PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[Ali_Baba]

I loved dale brown books. Flight of the old dog, the EB-52, dreamland, Patrick Mclanahan, etc. My favorite was Fatal terrain. I listened to it on audiobook last month actually, when I was on vacation. Probably gone through that book 5 or 6 times over the years. I liked his books on China. If you could dream the tech, then you could focus on innovative strategies.

Btw, the DCS crowd are now also looking at the JF-17 anew. Fearing it. It’s wild.

Wonder how long before DCS gets the pl15 upgrade now!

 

[CombatCorner]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Michael]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

@Michael - What are we seeing?

I don't have any hard evidence's to analyze this. I can only offer my speculative thoughts.

Sorry, the correct answer came a little late. In fact, the official answer was announced a few days ago, but I didn't notice it.

On May 15, AVIC's Weibo official account released two messages. They introduced the two helmets respectively.

Sina Visitor System

Sina Visitor System

If you have trouble accessing Weibo or Chinese content, let me briefly explain the difference between them.

This is a monocular integrated display helmet(Official original image)


This is a binocular integrated display helmet(Official original image)


For other technical details about them, please visit the link, which is described in detail.

 

[Harbyharb]

“2+4+3” is the standard air combat configuration for the PAF's J-10CE.

Theoretically, Pakistan's small depth makes the J-10CE's greater range less necessary. It does not need to carry three secondary fuel tanks. However, the PAF currently has fewer J-10CEs and they have to need them to have a longer lag time. This is probably why the J-10CE usually carries 3 secondary fuel tanks.
If PAF increases the number of J-10CEs in the future, then the J-10CEs will no longer need to have a long lag time. We may see it carrying more missiles instead of sub-tanks.

I'm under the impression that J-10C holds 2900kg of internal fuel without dump tanks, which gives us, what, around 25 minutes of loiter time without afterburners? Pretty much rules out ditching all three dump tanks.

To increase the carrying capacity and payload flexibility, I think it would take further developments of the J-10 platform itself and small diameter munitions. There has already been an initial trend with the last Zhuhai defence expo showcasing the J-10C ditching the central 800L dump tank for a offset composite hardpoint for 2 PL-12s, and I think it can be taken further.

IIRC the J-10's 4 fuselage tandem hardpoints that currently can only hold 500lb class ordnance (usually dumb bombs) was originally designed to be able to carry AAMs, scrapped due to aerodynamic and structural concerns. That and combined with PLAAF's lack of interest in small diameter precision ordnance like SDBs that are more suited for a US style CAS role meant said hardpoints are underutilized.

I also believe that the PL-12/SD-10 platform still have untapped potential. It is significantly larger than the AMRAAMs and certainly have the potential to acheive greater range. Say, if the missile adopts dual stage booster and a clean body+tail fin configuration, given a composite material body and high specific thrust rocket forumula (like the AIM-120D), I see no reason why it cannot also achieve very respectable ranges comparable to current PL-15s in Pakistani inventory.

It's just that I doubt the PLAAF have the interest to adopt these improvements as they are focused on the peer competition with the US. Perhaps if the J-10C sees more export demands the Chinese manufacturers might take note.

 

[Yommie]

J-10 C has a serious long nose. Reminds me of Fw-190 D.

 

[iblini]

It's just that I doubt the PLAAF have the interest to adopt these improvements as they are focused on the peer competition with the US. Perhaps if the J-10C sees more export demands the Chinese manufacturers might take note.

yeah, both SAC and CAC are working around the clock.

 

[Michael]

I'm under the impression that J-10C holds 2900kg of internal fuel without dump tanks, which gives us, what, around 25 minutes of loiter time without afterburners? Pretty much rules out ditching all three dump tanks.

To increase the carrying capacity and payload flexibility, I think it would take further developments of the J-10 platform itself and small diameter munitions. There has already been an initial trend with the last Zhuhai defence expo showcasing the J-10C ditching the central 800L dump tank for a offset composite hardpoint for 2 PL-12s, and I think it can be taken further.

IIRC the J-10's 4 fuselage tandem hardpoints that currently can only hold 500lb class ordnance (usually dumb bombs) was originally designed to be able to carry AAMs, scrapped due to aerodynamic and structural concerns. That and combined with PLAAF's lack of interest in small diameter precision ordnance like SDBs that are more suited for a US style CAS role meant said hardpoints are underutilized.

I also believe that the PL-12/SD-10 platform still have untapped potential. It is significantly larger than the AMRAAMs and certainly have the potential to acheive greater range. Say, if the missile adopts dual stage booster and a clean body+tail fin configuration, given a composite material body and high specific thrust rocket forumula (like the AIM-120D), I see no reason why it cannot also achieve very respectable ranges comparable to current PL-15s in Pakistani inventory.

It's just that I doubt the PLAAF have the interest to adopt these improvements as they are focused on the peer competition with the US. Perhaps if the J-10C sees more export demands the Chinese manufacturers might take note.

The J-10C has an internal fuel combat radius of about 700-800km.

The range problem is a congenital defect of light/medium fighters. All these fighters have this problem.

Pakistan has a small land depth. The J-10CE's 700-800km combat radius is no problem. The problem is the time in the air.
If the PAF has enough J-10CEs and a more comprehensive air defense early warning system, then they no longer need the fighters to stay in the sky for too long.

The PLAAF has never been very interested in medium-sized fighters, and they prefer heavy fighters with long range. Therefore, there may not be major modifications and upgrades to the J-10C in the future, only some small-scale upgrades at most.

If the sales of the J-10CE are very good in the future, it is not ruled out that CAC will launch a major upgraded version of the J-10 exclusively for the foreign trade market. But there is no such trend at present. The focus of CAC's work has long been shifted to the 5/6/7th-Gen fighters, and there is not much interest in the J-10 series.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

PAF's new war doctrine has turned the whole of IAF assets except 33 Rafales obsolete. I know Indians used to boast a lot about having money to buy whatever that want (thought they were only able to afford 36 Rafales instead of 126 they originally wanted), but now how many years if not decades will it take to replace all old assets?

Since the world has entered into an active war period, the West and its allies are increasing their inventory and accessories. Not to mention the shortage in rare earth minerals supply chain due to the Chinese restrictions. The orders will take longer time to fulfill. Bhatat is in a dire straits.....

 

[Jango]

If the sales of the J-10CE are very good in the future, it is not ruled out that CAC will launch a major upgraded version of the J-10 exclusively for the foreign trade market. But there is no such trend at present. The focus of CAC's work has long been shifted to the 5/6/7th-Gen fighters, and there is not much interest in the J-10 series.

Mere mortals in 2025, China in 2080 already, and at fast pace.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FuturePAF]

Wonder how long before DCS gets the pl15 upgrade now!

This aim battle should mean they should get on it pronto, and show what the jet can really do to the doubters.

When the PL-15 first came out for the JF-17 they said the range was too long, so after a week or so they “nerfed” it. When they up the range to 230-250 km, it will indeed turn heads.

 

[Reichmarshal]

If you use Western logic to analyze the foreign trade activities of Chinese military enterprises, they do have serious problems.

If you use Chinese logic to analyze the foreign trade activities of Chinese military enterprises, they perform very well.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for you to think about this problem from their perspective.

ur point earlier and my reply to that had very little to do with ur reply above.

But coming to ur reply above...China, even though a communist country, is following capitalist principles, especially when it comes to eco.
At the same time, China is yet to reach the stage where it starts giving military equipment as aid to different countries in support of its foreign/regional policy.
So, top aid provider is out of the question....at least at the moment.
So it has to be outright sale either through cash or loans......so when were are talking hard cash, then the competition is cutthroat and the choice to all potential clients is numerous. It becomes even more difficult for big-ticket items like AC, tanks, ships, subs, etc. So to break into such a mkt for a new, inexperienced company is very difficult.

China needs to target militaries that have standing in the world, not third-rate African or arab armies. If u take Pakistan armed forces out of the mix as a Chinese military weapons importer then the Chinese sphere of military influence seems very thin.

So it is for China to decide its place in the mkt and the neche it wants to carve out.

 

[sutton9999]

I'm under the impression that J-10C holds 2900kg of internal fuel without dump tanks, which gives us,

3900 kg internal fuel

 

[Harbyharb]

The J-10C has an internal fuel combat radius of about 700-800km.

The range problem is a congenital defect of light/medium fighters. All these fighters have this problem.

I would argue that isn’t true, J-10’s design incorporated conscious decisions that sacrificed internal fuel for other optimizations, amongst which the most significant being boosting drag/lift ratio especially in transonic/supersonic region. An unusually long overall length for a medium jet, fuselage necking over the delta wing in compliance with the area rule, anhedral wing root to maximize VG effect over wing but sacrifice wing tank volume, etc.

Pakistan has a small land depth. The J-10CE's 700-800km combat radius is no problem. The problem is the time in the air.
If the PAF has enough J-10CEs and a more comprehensive air defense early warning system, then they no longer need the fighters to stay in the sky for too long.

The PLAAF has never been very interested in medium-sized fighters, and they prefer heavy fighters with long range. Therefore, there may not be major modifications and upgrades to the J-10C in the future, only some small-scale upgrades at most.

I disagree with your argument. The idea of minimizing loiter time and restricting fighters for interdiction and interception similar to Soviet VVS strategy is an outdated concept that does not fit the reality of an increasingly complex modern battlefield, where longer loiter time means greater windows of engagement and battlefield presence, and I would argue that’s very important against a numerically superior force like India, that is no longer conducting simple missions like fire recon or tactical strikes, but prolonged confrontations and OCA-style operations.

As for the PLAAF, its recent preference for long ranged heavy fighters only came recently, as the development of A2/AD capability have removed the imminent threat of mass intrusion of enemy forces into the main land, so pretty much only the recent two decades. Keep in mind that well into the 1990s the PLA are still tinkering with light fighter designs like the J-12.

If the current trend of geopolitical shift continues, where the PLA expands its region of superiority to Guam and Australia and thus gain the freedom to roam, eventually the PLAAF will have to consider off-shore deployment, in which case lighter platform’s affordability and serviceability will emerge once more.

If the sales of the J-10CE are very good in the future, it is not ruled out that CAC will launch a major upgraded version of the J-10 exclusively for the foreign trade market. But there is no such trend at present. The focus of CAC's work has long been shifted to the 5/6/7th-Gen fighters, and there is not much interest in the J-10 series.

This I agree. Not any time soon.

 

[Michael]

ur point earlier and my reply to that had very little to do with ur reply above.

But coming to ur reply above...China, even though a communist country, is following capitalist principles, especially when it comes to eco.
At the same time, China is yet to reach the stage where it starts giving military equipment as aid to different countries in support of its foreign/regional policy.
So, top aid provider is out of the question....at least at the moment.
So it has to be outright sale either through cash or loans......so when were are talking hard cash, then the competition is cutthroat and the choice to all potential clients is numerous. It becomes even more difficult for big-ticket items like AC, tanks, ships, subs, etc. So to break into such a mkt for a new, inexperienced company is very difficult.

China needs to target militaries that have standing in the world, not third-rate African or arab armies. If u take Pakistan armed forces out of the mix as a Chinese military weapons importer then the Chinese sphere of military influence seems very thin.

So it is for China to decide its place in the mkt and the neche it wants to carve out.

Just like my answer, you don't understand the meaning of these answers. In fact, you are still using Western thinking to analyze China's situation. This is bound to cause you a lot of doubts or criticisms.

General Western thinking logic:

​

The best way to promote arms trade is to create war and chaos. As for the general business rules such as the product quality of the weapons themselves, publicity and promotion, they are of little significance in the field of arms trade. And the huge arms trade is the best way to support and maintain the country's international influence.​

​

To put it bluntly. I put you in crisis through some indirect means. Then, my arms dealers will recommend corresponding weapons and equipment to you. If you buy my weapons and equipment, your crisis will soon be resolved. If you don't buy my weapons and equipment, I will let your government collapse and replace you with a government that is willing to obey. And the price of these weapons is several times the cost price.​

​

Competition in arms trade is actually a competition for influence among major powers, and it has little direct connection with the weapons themselves.​

China fully understands these rules and logic, but we are unwilling to use this method.

Chinese weapons are known for their low prices and good quality in the international market. China's military enterprises do not rely on the foreign trade market to make profits. The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the People's Republic of China does not consider their profit margins when evaluating the heads of these military enterprises. Therefore, they do not have much motivation to promote weapons and equipment in the international market.

Most of China's military enterprises are state-owned listed companies. If you understand Chinese, you can check the financial statements of many companies. Their arms foreign trade sector is basically unprofitable. They really make profits in the civilian product market.

For Western countries, arms trade is a political act. It is an important means for them to control other countries.
For China, arms trade is just a general business act. We have no interest in controlling the governments of other countries.
There is an essential difference between the two.

According to Western logic, Pakistan today will be completely controlled by the Chinese government. However, this is not the case.

As some Pakistani friends claim, China should give Pakistan more and more advanced weapons. I often remind them that there is a limit to these things. Once we cross this limit, Pakistan will no longer be Pakistan. This is not the result you want. Of course, we will not do this either.