J-10 Thread IV

[AndrewS]

Platforms like the J-10C and the J-16 are considered 4+ generation fighters. And the J-20 is even 5th generation. And will no doubt do better than the older 4th generation fighters. However removing them from the frontline will take a long time as China still has large numbers of older J-7, J-8 and Q-5's in service.

I don't agree that China should prioritize the J-16 and the J-20 over the J-10C. The J-10C is much cheaper to buy and operate than the J-16. So having these fighters in larger numbers will mean more bang for the buck.

I think J-16 and J-20 should be prioritised over J-10C. Remember J-10 production presumably comes at the expense of J-20.

Look at the likely scenarios.

Additional short-range non-stealthy J-10 won't make any difference with regard to China's next door neighbours ref: India, Vietnam, Taiwan or Korea.

But additional long-range stealthy J-20 and J-16 will make a huge difference to the countries above, PLUS the South China Sea, East China Sea, Japan and to the 2nd island chain.

And for future J-10, it does look like it would benefit from conformal fuel tanks which will increase range and possibly reduce aerodynamic drag as well.

 

[ougoah]

Yes exactly right if we assume stealth, and in particular Chinese LO platform like J-20 can offer a quantum leap in ability where the no. of planes they can take on far exceeds the extra cost.

 

[Franklin]

I think J-16 and J-20 should be prioritised over J-10C. Remember J-10 production presumably comes at the expense of J-20.

Look at the likely scenarios.

Additional short-range non-stealthy J-10 won't make any difference with regard to China's next door neighbours ref: India, Vietnam, Taiwan or Korea.

But additional long-range stealthy J-20 and J-16 will make a huge difference to the countries above, PLUS the South China Sea, East China Sea, Japan and to the 2nd island chain.

And for future J-10, it does look like it would benefit from conformal fuel tanks which will increase range and possibly reduce aerodynamic drag as well.

Higher production rate of the J-20 at this point is a bad idea since the plane doesn't have its intended engines yet.

The short leggedness of the J-10C can be solved with aerial refueling and conformal fuel tanks. With lower procurement and operating costs the J-10C can be deployed in larger numbers than the J-16 and the J-20. That makes the J-10C a larger force multiplier than either the J-16 and J-20.

 

[AndrewS]

Higher production rate of the J-20 at this point is a bad idea since the plane doesn't have its intended engines yet.

The short leggedness of the J-10C can be solved with aerial refueling and conformal fuel tanks. With lower procurement and operating costs the J-10C can be deployed in larger numbers than the J-16 and the J-20. That makes the J-10C a larger force multiplier than either the J-16 and J-20.

With the current interim engines, the J-20 is still a great long-range stealthy interceptor, strike aircraft or sensor node. And presumably the engines can the replaced in the future.

Also remember that the actual J-20 production line has just been launched, so presumably a lot of the components are still being manually produced and the process to be automated and made low-cost.

Aerial refueling is expensive. Look at the costs involved for tanker support. You might as well just buy a longer ranged aircraft from the beginning. And yes, the CFTs will increase range, but not really help with payload or electricity/radar capability.

 

[ougoah]

5 J-10Cs could not replace 1 J-20 if LO is required for a mission. So the optimal balance can only be found through a careful assessment and prediction of what sort of missions will dominate against specific adversaries. Where J-10 does present great value is also an area that doesn't require huge numbers since awesome land force numbers and improving UVACs is a reality already. It would be far better to have maximum number of J-20s with a couple of hundred or close to a thousand 4th gen fighters. If China is to fight a technologically advanced adversary, J-20s are a must in huge numbers. For all smaller, backward and weaker adversaries, a couple of squadrons of J-10s can do the job.

 

[Hyperwarp]

J-10C again Henri K post 01/2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He say possible soon and
Finally, sources close to the AVIC group indicate that a new version, the J-10D, is currently in development. The aircraft would be equipped with compliant tanks (CFT) and 14-tonne PC-class WS-10 IPE Chinese engine, all with a reinforced avionics suite for active stealth, knowing that the J-10C avionics suite was already aligned to the standard of the latest Chinese fighter planes like the J-20.
We can see what this J-10D looks like on the official goodies offered by ACC in 2012 -

So the J-10C/D either have active cancellation like the Rafale or for a more extreme hypothesis "Plasma Stealth"

 

[ougoah]

LOL. Knowing how things are done in China, it would be an improved amalgamation of the amazing Russian plasma stealth technology and just in case, a splash of active cancellation from some French fairy dust.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I don't agree that China should prioritize the J-16 and the J-20 over the J-10C. The J-10C is much cheaper to buy and operate than the J-16. So having these fighters in larger numbers will mean more bang for the buck.

J-10C can't be that much cheaper considering the fact that it supposedly uses 5th generation radar/avionics. Compared with both J-20 and J-16 it has shorter range and lighter weapons load and is unsuitable for offensive operations.

 

[AndrewS]

5 J-10Cs could not replace 1 J-20 if LO is required for a mission. So the optimal balance can only be found through a careful assessment and prediction of what sort of missions will dominate against specific adversaries. Where J-10 does present great value is also an area that doesn't require huge numbers since awesome land force numbers and improving UVACs is a reality already. It would be far better to have maximum number of J-20s with a couple of hundred or close to a thousand 4th gen fighters. If China is to fight a technologically advanced adversary, J-20s are a must in huge numbers. For all smaller, backward and weaker adversaries, a couple of squadrons of J-10s can do the job.

Yes, there are now approximately 400 F-35 and F-22.

And Lockheed is ramping up to produce 200x F-35 ever year.

So China will need to maximise the number of J-20 to counter this

 

[Iron Man]

Given all the J-7s and J-8s still in PLAAF service, the priority seems to me to replace them with a cheaper plane such as J-10C in theaters where stealth is not expected, at least not any time soon. Examples would be Vietnam, India, the Stans, and most of China's interior provinces, where range is not so important. Really only the coastal provinces face any immediate threat from (US) stealth fighters. So it makes more sense to base J-20s in these areas for the time being rather than try to massively ramp up J-20 production in order to base them in as many places in China as possible.