J-10 export issues are also based on the Al-31 engine powering them. J-10 sales are basically in competition with MiG-29s, and the Russians wouldn't like the export aircraft coming into the air. So an export J-10 requires a Chinese-made engine to power them. But even if you see J-20s flying with WS-10G or other variants, that's no guarantee that the WS-10 is mature enough for a J-10. While the J-20 is obviously a higher performance aircraft than the J-10, it's a dual-engined fighter so the reliability requirements are far lower than for the J-10, a single-engined fighter where an engine failure could bring the aircraft to ground uncontrollably.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Hi how can be a j10 in competition with mig29 I believe mog is using different engine and be a dual engine specific
It’s not in competition with j10 beside the engines I think Russian are not exporting mig29 to anybody anywhere though Indians are upgrading their mig29 towards the more robust side but even mig35 is getting hard time to get a a customer
As you have mentioned about Al-31 yourself I believe so that Russian will be happy to get their engine exported to the country who is looking for j10
If the engine problem still persist why China is offering J10E for export
If you can help me with some more information to understand about the export prepositions for J10
Thank you
Brumby
Major
I shall archive this statement by Deino. In future when the burden of proof becomes an issue , I will invoke the "Deino burden principle".
IMO, any claim at minimum should meet the "prima facie" test. The burden of proof always rest on the claimant to substantiate the claim.
I shall archive this statement by Deino. In future when the burden of proof becomes an issue , I will invoke the "Deino burden principle".
IMO, any claim at minimum should meet the "prima facie" test. The burden of proof always rest on the claimant to substantiate the claim.
In practice, pro-China BS is less aggressively challenged than anti-China BS.
Export issues is tha tthe MiG-35 is still the low-end of Russian / Soviet fourth generation aircraft mixes. The J-10, likewise, is the low-end of the Chinese high-low mix (J-10 / Flanker). They target roughly the same market, except that the MiG-35 is somewhat more of a middleweight (roughly around the Rafale's level) while the J-10A was 8850 kg empty with rumored weight reductions on J-10B to 8000 kg.
Brumby
Major
The question of enforcement and application can be highly subjective and can be driven by perception.rather than reality.
However the principle of burden of proof is universal and in my view should be applied uniformly but unfortunately had not been the case in my past experience. Deino's post will act as my insurance policy.
There are limited market opportunities for J-1OCE. The PAF would in my view be the most likely buyer but had been rather ambivalent towards the platform. In marketing there are the 4P's. I would add a 5th P into the equation i.e. politics You will have to run the 5 P's metric assessment - not just on product.
Perhaps Iran in a "planes for crude" scheme.
Its not likely due to the sanctions but if China really wants to state a point, the persians would get a plane that they desesperately need and China a steady and trustful oil source.
The engine question only becomes an issue if the export J-10CE is selected over a Russian fighter. In this weight class it would be Mig-29/35 and nothing else. If the Mig wasn't going to win the contract anyway or it wasn't even considered to begin with, why would NPO Saturn or whoever makes the AL-31 pass up on a deal? They are an important supplier if the J-10CE is ordered with AL-31.
I don't personally see any customers for J-10CE at the moment. Who's looking for a fighter in this class and overall capability? Either they already have a partnership/supplier or they cannot afford a J-10CE. The Malaysian tender is the only one I can think of where there's even a country shopping around. They have F-18s and Mig-29s already and will probably go for a smaller compact fighter like the trainers offered or the JF-17/Tejas options. PAF can barely afford great numbers of JF-17s which they build themselves. They also have to support western platforms like F-16s and Erieyes. Does a J-10CE really offer PAF that much more utility over a blk 3? Who knows we got no details but China won't do charity for Pakistan when it comes to such an expensive purchase.
I don't personally see any customers for J-10CE at the moment. Who's looking for a fighter in this class and overall capability? Either they already have a partnership/supplier or they cannot afford a J-10CE. The Malaysian tender is the only one I can think of where there's even a country shopping around. They have F-18s and Mig-29s already and will probably go for a smaller compact fighter like the trainers offered or the JF-17/Tejas options. PAF can barely afford great numbers of JF-17s which they build themselves. They also have to support western platforms like F-16s and Erieyes. Does a J-10CE really offer PAF that much more utility over a blk 3? Who knows we got no details but China won't do charity for Pakistan when it comes to such an expensive purchase.
Also this proving question is still a dodgy one that will no doubt get exploited by the usual suspects. I mean Deino's statement says "Whenever one is claiming something strange or ridiculous, it's the posters duty to proof it, not reverse..."
So it depends entirely on how we as a group define strange or ridiculous. My previous post was almost entirely made up of my personal opinion and conjectures. Same with Inst and Brumby's posts. But none of these posts deserve to be trolled by a "prove that or shut up" response. If it came to genuinely big claims, I am totally in agreement but with disclosures and when members are expressing obvious opinions and somewhat backing them up with a reasonable explanation, I think it's more appropriate if we just all get real about it. Some members I predict will exercise selective abuse where they never have double standards and everyone else who doesn't share their dogma is in the wrong.
So it depends entirely on how we as a group define strange or ridiculous. My previous post was almost entirely made up of my personal opinion and conjectures. Same with Inst and Brumby's posts. But none of these posts deserve to be trolled by a "prove that or shut up" response. If it came to genuinely big claims, I am totally in agreement but with disclosures and when members are expressing obvious opinions and somewhat backing them up with a reasonable explanation, I think it's more appropriate if we just all get real about it. Some members I predict will exercise selective abuse where they never have double standards and everyone else who doesn't share their dogma is in the wrong.