J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[tphuang]

I have a feeling that PAF might be waiting for the upcoming J-10C (rumored to have enhanced fifth generation avionics such as AESA, conformal fuel tanks, semi-stealth configuration, twin seater, and more powerful engine) since it would not only be a markedly greater improvement than earlier variants, but it would come into service around the same time the first Rafales are about to arrive in India.

if J-10C is a small modification, then there is no reason why they would not want to just get their own version of J-10B now. If J-10C represents a large departure, then they might not see it for another 5 years based on J-10B's development timelines. Let's concentrate on what J-10B can provide right now.

 

[plawolf]

To be honest, I think the J10B might be the last major modification of the J10.

The days of endless incremental improvements on existing designs is in the past for the Chinese, or CAC at least. If anything, I think CAC has too many exciting, entirely new projects going on right now, which is almost certainly a big part of the reason why it took so long for the J10B to start production.

Why would CAC want to divert finite and highly in demand resources to develop another J10 variant, which even the most radical and successful of which would only ever make the J10 a 4.5 gen fighter when CAC could be working on a brand new 5th gen design instead?

There is really no real incentive for CAC to invest heavily to further develop the J10 since they pretty much have the Chinese market cornered as there is no real competitor for the medium weight sub 5th gen market. Internationally, the J10 isn't really for sale, Pakistan may get some, but I think that may be it. Many high ranking officials from several air forces have very publically expressed an interest in the J10, but they were only ever met with polite silence by the Chinese side.

To be honest, that's pretty much always been the deal for Chinese fighter makes, if you corner the PLAAF market, that is your only business and the plane is just not available for export. It was the case with the J8, it looks like the case with the J10, and will almost certainly be the case with the J20.

That is pretty much the entire reason for the genesis of the FC1 which became the JF17. CAC partnered up with Pakistan and fronted a huge pile of money from its own pocket to develop the JF17 when it already had the very capable and successful J10. In any other country for any other company, they would have just offered the Pakistanis a version of the J10 instead of designing a brand new fighter from scratch.

In a way, for Chinese aircraft makes, foreign sales is almost like a bogy prize as you only get a nod to market a plane internationally if the PLAAF doesn't think highly enough of it to want to keep it for themselves.

If I was in charge of CAC, I would focus my resources on UCAVs and a medium weight naval 5th gen to compete with SAC for the PLANAF future carrier aviation contracts, as I expect the PLAN to ultimately field 4-6 supercarriers within a decade or two, and those carriers would need a lot of planes and represent the future of the Chinese military aviation market in terms of pure growth potential as the PLAAF modernisation would largely be complete by that time frame, and would likely remain so for some time barring extreme unforeseen events.

 

[Blitzo]

CAC might try to fund a J-10C in house and entice the PLAAF to splash some cash.

The PLAAF still has far too many old fighters to replace from J-7s, Q-5s, and J-8s, and they obviously won't be buying that many Stealth fighters whether it is J-20 or J-21 or some other.
A more strike oriented, notional J-10C may prove an attractive replacement for Q-5s.

 

[latenlazy]

CAC might try to fund a J-10C in house and entice the PLAAF to splash some cash.

The PLAAF still has far too many old fighters to replace from J-7s, Q-5s, and J-8s, and they obviously won't be buying that many Stealth fighters whether it is J-20 or J-21 or some other.
A more strike oriented, notional J-10C may prove an attractive replacement for Q-5s.

I'm not sure the PLA is looking to keep the same fleet size. They'll probably downsize to try to optimize quality over quantity.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not sure the PLA is looking to keep the same fleet size. They'll probably downsize to try to optimize quality over quantity.

I expect so to an extent, but how much are we talking? Down a quarter? A fifth? A tenth? That's still going to mean a lot of airframes, and they're not going to fill those numbers all with fifth generation fighters.

That's where J-10B, J-16 -- and any notional J-10C or further evolved J-11 variant comes in.

 

[timepass]

That is pretty much the entire reason for the genesis of the FC1 which became the JF17. CAC partnered up with Pakistan and fronted a huge pile of money from its own pocket to develop the JF17 when it already had the very capable and successful J10. In any other country for any other company, they would have just offered the Pakistanis a version of the J10 instead of designing a brand new fighter from scratch.

Can't compare JF17s with J10Bs both are in different leagues, JF17 is 4th & J10b is +4th generation.

 

[plawolf]

CAC might try to fund a J-10C in house and entice the PLAAF to splash some cash.

The PLAAF still has far too many old fighters to replace from J-7s, Q-5s, and J-8s, and they obviously won't be buying that many Stealth fighters whether it is J-20 or J-21 or some other.
A more strike oriented, notional J-10C may prove an attractive replacement for Q-5s.

Well the J10A and B already fills the legacy fighter replacement role perfectly. What is the point in CAC spending all that cash and resources to develop a new J10 variant to compete with its own J10A and J10B?

Also, the PLAAF doesn't seem all that interested in multi-role capabilities on their fighters and seem to prefer dedicated aircraft for different roles. It is using JH7As to replace Q5s, and could have added PGM capabilities to their existing J10A fleet years ago if they wanted to. Just look at the weapons integration speed with the JF17 to see the kind of multi-role capabilities CAC could easily have added to the J10A if there was a pressing demand from PLAAF brass.

The only niche the J10A and B does not fill well is naval carrier fighter. But even the most radical of upgrades for the J10 won't make it a true 5th gen, and would have little chance of winning against the J31 unless SAC screws up completely.

SAC probably already cornered the carrier fighter market for the first generation of Chinese carriers. But that is only going to be 3 ships at most, and all medium sized carriers with a total requirement for 70-100 J15s max. Going forward looking at 2025 and beyond is when I would expect the PLAN to make their next big expansion of its carrier fleet, with maybe another 3-6 supercarriers being added, which would represent a tender for 200-500 fighters, and that sort of numbers in that timeframe would entirely justify developing a new medium weight 5th gen fighter by CAC to compete on a level footing with SAC's J31.

 

[asif iqbal]

Can someone refresh my memory how many J10A Regiments is there? Is it 7 for PLAAF and 1 for PLANAF

They have been produced in how many batches 7?

 

[Zahid]

Well the J10A and B already fills the legacy fighter replacement role perfectly. What is the point in CAC spending all that cash and resources to develop a new J10 variant to compete with its own J10A and J10B?

Also, the PLAAF doesn't seem all that interested in multi-role capabilities on their fighters and seem to prefer dedicated aircraft for different roles. It is using JH7As to replace Q5s, and could have added PGM capabilities to their existing J10A fleet years ago if they wanted to. Just look at the weapons integration speed with the JF17 to see the kind of multi-role capabilities CAC could easily have added to the J10A if there was a pressing demand from PLAAF brass.

Reportedly J10B is multi-role. One can not under-estimate the value of a multi-role combat aircraft. There is a reason why USAF loved F-16 so as to have thousands of these birds. I can not understand why PLAAF would stick to specialists, when multi-role are such favorites with so many other air-forces, large & small.

Let us see the extent of J10B's multi-role capabilities. Couple that with the expected numbers to be inducted, and we can guess the extent to which PLAAF is ready to embrace multi-role combat aircrafts.

 

[Blitzo]

Well the J10A and B already fills the legacy fighter replacement role perfectly. What is the point in CAC spending all that cash and resources to develop a new J10 variant to compete with its own J10A and J10B?

Also, the PLAAF doesn't seem all that interested in multi-role capabilities on their fighters and seem to prefer dedicated aircraft for different roles. It is using JH7As to replace Q5s, and could have added PGM capabilities to their existing J10A fleet years ago if they wanted to. Just look at the weapons integration speed with the JF17 to see the kind of multi-role capabilities CAC could easily have added to the J10A if there was a pressing demand from PLAAF brass.

While it is true that currently the PLAAF are not that interested in multirole aircraft as much as other air forces, I think they probably do recognize the benefits of having one aircraft able to perform a variety of missions.

WRT the J-10A -- I was under the impression that J-10B production would supersede it completely. Of course, you are definitely right that the PLAAF can add air to ground capabilities to the existing pool of J-10A/B, however the sheer number of lighterweight J-7 and Q-5s that need to be replaced makes me think the PLAAF will definitely be open to a newer J-10 iteration beyond the J-10B, with a few additional bells and whistles to keep them relevant in the 21st century.

In a sentence, I simply cannot see the hundreds of J-7s being replaced by J-10B -- the "final" J-10, so to speak. There's still some of room for improvement, from adding more hardpoints, to of course adding in a new engine, adding CFTs.

The question basically comes down to, whether we think it's plausible for PLAAF to fill its future J-7 (and possibly Q-5) ranks with only J-10As and J-10Bs. Personally, while I think the J-10A and J-10B are excellent fighters, it would be prudent for the PLAAF to seek newer capabilities as they continue to buy the J-10 platform. This of course, is contingent on CAC cost effectively developing the features mentioned.

(The multirole aspect will only be a natural transition)


(While JH-7s have been replacing Q-5s in the past, I cannot forsee the remaining Q-5s to be replaced by a large number of JH-7A/Bs, because the two aircraft are simply in such different weight classes. They've already got over 200 JH-7 airframes in service, that numbers going to plateau sooner rather than later imo)

The only niche the J10A and B does not fill well is naval carrier fighter. But even the most radical of upgrades for the J10 won't make it a true 5th gen, and would have little chance of winning against the J31 unless SAC screws up completely.

SAC probably already cornered the carrier fighter market for the first generation of Chinese carriers. But that is only going to be 3 ships at most, and all medium sized carriers with a total requirement for 70-100 J15s max. Going forward looking at 2025 and beyond is when I would expect the PLAN to make their next big expansion of its carrier fleet, with maybe another 3-6 supercarriers being added, which would represent a tender for 200-500 fighters, and that sort of numbers in that timeframe would entirely justify developing a new medium weight 5th gen fighter by CAC to compete on a level footing with SAC's J31.

Agree, a new generation carrier fighter out of CAC is inevitable, if only to compete with SAC.\