What's new

PAF J-10C News, Updates and Discussion

Again, where did you get this information from?
Sir you also visited the LM website, where they have mention,
engine power : 29000 lbs class
And here the two types of engines with power output. GE only matching the 29000 pounds class. P&W clearly outclass by GE. And one thing more most of the new customers are going with GE engines. Only as per your answer Morocco is going with P&W engines.
Screenshot_20220120-221956.png
Screenshot_20220120-223611.png
Screenshot_20220120-223311.png
 
And one thing more most of the new customers are going with GE engines. Only as per your answer Morocco is going with P&W engines.
Oh i'm not questioning which is the better Engine & which kicks out the best thrust.

I was merely questioning...
Because new F-16 are only coming with GE engines.
Because the new ones are only Using General Electric engines.
Because (twice) you gave the nod to GE being the "only" engines that will be coming with the newer Block.

Yes, GE has commonly been the preferred choice - however in P&W have been the popular engines in this part of the World & are still associated with the upcoming Block (72).
 
Oh i'm not questioning which is the better Engine & which kicks out the best thrust.

I was merely questioning...


Because (twice) you gave the nod to GE being the "only" engines that will be coming with the newer Block.

Yes, GE has commonly been the preferred choice - however in P&W have been the popular engines in this part of the World & are still associated with the upcoming Block (72).
If P&W does not match their brochure than it means, its out of the race. Very simple
 
If P&W does not match their brochure than it means, its out of the race. Very simple
Which brochure? What race are you even referring to?

Just 'cause LM just gave the specs of one powerplant, you're assuming that they've dropped the other one after 4-decades...

If LM was planning on putting an end to the partnership with P&W they never would have mentioned the term 'Block 72' on their official site.

But, if there is a Official Statement from LM or an article from a renowned Media like Flight Mag, Aviation Week or Shepard that back your claim - i'll say "ok, you're right". But there has to be substance other than assumptions based off an online "brochure".

Here is the official Product Card
F-16 Product Card

LM doesn't care about which engine they have to stick in one of their birds 'cause they don't make a dime off it. The cost of engine goes to its developer.
 
China is producing more than 300 WS-10 a year (upping to 450 by 2026), and putting it on everything from J16s to J10s to J15 and J11s, basically their entire front-line aircraft. But it's not a mature design. =)
I think the J10Cs that PAF is getting will have the WS-10 engines, the ones with TVC.
 
I doubt it very much that PAF would want TVC on their birds, given they're getting PL10 and HMDs with it.
doesn't hurt to have. HOBS missiles aren't 3 dimensional 360 degrees, TVC will help in bringing any target into the HOBS sight and quickly as opposed to having to carry out traditional in turn maneuvers. Also, it'll have a psychological impact on the already nerve wrecked indian pilots...
 
doesn't hurt to have. HOBS missiles aren't 3 dimensional 360 degrees, TVC will help in bringing any target into the HOBS sight and quickly as opposed to having to carry out traditional in turn maneuvers.
Additional build times, experimental engine, added weight. = No reason to put it on your frontline aircraft. It's the same thing when fanboys see all weapons belonging to a unit, hanging on to JF-17 (on a patch) and thinking that this is its combat load. It is not. It can barely take off under that weight, let alone fly to fight.
 
Additional build times, experimental engine, added weight. = No reason to put it on your frontline aircraft. It's the same thing when fanboys see all weapons belonging to a unit, hanging on to JF-17 (on a patch) and thinking that this is its combat load. It is not. It can barely take off under that weight, let alone fly to fight.
it won't be an experimental engine, WS-10 with TVC on the J-10Bs have been tested and demonstrated a over 3 years ago and has matured more since.
 
There is a couple of things I want to address here. First of all, I would consider WS-10 to be quite mature by this point. It's true that back in 2015, AL-31F probably did have long service life and reliability than WS-10. But we've gone through several years of flying now and PLAAF have been using its on J-10C for a couple of years without any major incidents. The original design spec for WS-10 had higher MTBO requirements than AL-31. Now that both engines are mature, I would imagine WS-10B currently would have better in service MTBO period than AL-31FN. More importantly, China is now producing massive quantities of WS-10 every year. You are probably going to have better after service care from China on WS-10B than you would from Russians on AL-31FN. IAF's AL-31FP issues with Russians is pretty well known. I'm not sure why people are acting like Russia is the hallmark of reliability. It's pretty bad.

Secondly, we've only had the one known J-10C prototype with TVC. It would be quite crazy for PAF to opt for that.

Thirdly, I actually don't think F-16V is a good choice for PAF at this point. It probably is an adequate option against Rafale, but there is not much growth left in the F-16 platform. F-16 at this point is maxed out in terms of what you can fit in there. It's already lost agility in order to fit AESA radar in there. In comparison, I think J-10C at this point can fit more larger/more powerful radar and electronics in there and will probably have more powerful engine to support that. There should be some growth left in J-10 program still.

Fourth, I don't get this fascination with saying that PAF never compromises on quality and always needs the best. That's simply not true for any Air Force, let alone when that faces a massive resource disadvantage again its biggest rival. The only Air Force who can always get the best is USAF. Everyone else, including China, needs to be realistic about their options based on who they can acquire from and what their budgets are. If you want to use IAF's strategy of shooting for the moon and fantasizing about exporter's marketing brochures, then you are going to end up as a smaller and weaker version of IAF. That would be a terrible strategy for PAF. PAF needs to make cost conscience decisions on what's most available that can immediately improve its capability and allow it continue to be a strong deterrence to an opponent with massive resource advantage. Getting J-10C now is about getting a strong deterrence against an obvious threat to balance of power in the form of Rafale. PAF cannot wait 5 years and sink a bunch of money into getting something else that looks good on paper. It wants IAF to continue to keep doing that.
 
There is a couple of things I want to address here. First of all, I would consider WS-10 to be quite mature by this point. It's true that back in 2015, AL-31F probably did have long service life and reliability than WS-10. But we've gone through several years of flying now and PLAAF have been using its on J-10C for a couple of years without any major incidents. The original design spec for WS-10 had higher MTBO requirements than AL-31. Now that both engines are mature, I would imagine WS-10B currently would have better in service MTBO period than AL-31FN. More importantly, China is now producing massive quantities of WS-10 every year. You are probably going to have better after service care from China on WS-10B than you would from Russians on AL-31FN. IAF's AL-31FP issues with Russians is pretty well known. I'm not sure why people are acting like Russia is the hallmark of reliability. It's pretty bad.

Secondly, we've only had the one known J-10C prototype with TVC. It would be quite crazy for PAF to opt for that.

Thirdly, I actually don't think F-16V is a good choice for PAF at this point. It probably is an adequate option against Rafale, but there is not much growth left in the F-16 platform. F-16 at this point is maxed out in terms of what you can fit in there. It's already lost agility in order to fit AESA radar in there. In comparison, I think J-10C at this point can fit more larger/more powerful radar and electronics in there and will probably have more powerful engine to support that. There should be some growth left in J-10 program still.

Fourth, I don't get this fascination with saying that PAF never compromises on quality and always needs the best. That's simply not true for any Air Force, let alone when that faces a massive resource disadvantage again its biggest rival. The only Air Force who can always get the best is USAF. Everyone else, including China, needs to be realistic about their options based on who they can acquire from and what their budgets are. If you want to use IAF's strategy of shooting for the moon and fantasizing about exporter's marketing brochures, then you are going to end up as a smaller and weaker version of IAF. That would be a terrible strategy for PAF. PAF needs to make cost conscience decisions on what's most available that can immediately improve its capability and allow it continue to be a strong deterrence to an opponent with massive resource advantage. Getting J-10C now is about getting a strong deterrence against an obvious threat to balance of power in the form of Rafale. PAF cannot wait 5 years and sink a bunch of money into getting something else that looks good on paper. It wants IAF to continue to keep doing that.

Good points and I agree totally.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom