J-10 Thread IV

[Blitzo]

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?

KJ-500 is a AEW&C, it can direct and command a variety of aircraft and assets, and yes that includes J-10C.

J-10C is a 4+ generation fighter, it is LO at best, and certainly not VLO.

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

It's "possible" but it doesn't make sense why they would do so. WS-15 would be prioritized for J-20 and 6th gen fighter use.
Using WS-15 on J-10 (even if it's a new variant) is a waste of resources.

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.

Developing such a significant variant of a single engine light/medium weight 4th generation airframe is not worth the aerospace resources, money and time.
You're better off putting it to other things like new projects (whether it's 6th gen, MUMT UCAVs, or a 5th gen medium weight fighter, or a combination thereof).

China's aerospace industry has enough experience and enough ongoing projects that it doesn't need to keep modifying and stretching the J-10 airframe to do other roles that it is suboptimal for.

 

[Andy1974]

KJ-500 is a AEW&C, it can direct and command a variety of aircraft and assets, and yes that includes J-10C.

J-10C is a 4+ generation fighter, it is LO at best, and certainly not VLO.



It's "possible" but it doesn't make sense why they would do so. WS-15 would be prioritized for J-20 and 6th gen fighter use.
Using WS-15 on J-10 (even if it's a new variant) is a waste of resources.




Developing such a significant variant of a single engine light/medium weight 4th generation airframe is not worth the aerospace resources, money and time.
You're better off putting it to other things like new projects (whether it's 6th gen, MUMT UCAVs, or a 5th gen medium weight fighter, or a combination thereof).

China's aerospace industry has enough experience and enough ongoing projects that it doesn't need to keep modifying and stretching the J-10 airframe to do other roles that it is suboptimal for.

We already saw the J10 with a spine, and there is plenty of export market available for upgraded versions. Other than J10 China doesn’t have a 4+ Gen fighter to export, does it?

 

[Blitzo]

We already saw the J10 with a spine, and there is plenty of export market available for upgraded versions. Other than J10 China doesn’t have a 4+ Gen fighter to export, does it?

JF-17 Block 3 and J-10C are both 4+ gen aircraft that can be exported.

Developing a new structurally enhanced, missionized J-10 airframe is of dubious value when they have so many other projects going on which could use the aerospace resources, money and time more efficiently with better gains.


If they can do such an upgrade cheaply, with minimal cost and without using too much additional aerospace resources, then sure, I suppose that's fine.
But really the idea of a "further upgraded J-10" is really not that useful for the PLA.

 

[Andy1974]

JF-17 Block 3 and J-10C are both 4+ gen aircraft that can be exported.

Developing a new structurally enhanced, missionized J-10 airframe is of dubious value when they have so many other projects going on which could use the aerospace resources, money and time more efficiently with better gains.


If they can do such an upgrade cheaply, with minimal cost and without using too much additional aerospace resources, then sure, I suppose that's fine.
But really the idea of a "further upgraded J-10" is really not that useful for the PLA.

I understand, but the PLA is not the only operator.

 

[Blitzo]

I understand, but the PLA is not the only operator.

Look I've already given you my answer, if you want to insist that you think developing a further upgraded J-10 (whether it be for export customers or for the PLA) is a good idea, that's fine, but I'm telling you that the Chinese aerospace industry has enough other ongoing projects that if they pursue such a thing then it would be a suboptimal use of resources, money and time, unless they are able to develop such a variant with minimal expenditure.

 

[reservior dogs]

Look I've already given you my answer, if you want to insist that you think developing a further upgraded J-10 (whether it be for export customers or for the PLA) is a good idea, that's fine, but I'm telling you that the Chinese aerospace industry has enough other ongoing projects that if they pursue such a thing then it would be a suboptimal use of resources, money and time, unless they are able to develop such a variant with minimal expenditure.

The PLA themselves are not adding more J-10s, that should tell you something. When J-35 is matured, it is designed from the ground up to be a fifth gen aircraft, both for export and for PLA use. It just makes no sense to put money into an airframe that is already old when J-35 is around the corner.

 

[Andy1974]

Look I've already given you my answer, if you want to insist that you think developing a further upgraded J-10 (whether it be for export customers or for the PLA) is a good idea, that's fine, but I'm telling you that the Chinese aerospace industry has enough other ongoing projects that if they pursue such a thing then it would be a suboptimal use of resources, money and time, unless they are able to develop such a variant with minimal expenditure.

I’m not insisting that at all, please don’t put words in my mouth, I was simply asking questions, which you didn’t fully answer, so I asked clarifying questions, which you ignored.

Your consistent argument is that “there is so much else going on, there is not enough resources”, we’ll thats like your opinion, man, and I don’t believe it’s 100% certain to be true.

There are many young engineers and teams in aerospace, and it could be profitable to update and sell J10 on the international market for years to come.

It is also equipped with Chinas CEC is it not? That makes it more than just a short ranged fighter due for the scrap heap.

Anyway, just my opinion, thanks for answering.

 

[Blitzo]

I’m not insisting that at all, please don’t put words in my mouth, I was simply asking questions, which you didn’t fully answer, so I asked clarifying questions, which you ignored.

Your consistent argument is that “there is so much else going on, there is not enough resources”, we’ll thats like your opinion, man, and I don’t believe it’s 100% certain to be true.

There are many young engineers and teams in aerospace, and it could be profitable to update and sell J10 on the international market for years to come.

It is also equipped with Chinas CEC is it not? That makes it more than just a short ranged fighter due for the scrap heap.

Anyway, just my opinion, thanks for answering.

Well, you asked a question and I provided an answer.

But it seems in this case you already had an answer in mind when you asked the question.



To be clear, I never said that J-10 is a short ranged fighter for the scrap heap.

I think J-10C is an excellent single engine medium range 4+ fighter, and it has the subsystems to remain competitive in its specific role and mission profile.
What I'm saying is that I don't think it is worthwhile trying to modify it to go beyond what its current mission profile is as determined by its physical airframe.

But if there's a way of affordably increasing its range without using too many aerospace resources and money, then fine.

However I think there's no particular reason to be enthusiastic about the idea of a slightly longer range J-10 variant, whether it is for PLA use or for export use.

 

[tphuang]

buying more J-10C makes sense if you are adding 40 J-20s a year and 40 flankers. It doesn't make sense if you are going to add 100 J-20s a year and 60 flankers.

 

[Andy1974]

Strange implication, I asked because I wasn’t sure. I have other questions, you don’t need to answer if it bothers you so. Or why answer if you do a half answer that results in long back and forth conversations that ends up getting analaysed about who said what?

You also dismissed my WS15 question, you have a consistent argument that WS15 will be prioritized for J20 and sixth generation also, and there won’t be any for other uses, again down to your assumptions about resources.

Many of your long back and forths are about this resource question, I think you should consider it. Your dismissals due to resource constraints actually is suppressing what could be an interesting discussion about what a WS15 equipped J10 would be like.