC.

The US armed forces have been displaying CEC using legacy datalinks like Link-16, so again, you harping on about super duper intergalactic datalinks is useless. Of course, modern datalink systems like MADL will allow for greater bandwidh as we are probably at the limit of whats possible on legacy systems, but for you to keep on barking about a matter you're not familiar with is silly. I really dont understand why you keep trying to talk about the capabilities and abilities of the PAF when you dont have the slightest of clue on how things work there.

Also, this idea of Radar range being gimped instead of the missile itself being modified is silly, does this mean then that J-31E radars will also be capped at 145km lol. Of course not, dont be silly.


But do tell us more about the PAF's datalinks and their capabilities, start by telling us how all the assets are interlinked... I am sure you wont be able to...


PS if you're waiting for videos and pressers from the PAF as a metric of ability, then the PAF has also not demonstrated a firing of the PL-10 or PL-15 or even the J-10 dropping any sort of munition... perhaps the J-10 does not have this capability and is moving towards fully being able to utilise the capabilities of a 1st gen fighter perhaps...?

Silliness.
 
Oscar said:
I think you misinterpreted -
I meant that it is condescending for someone to state that the PAF was teaching PLAAF tactics a few years ago so somehow it grants some superiority or automatic “respect” to the PAF.

Air Forces learn - the PLAAF has learnt faster than most. I remember seeing a newsreel back in 2006-7 on forward units in PLAAF where J-7 pilots were shown training with a cardboard cutout of a cockpit and “practicing” maneuvers on the ground and talking tactics which were probably around from the 70s.

While it was great for that time. Today the PLAAF has simulators and as far as I know trainee pilots learn a lot more on everything from BVR tactics to networked warfare than those men from nearly twenty years ago.

I personally was narrated the story of the JF-17 by an individual who was both Chief Test Pilot , then Chief project director for the program. He was posted to CAC in the early 2000s and liased from the first prototype to the initial idea for Block-3. He was a former F-16 pilot.

He mentioned to me when he started on the project the JF-17 cockpit looked more like the F-7G. So he started working with the CAC team to push more of the “F-16” in - meaning push ideas he knew from his time flying the F-16(and other western jets he flew on deputation or was exposed to) into the JF-17.
Be it the HOTAS, cockpit layout , systems layout and so on - he made the JF-17 get closer to the western concepts. Showing the designers what was needed - what flows should happen and so on.

So when PT-04 came around and then serial production the aircraft was very very different.

The same way - around that timeframe the PAF detachment at Chengdu which at one point was above a hundred personnel were posted - they were working under and with the CAC team. Many of the PAF personnel were engineers who were graduates of western schools such as Cranfield, Georgia Tech and other places and were able to boost the CAC team working on the JF-17.


While they had no direct interaction with the J-10A team since the personnel were mostly different and in a different project phase but PAF was looking for a medium strike fighter after failed to secure Mirage 2000s - and it saw potential in the J-10. But just like it has done with all Chinese products - it provided a fairly large list of product changed and improvements - many of them taken from JF-17 because the CAC team had already done the research - to put those into the J-10 -

Now the PAF never bought the J-10A but the J-10B has many of the requirements that PAF had asked for.

The point I make is that knowledge is never exclusive - it is learnt and transferred back and forth. The PAF people who were introducing ideas for JF-17 had insufficient knowledge of actual manufacturing processes and how to fully make the fighter - they asked for that knowledge as part of the JF-17 contract.

Similarly - The Shaheen exercise held every year by PAF and PLAAF is just that - Knowledge exchange. Today PLAAF has more knowledge and is at a level higher than PAF in many domains - but there are some topics the PAF is exposed to more due to its relationships and training which the PLAAF does not know directly because of its geopolitical relationships.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
As I have mentioned before, I have seen a documentary on the Chinese produced JF-17. members of the CAC team clearly mentioned in an interview that there was a significant amount of Pakistani involvement in the design and development of the JF-17. They provided a lot of valuable inputs and help to the CAC team. the CAC team is very grateful for this.
In fact, some of the technologies and design concepts on the JF-17 are in line with the J-10.The chief designer of the JF-17 is Yang Wei. He is also one of the main designers of the J-10 series, and Song Wencong, the chief designer of the J-10, was Yang Wei's teacher.
 
It is better to get delivery after China has itself inducted over 100 J-35 and upgraded the fighter.
 
Yommie said:
When they start to phase out J-10C would be my best guess.
Click to expand...
China currently has around 1800 4th, 4.5th and 5th generation fighter jets. It depends on what the maximum planes they are aiming for, its possible they will stop production of J10s and start J35As, then after 2035s when the induction of 6th generation planes start they will start to retire J10A, J10B, J11s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 24 (members: 0, guests: 24)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top