PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
On Contrary , J10C has become the ideal plane to replace Mirage fleet
  • Advance plane maneuverability
  • Decent weapon load
  • Avionics / Engine
  • Radar
I can see J10C and JF-17 Block III being the backbone
of Airforce , with F16 C/D reserved for Special Missions or Duties

J-35 Most like will be a Separate Class of it's own in Pakistan Airforce
And may be even KAAN appearing in PAF in future

I agree, I'm really impressed with the J10
BUT

My feeling is the PAF puts it's plane in 'use' categories as opposed to counting numbers


So it views the 20 J10s, the 20 F17s B52 and the JF17 Block 3s as one group with everything else providing back up


If they view the J35 as a superior option to the J10 and something that comes within 2 years, then I think they will just save resources for the J35
And use JF17 block 3s as replacement for any mirages or PGs

My personal view is J10 has proven itself very effectively and we should increase the numbers to anywhere between 30-50 as a solid base backed up by JF17s

Then we can just wait for J35 to get ready

The only issue being, IF we order more J10s how long will it take and if it takes the same amount of time as the J35 then what's the point
 
J10A is not a refined craft like the J10C. I am not downplaying Chinese engineering, but we needed a foreign input and feedback from somewhere to compare. The Pakistanis were that conduit, and I am grateful for that relationship, they had extensive experience with European and American aircrafts for decades and this was shared with us after 1989 when the Americans started an embargo. They didn't have the technology, they had the operational experience which we need, it was the same as how we go operational experience for carriers from the Brazillians. Nobody works alone in this world, and I think some Chinese are too nationalistic.
Everything is just speculation. But respect. I just hope not to force others to believe.

And. Please don't apologize for the Chinese people. 1. You do not have this qualification. 2. Jiangxi University has apologized on behalf of the Chinese people.
 
Everything is just speculation. But respect. I just hope not to force others to believe.

And. Please don't apologize for the Chinese people. 1. You do not have this qualification. 2. Jiangxi University has apologized on behalf of the Chinese people.
This is what i am saying. The lack of EQ.
 
Given the experiences in Ukraine, I have to say that perhaps it is fundamentally infeasible to stop EVERY cruise missile and suicide drones ever to encroach a pakistani city, instead on top of long range/area air defence systems should receive greater magazine depth, while terminal defence systems should be focused on defending critical infrastructure - transformers, water, communications, storage to name a few. While it may be cruel to say, but so long as key infrastructures are kept intact, having concrete, rebar, bricks and asphalt soaking up enemy standoff munitions isn’t necessarily a bad deal, from a war effort sustainability standpoint, with pakistan at a disadvantage in terms of raw mass.

In terms of the specifics, instead of Iron Dome systems that really is more designed to stop low-end ballistic targets (pipe rockets being a primary recipient), like I said, AD systems with inexpensive missiles and greater magazine depth, as well as effective terminal interception systems should be a better fit. I’m thinking of systems such as the FK-3/HQ-22 (known for being inexpensive), HQ-11 for deployment flexibility and magazine depth, and for terminal intercept pakistan might be interested in both novel and conventional systems, from combat proven (in saudi) laser interception system “silent hunter”, microwave drone jamming systems View attachment 119305to FK-3000 system combining AHEAD firing autocannon and 96 micro-missilesView attachment 119307
We absolutely have the know-how to develop these in-house.
 
Everything is just speculation. But respect. I just hope not to force others to believe.

And. Please don't apologize for the Chinese people. 1. You do not have this qualification. 2. Jiangxi University has apologized on behalf of the Chinese people.
bro, why you use KMT flag?
 
I won't be surprised if PAF now wants another batch of further improved J-10s.

ClcMGhk.jpeg
That version is designed for the PLAF aerobatics display team, the spine holds diesel for smoke generation, you can see the nozzle at the base of the tail fin that injects it into the engine exhaust to generate smoke. Crazy that the Chinese went to all this effort just for a few units of this type for the display team!!
 
Views from PLA military observers on the India - Pakistan air battle on May 7th from the Chinese perspective.
I translated the article with the help of an AI tool.

Very informative. Thank you for translating it.
 
Did you see any pakistani here?
View attachment 119616
I don't think Pakistan has any input in the design of the J-10 at all. The genesis of J 10 starts with J 9 back in the 1960s, but due to Cultural and low levels of industrial base, it never came to fruition. It had to wait until the 1980s when it was revived. But the experience gained in the design of J9 facilitates the development of J10. Song Wenchong was instrumental in the design of the J-10, and His assistant Yang Wei designed most of the fly-by-wire system. It was a rumor that the Israelis might help design fly by wire. But never confirmed!

I don't think Pakistan will risk cutting off spare parts by helping the Chinese, since they have to sign a "Nondisclosure agreement," and General Dynamics has personnel on the ground to guard against leakage of secret information. The best they can do is maybe give the design parameters of the F-16. Traditionally, Pakistan imports most of its weapons from the US and looks down on Chinese weapons. Only recently, in the 2000s, they source it from China because they were cut off from US supply


This topic is about the History, Performance & Discussion of Chengdu J-10.

English is not my native language, and the sources are also quite diverse, so if you have any suggestions please feel free.

Due to confidentiality reasons, I can only provide rough data, such as the names and approximate performance of radar, engines, and weapons.

Chinese Air-To-Air missiles

image
image4403×2731 331 KB

J-10 (猛龙, Vigorous Dragon):

image
image1452×418 91.8 KB

J-9 (Canard) “The Predecessor of J-10”

image



On April 1, 1966, the “J-9 Aircraft Design Plan” was submitted. The National Defense Science and Technology Commission held a meeting to review the design plan of the J-9 aircraft and submitted the “J-9 Aircraft Tactical and Technical Demonstration Report” to the Central Military Commission. The report proposes that J-9 has a maximum speed of Mach 2.4, a ceiling of 21 km, a maximum range of 3000 km, a Radius of action of 600 km, a maximum endurance of 3 hours, and a maximum Rate of climb of 180~200 m/s. In order to enable the 601 Institute (Shenyang) to concentrate on developing the J-8, the development task of the J-9 was transferred to the newly formed 611 Institute (Chengdu) in April 1970.
In 1978, due to the urgent requirements for the J-7C undertaken by 611, the development work of the J-9 began to shrink. In 1980, in order to implement the national economic adjustment policy, the development of the J-9 was completely suspended. Due to the Cultural Revolution, the J-9 lasted for more than ten years and ultimately came to an end. Its achievements, especially the canard layout, abdominal air intake and medium range intercepting weapon Fire-control system, provide valuable experience for the development of J-10.

Performance

  • Engine: Type 910
  • Radar: Unknown
  • Air-To-Air Weapons: Unknown
  • Air-To-Surface Weapons: Unknown
J-10

image
image1018×598 96.9 KB

Like the “J-11”, the " J-10" is not a confirmed name, but this does not prevent us from referring to the early models that could only use PL-11 as the J-10. The image shows the earliest prototype, the J-10 “1001”.
The early J-10 differed from the J-10A in many details such as body shape and landing gear doors. Due to its initial intention to use the WS-10, the body shape was specifically optimized for the WS-10, and many positions were significantly different from the J-10A, which was confirmed to have undergone shape improvements after adopting the AL-31F.
The PAF were not involved in the initial design and development, but they had significant input when it came to the more advanced versions like the C model, but only in terms of testing, evaluation, and submitting recommendations for improvement. There was a similar process for the development of the F-7PG. I think given how quickly the PAF mastered the J-10C against the IAF, PAF pilots and personnel were probably involved with the J-10 long before the PAF actually inducted it.
 
Is that a personal feeling of yours or held by larger Chinese society and government?

Chinese people generally do not understand Pakistan's domestic politics; they only know that it is a pro-Chinese country and is our friend. And some Chinese who know more about Pakistan usually think that all Pakistani political parties are pro-Chinese, and the difference is only that there are some parties that are simultaneously pro-American and some that are anti-American. This is supposed to be a reflection of the different opinions of different political groups, and it is a normal phenomenon. For example, Imran Khan's main supporters come from the Northwest Province, so the government is bound to be anti-American and pro-Taliban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Latest Posts

Back
Top