J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

Engineer said:

The J-31 isn't even an official project, so it is premature to speculate on the aircraft's success in PLAAF. What's more, most of the expense of an aircraft lies in the avionics, not the airframe. A high/lo mix of stealth fighters can be achieved with J-20 alone, with one version of the J-20 featuring the most state-of-the-art avionics, while another being the stripped version with only essential avionics. The J-31 is redundant. There is no need to open another manufacturing line or create a whole new logistical support structure for the sole purpose of having J-31 as low-end stealth fighters.

Click to expand...

While I agree that it's not always strictly necessary to maintain a Hi / Lo combo, especially in 5th Gen LO platforms, even the US has opted to have fewer tier 1 'air dominance' fighters (f-22) and have (planned) to have a much larger fleet of tier 2 fighters (f-35)...

Many things come into play, some political (lobbying for scarce resources/current political objectives of government), some economic (need to maintain and grow a strong industrial base that is competitive e.g. both SAC and CAC) and some budgetary (how much does the government actually have to spend to achieve its political objectives).

I'm not sure it's as simplistic as, the J-20 is a better fighter, end of story.

let's keep the 5th gen discussion to the appropriate threads.

For Deino:

(2966x1976)

It was supposed to be super exciting to see a new plane, but I don't feel it this time...

Meet J-10C. Anyone can tell the difference from J-10B?

Link from CD forum:

The J10C, if it actually exists, is probably the export variant with difference avionics compared to the PLAAF J10B.

That is the only distinction that would warrant a whole new designation for me, but even then I would have expected the designation to the F10C rather than J10C. Although that difference may easily have been lost in translation if the J10C designation was first mentioned in Chinese text, and the 'J' was written as 'Jian' in Chinese character rather than the English letter.

by78 said:

For Deino:

(2966x1976)

Click to expand...

Stunning aircraft very smooth and check the lines

Looking forward to the first regiment standing up soon

plawolf said:

The J10C, if it actually exists, is probably the export variant with difference avionics compared to the PLAAF J10B.

That is the only distinction that would warrant a whole new designation for me, but even then I would have expected the designation to the F10C rather than J10C. Although that difference may easily have been lost in translation if the J10C designation was first mentioned in Chinese text, and the 'J' was written as 'Jian' in Chinese character rather than the English letter.

Click to expand...

IMO, J-10C won't be for export only. It is more like the 052C-->052D case. The delay of J-10B project make it less attractive to PLAAF than it was supposed to be. Meanwhile, J-10C will use more advanced avionics from the development of J-20 than J-10B when started around 10 years ago. It is hard to justify my point since it needs more to evaluate the avionics than just looking at the shape.However I think J-10C is actually the real J-10B we are looking for, and the for J-10B, I don't think there will be many (two regiments possibly).

It seems the maiden flight of J-10C (201) is ignored by the forum. Anyway, another pic. See how much attention PLAAF put on J-10C!

They had the nice red chairs out for the higher ranking officers/brasses.

EblisTx said:

It seems the maiden flight of J-10C (201) is ignored by the forum. Anyway, another pic. See how much attention PLAAF put on J-10C!

Click to expand...

Should PLAAF attention point to a domestic requirement vs export?