J-10 Thread IV

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Wow ... I must admit when I heard the rumours in January and later read the report it sounded a bit unbelievable, but here it is: At first sight I see 27 - maybe even 28 - J-10Cs and at least 7 J-20As ... I would really love to see them larger.

via:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and most of all those claimed J-20A for the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan.

J-10C and J-20A at CAC - 202101 + notes.jpg
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Wow ... I must admit when I heard the rumours in January and later read the report it sounded a bit unbelievable, but here it is: At first sight I see 27 - maybe even 28 - J-10Cs and at least 7 J-20As ... I would really love to see them larger.

via:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and most of all those claimed J-20A for the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan.

View attachment 68455

Gosh darn it you beat me to it!
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Wow ... I must admit when I heard the rumours in January and later read the report it sounded a bit unbelievable, but here it is: At first sight I see 27 - maybe even 28 - J-10Cs and at least 7 J-20As ... I would really love to see them larger.

via:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and most of all those claimed J-20A for the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan.

View attachment 68455

What do you think about Scramble's reasoning regarding WS-10?

I find it very doubtful to think that the WS-10s on J-10 have yet to be qualified for operational use, considering the PLA clearly must've given its go ahead for J-10C production with WS-10 to begin before late 2019, and we've had pictures of many new airframe J-10Cs with WS-10s pictured since then, up to the tune of something close to 50-60 WS-10 powered J-10Cs, of which we know some if not all by now should have been painted and delivered to the PLA.

The lack of pictures that Scramble describes IMO could much more reasonably be attributed to the general PLA opsec clampdown especially in regards to serial numbers and information re new fighters.



A belated happy birthday as well.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
What do you think about Scramble's reasoning regarding WS-10?

I find it very doubtful to think that the WS-10s on J-10 have yet to be qualified for operational use, considering the PLA clearly must've given its go ahead for J-10C production with WS-10 to begin before late 2019, and we've had pictures of many new airframe J-10Cs with WS-10s pictured since then, up to the tune of something close to 50-60 WS-10 powered J-10Cs, of which we know some if not all by now should have been painted and delivered to the PLA.

The lack of pictures that Scramble describes IMO could much more reasonably be attributed to the general PLA opsec clampdown especially in regards to serial numbers and information re new fighters.



A belated happy birthday as well.

If there is a problem with WS-10, you’d see a lot of J-10s with no engines installed parked outside. That’s what happened when J-11B had problems with their engines.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
If there is a problem with WS-10, you’d see a lot of J-10s with no engines installed parked outside. That’s what happened when J-11B had problems with their engines.

Note that I chose my words carefully.

The scramble article was suggesting that WS-10 powered J-10Cs were not operational. However we've seen many of them produced and also in service colours, and I doubt the PLA would've authorized production of J-10Cs with WS-10s if they hadn't assessed the engine as sufficiently mature.


Now, in the above picture it looks like at least some of the aircraft seem to lack engines.
But that could be due to a range of reasons, of which some may be engine related.
E.g. I think it's possible that airframe production and engine production may be slightly un-synced atm.

However that's a very big difference to suggesting that "WS-10 powered J-10Cs are not yet operational" given the points I've raised above.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Wow ... I must admit when I heard the rumours in January and later read the report it sounded a bit unbelievable, but here it is: At first sight I see 27 - maybe even 28 - J-10Cs and at least 7 J-20As ... I would really love to see them larger.

via:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and most of all those claimed J-20A for the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan.

View attachment 68455
Do they have engines installed? Hard to see, but at least one j-20 have them clearly installed (#6).

Maybe just waiting for brigade to get enough trained pilots ? Covid could have slowed training somewhat ? Why parking them elsewhere if they will not get used...
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Note that I chose my words carefully.

The scramble article was suggesting that WS-10 powered J-10Cs were not operational. However we've seen many of them produced and also in service colours, and I doubt the PLA would've authorized production of J-10Cs with WS-10s if they hadn't assessed the engine as sufficiently mature.


Now, in the above picture it looks like at least some of the aircraft seem to lack engines.
But that could be due to a range of reasons, of which some may be engine related.
E.g. I think it's possible that airframe production and engine production may be slightly un-synced atm.

However that's a very big difference to suggesting that "WS-10 powered J-10Cs are not yet operational" given the points I've raised above.

I don’t think they lack engines. They simply pulled a tarp over them to protect against the weather.
 
Top