China Sells J-10 Fourth Generation Fighters to Pakistan

[Mastankhan]

Some of the naysayers are coming around now...acting as if they had never ridiculed the idea of J10 coming to PAF before.

Hi,

The real problem here is that the J10 does not provide any jobs for the Paf officers in the USA---.

If Gen Musharraf had stayed in power---the J10's were inevitable---. The problem with pakistan was that it was in political turmoil and the J10 or air force strength was the least of the worries of Zardari or Nawaz---.

 

[Scorpio]

Atleast now J10x is on the card for PAF, many people start confirming it openly even few of them denied in past.

I really hope J10A will not be part of induction it should be J10C or J10P to give real bost

 

[BATMAN]

There is no sense in comparing it with F16.

In response to my J10A(splitter plate design) vs J10B(DSI design) query...u said DSI raises the canopy which increases drag.
--> so I thought u were saying...that changing the intake on the J10 from the more conventional design to DSI...meant raising the front section(hence canopy being higher) which contributed to increased drag(on the J10B).

This is why I asked if u had any sources for this claim...

If that is not what u meant...then what u said has absolutely nothing to do with what I was asking. My question was in regards to whether Pak is getting J10 with DSI or without DSI.

As for ur claim of canopy being higher if DSI intake is under the fuselage...that has nothing to do with DSI vs splitter plate intake. Both types of intakes would cause canopy to be higher...so that there is room for the intake underneath(as opposed to if they were on the sides).
An F16 was modified to test DSI...and the canopy(and the whole front section) did not need to be raised. It was the same for DSI as it is for the splitter plate intake. Instead of arguing for or against the DSI design...ur argument is against the intake's position in general(underneath vs the side intakes).

If you are J-10 fan boy, you would like to hear all good about it, which I'm not, so I'm free to compare J-10 with even Mirage or Gripen.
If that makes sense to you or not. I can't help.

Why i compare the air-intake of F-16 because, J-10 design has tons of inspiration from F-16 and it's design history.

I'm questioning the bottom air intake integration on J-10 in general, which they tried to revamp in transition from A-C. Basic ide was to compensate the basic design error and wrap it in DSI upgrade. They did the whole nose job BTW.

Still it looks which gives impression, that canopy+nose structure of another design has been welded on a fuselage of J-10.
It may be my individual observation, which you are welcome to argue.

For better understanding, just look at F-16 air intake. It looks like an integrated design, unlike J-10A &C below, which looks, more like a patch job.
It may still be a great fighter, thanks to the FWB but i can give only 6/10 to it's structural design.

 

[BATMAN]

Hi,

The real problem here is that the J10 does not provide any jobs for the Paf officers in the USA---.

If Gen Musharraf had stayed in power---the J10's were inevitable---. The problem with pakistan was that it was in political turmoil and the J10 or air force strength was the least of the worries of Zardari or Nawaz---.

If you think no corruption is involved in deals with China, than i must say, you have lost touch with your folks back home.
Ever since, corruption in state of Pakistan has evolved to a structured norm of life.
There's no justification for PAF to go for any foreign plat form, besides F-16 or mirages.
jF-17 perfectly fits the requirement and it has proven that. Introducing another plat form, and integrating it to war strategy, carry the risk of back fire. If we look at Indian current news articles on jF-17, the move is already backfiring.

 

[BATMAN]

As per @Khafee hint, they will in drak Gray color ... some sort of semi sealth coating on them.

We can try all we can, but only a war experience can tell, how it beckon on enemy radars.

 

[Scorpio]

We can try all we can, but only a war experience can tell, how it beckon on enemy radars.

Agree ... actual capabilities determine during battle fields with actual results.

But skillset with proper training and strategies will lead get proper actual outcome from any weapons of this leagues

 

[Mastankhan]

If you think no corruption is involved in deals with China, than i must say, you have lost touch with your folks back home.
Ever since, corruption in state of Pakistan has evolved to a structured norm of life.
There's no justification for PAF to go for any foreign plat form, besides F-16 or mirages.
jF-17 perfectly fits the requirement and it has proven that. Introducing another plat form, and integrating it to war strategy, carry the risk of back fire. If we look at Indian current news articles on jF-17, the move is already backfiring.

Hi,

Corruption is a different issue with the chinese than with the americans.

The chinese may give bags full of money---the americans will not---. So---Paf personal are not looking for bribes from the US---but these boys are looking for Jobs in the US or other F16 operating countries after their retirement or on deputation.

 

[Cookie Monster]

If you are J-10 fan boy, you would like to hear all good about it, which I'm not, so I'm free to compare J-10 with even Mirage or Gripen.
If that makes sense to you or not. I can't help.

Why i compare the air-intake of F-16 because, J-10 design has tons of inspiration from F-16 and it's design history.

I'm questioning the bottom air intake integration on J-10 in general, which they tried to revamp in transition from A-C. Basic ide was to compensate the basic design error and wrap it in DSI upgrade. They did the whole nose job BTW.

Still it looks which gives impression, that canopy+nose structure of another design has been welded on a fuselage of J-10.
It may be my individual observation, which you are welcome to argue.

For better understanding, just look at F-16 air intake. It looks like an integrated design, unlike J-10A &C below, which looks, more like a patch job.
It may still be a great fighter, thanks to the FWB but i can give only 6/10 to it's structural design.
View attachment 17093

View attachment 17094 View attachment 17096

I disagree with ur assessment of giving J10 a 6/10 on structural design...and no I'm not saying it bcuz I'm a fanboy of J10. I simply rely more on evidence...than just eyeballing pictures.

If u have some solid evidence in the way of ur argument that shows structural flaws in J10...then plz do share. Eyeballing online pictures(while neither of us have our academic backgrounds in designing jets) is like a blind man trying to find flaws in a painting.

 

[BATMAN]

I disagree with ur assessment of giving J10 a 6/10 on structural design...and no I'm not saying it bcuz I'm a fanboy of J10. I simply rely more on evidence...than just eyeballing pictures.

If u have some solid evidence in the way of ur argument that shows structural flaws in J10...then plz do share. Eyeballing online pictures(while neither of us have our academic backgrounds in designing jets) is like a blind man trying to find flaws in a painting.

Only way to comment on facade is by looking at it.
As i also said, it may be a good a/c but adds no value to PAF.

 

[Mastankhan]

I disagree with ur assessment of giving J10 a 6/10 on structural design...and no I'm not saying it bcuz I'm a fanboy of J10. I simply rely more on evidence...than just eyeballing pictures.

If u have some solid evidence in the way of ur argument that shows structural flaws in J10...then plz do share. Eyeballing online pictures(while neither of us have our academic backgrounds in designing jets) is like a blind man trying to find flaws in a painting.

Hi,

The J10 A---in appearance is a poor looking aircraft when viewed from the front and looking at the poorly designed intake.

The B model and onwards is a good looking aircraft---. Functionally it meets the design utility of the aircraft---.

 

[Scorpio]

Hi,

The J10 A---in appearance is a poor looking aircraft when viewed from the front and looking at the poorly designed intake.

The B model and onwards is a good looking aircraft---. Functionally it meets the design utility of the aircraft---.

Secondly it have alot packages on its back to give some decent punch in any small or medium Airforce

 

[baqai]

@Khafee bhai kithay? kia scene hai baraat bula li khana nahin khul raha bhai :/

 

[iceman007]

@Khafee bro kidher ho??

 

[iceman007]

 

[iceman007]

View attachment 17128

I hope this isnt photoshop