J-10 Thread IV

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
stannislas said:
of course there is no problem with J-10 stands in PLAAF right now, but in the future, it's hard to tell, especially your enemy start to ramp up their size of F-35 or KF-21 or something else.

also speaking of cost, what's the cost of losing a war?
will i save like 500-1000 million on J-10, and have 500 less J-16 or J-20 than losing a war outside the 1st island chain or in south china sea? or pay that amount and win that war?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.
Obviously it would be better for the PLA the faster they can change to an all 5th gen (and beyond) fleet, which I wrote in my previous post.


But this entire discussion has been about why it makes sense for the PLA to buy more J-20s (and J-16s) and buy less J-10s.
What tphuang has argued over the last few pages, is to explain why among the current fighters in active production (J-20, J-16, J-10C), that it would make sense that they're not buying as many J-10Cs, and why it makes sense to buy more J-20s and J-16s.
 
S

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.
Obviously it would be better for the PLA the faster they can change to an all 5th gen (and beyond) fleet, which I wrote in my previous post.


But this entire discussion has been about why it makes sense for the PLA to buy more J-20s (and J-16s) and buy less J-10s.
What tphuang has argued over the last few pages, is to explain why among the current fighters in active production (J-20, J-16, J-10C), that it would make sense that they're not buying as many J-10Cs, and why it makes sense to buy more J-20s and J-16s.
Click to expand...
that's exactly what i want to argue as well, like tphuang, i believe the J-10 is less effective in PLAAF, and in terms of the cost factor, nothing will supass the cost of losing a war, if J-10 will make PLAAF has less usable fighter in the pacifc south china sea
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
stannislas said:
that's exactly what i want to argue as well, like tphuang, i believe the J-10 is less effective in PLAAF, and in terms of the cost factor, nothing will supass the cost of losing a war, if J-10 will make PLAAF has less usable fighter in the pacifc south china sea
Click to expand...

I think you are expanding the discussion beyond the original scope of what tphuang's point was.

He was arguing that of the current land based fighters in active production (J-20, J-16, and J-10C), it makes sense to buy more J-20s and J-16s and to buy less J-10Cs. I think we can all agree on that.


As for "cost" and "losing a war" that is a bit beyond the scope of his point because then you have to start looking at future force structures and analyses of alternatives for various future fighter options etc.
(That is also why TK3600 bringing up F-35 was not helpful, because with or without F-35s, the point doesn't change that at present, of the current land based fighters in active production, it still makes sense to buy more J-20s and J-16s and to buy less J-10Cs)
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
According to this report, a certain unit formerly flying J-10A has converted to J-10C, but as it seems with WS-10B and AL-31FN!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Any idea, which unit this could be? Serial number looks a bit like 781x2, so maybe one of the FTTB units (17X AB)?

J-10C new unit - 20221130 - 4.jpgJ-10C new unit - 20221130 - 3.jpgJ-10C new unit - 20221130 - 2.jpg
J-10C new unit - 20221130 - 1.jpg
 
Schwerter_

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
minime said:
"J10-C Avionics Type 1473H pulse-doppler fire control radar"
Guys, can't trust anything from this article.
July-2022_Page_23-1024x665.jpg
Click to expand...
The Hongguang-1 IRST pod is also exceedingly strange, especially since J-10C has internally mounted IRST, also CM-802AKG from my understanding is a type of air-to-surface missile instead of a pod (the missile itself is MITL and needs a dedicated datalink pod, but that’s not what the infographic is suggesting)

So yeah I also find that particular picture very odd and maybe not totally trustworthy
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
J-16s will not be going head on against F-35s alone.
If they operate in an air to air role, they would be carrying BVRAAMs in support of J-20s and other 5th gens. In an air to ground role, they would be escorted by J-20s and other 5th gens.

The difference between J-16 and J-10 is range.

J-16 can actually conduct missions at 1000km or over, effectively.
J-10 cannot.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
I am not disagreeing, just highlighting a recent developments..
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
As a single-engine medium-sized aircraft, J-10C's low oil carrying capacity is a disadvantage in performing interception missions in the far sea. But low oil carrying capacity dose not equal small combat radius. With flexible tactics, medium-sized aircraft can respond quickly, which is a necessary quality to deal with emergency missions like interception, Song explained.

Low production and maintenance cost of single-engine aircraft is also another huge advantage, experts noted.

Heavy multi-purpose aircraft like J-16 and medium-sized aircraft like J-10C are both sharp weapons of the country to safeguard airspace and maritime security, and they both need to be practice their combat skills and tactics in the far sea, Song stressed.
Click to expand...
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
A few questions, please:

Isn’t J-10C quite stealthy from the front? We heard that the US was impressed by the PLAAF’s ability to intercept an F35 using J20 and KJ-500, so presumably KJ-500 could also direct a J10C?

Is there any possibility of J10 getting WS-15 in the future?

If the internals are being rearranged with a new spine being used, this could mean more room for fuel, and if stealthy conformal tanks are added this could be even better.

All that could mean there is plenty of hope for longer range in the future, while keeping costs low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top