Ok, thanks, but just to be devils advocate:
How long is it going to take to modernize the air force at that production rate? I think there is a deadline for PLA modernization of 2027.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
How long is it going to take to modernize the air force at that production rate? I think there is a deadline for PLA modernization of 2027.
Depends on what you mean by modernize.
Also depends on how this production will affect AVIC. If CAC’s producing them well that effort can be put to cranking out more (if not as many) J-20; if GAC’s taking over the production then when will they be starting, how expensive and how time-consuming will the conversion from whatever they’re doing rn be, is there enough demand for the J-10 to actually warrant such a switch?
Your question was about whether an upgraded J-10 with longer range or WS-15 could be possible and continue work on J-10 variants, and my answer is that it didn't really make sense and thus not worth entertaining too much.
If we want to ignore industry and opportunity cost of resources, And if you just want to talk about what an upgraded longer range J-10 with WS-15 might be like regardless of whether it makes sense for industry... then that's fine, but I don't have anything to add to that conversation.
@Blitzo are there rules about speculation in this forum? Do we all have to follow your PLA watching philosophy? isn’t there room for some level of fandom and wishful thinking?
I want to see more speculation in this forum. I want to see more ideas thrown around, I don’t think it devalues the forum, if we know what it is.
Very well.
Would anyone like to talk about a WS-15 powered J-10?
I want to see more speculation in this forum. I want to see more ideas thrown around, I don’t think it devalues the forum, if we know what it is.
Well that would be a shame, I think you can contribute while also acknowledging that it’s a speculative discussion.
Very well.
Would anyone like to talk about a WS-15 powered J-10?
Honestly regarding ws-15 equipped J-10 I personally don’t see the point other than creating an “ultimate J-10” that’s probably better at satisfying the hearts of enthusiasts than at actually being a piece of military equipment. Is it doable? Probably, I guess. Is it worth it? Probably not, unless some export client really really wants that extra thrust and China’s willing to export their top notch engine tech?
Last edited:
One other thing people often neglect is logistics.
Currently PLAAF operates the following fighter/fighter bomber aircraft:
J-7, J-8, J-11A/Su-27/Su-30, J-10A/B/S, J-10C, JH-7/A, J-11B/J-16, Su-35, J-20.
Imagine the logistical nightmare of having to deal with all these different airframes. In ten years if they can get rid of legacy flankers and second/third gen fighters, it would cut the list by half. Replacing JH-7 with J-16 would make things even easier since no one needs to maintain WS-9 anymore. If they cut it down to just J-11B/BG, J-16, J-10C, and J-20 with a token force of Su-35, there will only be two types of engines (three when WS-15 is ready) they need to deal with and three general types of airframes. Restricting J-10C numbers allows PLAAF to focus on having two primary fighter types, and would pave the way for J-31/35 variant down the road.
Currently PLAAF operates the following fighter/fighter bomber aircraft:
J-7, J-8, J-11A/Su-27/Su-30, J-10A/B/S, J-10C, JH-7/A, J-11B/J-16, Su-35, J-20.
Imagine the logistical nightmare of having to deal with all these different airframes. In ten years if they can get rid of legacy flankers and second/third gen fighters, it would cut the list by half. Replacing JH-7 with J-16 would make things even easier since no one needs to maintain WS-9 anymore. If they cut it down to just J-11B/BG, J-16, J-10C, and J-20 with a token force of Su-35, there will only be two types of engines (three when WS-15 is ready) they need to deal with and three general types of airframes. Restricting J-10C numbers allows PLAAF to focus on having two primary fighter types, and would pave the way for J-31/35 variant down the road.
If you acknowledge that you just want to speculate, then that's fine, so long as you acknowledge that your speculation is not actually a project that is being worked on and that you aren't arguing that it is necessarily desirable or useful.
You can ask whether anyone is interested in speculating about it with you.
So, now that you've asked -- my answer is, no, I am personally not interested.
I do not think a WS-15 powered J-10 makes sense to be procured or to be developed, because such an aircraft would offer very negligible additional unique capability which they do not have in other aircraft types either in production (J-20, J-16, J-10C even) or in development (J-XY/35, possible land based J-XY/35, MUMT UCAVs) -- meanwhile such an aircraft would be consuming a valuable WS-15 engine that could be used with much better effect on a J-20 or a 6th gen fighter instead. Nor, frankly do I think China would be willing to export WS-15 until many years after they have a large number of it in domestic service, at which point I would be surprised if J-10s were in production even for export customers.
In fact, I believe the J-10 family is not worth further substantial structural upgrades overall, and any further upgrades should just be avionics and weapons suite related instead.
I think the PLA should not buy anymore J-10Cs after 2025 (if not already), and that they can continue producing J-10Cs for export customers if AVIC wants (and consider shifting it to GAC as we've heard it rumoured).
Instead, money, production space and effort should all be put into 5th gen, 6th gen and MUMT UCAV efforts instead.
Because of the above reasons, I do not think a WS-15 powered J-10 is particularly interesting of a topic.
Now, this isn't to say that you can't talk about it, but this is also my genuine opinion as another posting member for why the idea of "further J-10 upgraded variants" is lame to me, and why I believe the J-10 family as a whole is not worth further substantial structural upgrades or modifications beyond avionics and weapons upgrades.
I do believe it is worth discussing.
I think that using a WS-15 in a single engined fighter gives a lot of bang for the buck compared to using 2 in a dual engined fighter. If there were only 2 engines, it would be better to have 2 fighters that 1. I’m not saying it’s 100% equivalent, but for 30 engines you can equip a whole squadron of J-10s.
We already know, from the GT article I posted earlier that J10 is capable and has successfully achieved far-sea intercept missions, with WS-15 this range could be extended further. Range is the main argument against J10 here, WS-15 increases it.
The J10 does not have an EW variant, adding WS-15 could supply the electrical power needed for many sensors and emitters.
We just heard the J10 pilots have an easier transition to J20, which will be powered with WS-15, so having J10 powered by the same engine will keep pilot transition smooth.
We don’t know about cost of the WS-15, but maybe it will be lower and have lower maintenance costs, we just saw some other engine parts be qualified for 50,000 hours life, for example. There may be a financial incentive to switch.
There may be a very large production run of WS-15 engines, much like we are now seeing with WS-10 engines, The existing WS-10 lines could be transitioned giving great capacity early.
Even if J-10 is 3rd in line for WS-15, it won’t take long to get too.
I also expect further upgrades, along with the engine. For example we just learned that 3D printing is being widely used, so I can imagine that this would be done in conjunction with a new WS-15 variant, further mitigating the range issue.
The export market space is quite good, anyone buying J-10 now is on the fast track to J-35 and more. Keeping J-10,current in terms of avionics is important, so as more fifth and sixth Gen technologies are developed they can also be applied to J-10. More production keeps cost low.
The J-10 has a variant with a spine, this should make future upgrades to airframe, avionics and engines easier.
Additionally we have seen many stealth materials at the airshow, for export. And 3D printing eliminates rivets according to a recent article. So, not only is a new airframe quite feasible, so is a stealthy skin.
I think that using a WS-15 in a single engined fighter gives a lot of bang for the buck compared to using 2 in a dual engined fighter. If there were only 2 engines, it would be better to have 2 fighters that 1. I’m not saying it’s 100% equivalent, but for 30 engines you can equip a whole squadron of J-10s.
We already know, from the GT article I posted earlier that J10 is capable and has successfully achieved far-sea intercept missions, with WS-15 this range could be extended further. Range is the main argument against J10 here, WS-15 increases it.
The J10 does not have an EW variant, adding WS-15 could supply the electrical power needed for many sensors and emitters.
We just heard the J10 pilots have an easier transition to J20, which will be powered with WS-15, so having J10 powered by the same engine will keep pilot transition smooth.
We don’t know about cost of the WS-15, but maybe it will be lower and have lower maintenance costs, we just saw some other engine parts be qualified for 50,000 hours life, for example. There may be a financial incentive to switch.
There may be a very large production run of WS-15 engines, much like we are now seeing with WS-10 engines, The existing WS-10 lines could be transitioned giving great capacity early.
Even if J-10 is 3rd in line for WS-15, it won’t take long to get too.
I also expect further upgrades, along with the engine. For example we just learned that 3D printing is being widely used, so I can imagine that this would be done in conjunction with a new WS-15 variant, further mitigating the range issue.
The export market space is quite good, anyone buying J-10 now is on the fast track to J-35 and more. Keeping J-10,current in terms of avionics is important, so as more fifth and sixth Gen technologies are developed they can also be applied to J-10. More production keeps cost low.
The J-10 has a variant with a spine, this should make future upgrades to airframe, avionics and engines easier.
Additionally we have seen many stealth materials at the airshow, for export. And 3D printing eliminates rivets according to a recent article. So, not only is a new airframe quite feasible, so is a stealthy skin.
Last edited:
Okay, let's talk about your proposal.
Tell me, with such a J-10 variant (even leaving aside the structural work and flight testing that would be needed to integrate WS-15 and to increase the range of J-10) is third in line for WS-15, and keeping in mind that J-20 production will continue likely to 2030, and that 6th gen production might begin around 2030 as well --- then why would the PLA or even an export customer be interested in an aircraft that is ultimately still only a 4+ generation airframe in the 2030s?
Why wouldn't they simply buy either J-20 or PLA FC-31/land based J-XY/35 or MUMT UCAV or 6th gen (in the PLA's case), or buy an export FC-31/land based J-XY/35 instead (or simply J-10CE or JF-17 Block 3 or 4 by that time if they want a 4+ gen fighter)?
A WS-15 powered J-10 is still only a 4+ generation airframe.
It would be blatantly uncompetitive and be a waste of an engine and waste of development effort and resources.
A WS-15 powered J-10 doesn't make sense, just as a F135 powered F-16 doesn't make sense.
I have no issue with J-10CEs that are equipped with progressively improved WS-10 variants as they emerge into the future. But such a blatant re-engining with WS-15 with major structural changes, is not worth it for 4+ gen aircraft that would only emerge by the late 2020s.
I'm okay with selling J-10CEs for export.
Both J-10CE and JF-17 can be used as a way to further improve sales prospects of an export land based J-XY/35 or export FC-31.
Continuing to upgrade J-10s in PLA service and J-10s being sold for export with more advanced avionics and weapons also makes sense. As I wrote, I'm okay with avionics and weapons upgrades, and it's logical.
However, developing a whole new variant of J-10 with a new engine with significant structural modifications, is a waste of resources and not worth it.
Last edited: