J-10 (FC-20) for Pakistan After All?

[Feanor]

Pakistan Buying Chinese J-10 Fighters (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pakistan-Buying-Chinese-J-10-Fighters-05937/#more-5937)

It looks like a deal for 36 fighters has been signed. This is surprising. So now Pakistan will be flying the F-16, JF-17, and J-10?

[latenlazy]

Pakistan Buying Chinese J-10 Fighters (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pakistan-Buying-Chinese-J-10-Fighters-05937/#more-5937)

It looks like a deal for 36 fighters has been signed. This is surprising. So now Pakistan will be flying the F-16, JF-17, and J-10?
Wonder where they got that information on the WS-10A, because it sounds wrong...

[turin]

Wonder where they got that information on the WS-10A, because it sounds wrong...

Thats a quote from an old piece by SinoDefence. I am reading DID quite often, but I really wouldnt pay money for the kind of content they put up (which some people seem to do).

[SABRE]

Pakistan Buying Chinese J-10 Fighters (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pakistan-Buying-Chinese-J-10-Fighters-05937/#more-5937)

It looks like a deal for 36 fighters has been signed. This is surprising. So now Pakistan will be flying the F-16, JF-17, and J-10?

This is not surprising. Pakistan-China have been on to it for 3 years, its about time. Now the governments of the two countries have to sign the deal.

[tphuang]

This is not surprising. Pakistan-China have been on to it for 3 years, its about time. Now the governments of the two countries have to sign the deal.

this is only the beginning, I think the decision was made last year or maybe even earlier, but we are going to hear more about J-10 with Pakistan as time comes. They will have to figure out the configuration and delivery schedules and such.

[Crusader2000]

Does anybody know if the J-10B has entered production yet???

[surb]

So PAF is getting the j-10s(can we say specifically j-10As ?). It seems the current geopolitics might have hurried the negotiations.I expected them to wait for MRCA deal and j-10Bs.:soldier

[sunny1987]

i think tat is very good deal as far as upgrading the airforce. but ihave one question . Can it compete with IAF su 30 mki as mki lokks good as far as its specifications are described. why pakistan did not go for bvr radars and missiles ranging over 300 kms? can anybody brief me on that

[sunny1987]

Can any body tell me why PAF is not going for twin engine fighter like typhoon or J-11?

[Aussie Digger]

Can any body tell me why PAF is not going for twin engine fighter like typhoon or J-11?

They are more expensive to operate than single engined fighters and don't offer significantly more to a tight budget than a single engined fighter...

[Aussie Digger]

i think tat is very good deal as far as upgrading the airforce. but ihave one question . Can it compete with IAF su 30 mki as mki lokks good as far as its specifications are described. why pakistan did not go for bvr radars and missiles ranging over 300 kms? can anybody brief me on that

Firstly, there is NO BVR missile that will be effective beyond 300k's.

Secondly fighter sized radar systems do not work well, if at all at such long ranges and certainly not well enough to provide fire control for their own missiles, which as previously stated won't be effective at that sort of range and so on...

Attempting to compare one fighter to another in isolation is a waste of time. This is not world war one, fighters do not fight in isolation, without support and so you have to attempt to judge an airforce at a system level.

Will the PAF have an effective and capable air force with it's new fighter acquisitions and weapon systems, enabling assets - Erieye AEW&C, A2A refuelling aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft, ground based air defence and surveillance systems, Command, Control and support systems?

Is it's training system sufficient to provide quality aircrew and maintenance crews?

Is PAF able to support it's combat elements well? What sort of sortie generation is it capable of?

The list of questions go on and on.

The simplistic answer is yes, the PAF seem to be doing the right things, to build an effective force that should provide a good capability to help defend Pakistan.

Whether one aircraft is "better" than another is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. On one day, under certain operational conditions it might be and the next under different circumstances it might not.

[surb]

how many two seat version j-10 PAF is getting ;any rumors...

[Feanor]

I wonder how the mix of F-16s and Chinese fighters will do for the PAF in regards to maintenance and training. Additionally exercises between the two types must be very interesting.

[Aussie Digger]

I wonder how the mix of F-16s and Chinese fighters will do for the PAF in regards to maintenance and training. Additionally exercises between the two types must be very interesting.

They've been operating that way for a long time already, though with Chinese F-7 and A-5 fighters/strikers, rather than JF-17 and J-10 fighters...

Pakistan has no choice but to "wear" the cost in order to maintain it's strategic self-reliance capability.

I expect the J-10 will be praised to the heavens, seeing as it is apparently selected as Pakistan's "high end" fighter... (not that I have any great knowledge or insight into the aircraft nor it's capabilities, I just expect the pro-Pakistani brigade to love it and the anti-Pakistan brigade to despise and denigrate it...)

:rolleyes:

[Feanor]

How does the radar and avionics on it compare across the board to other fighters? I mean the radar is an MSA, that only tracks 10 targets. That's comparable to the updated N001 on the MKKs they got.

[Aussie Digger]

How does the radar and avionics on it compare across the board to other fighters? I mean the radar is an MSA, that only tracks 10 targets. That's comparable to the updated N001 on the MKKs they got.

NFI. Tphuang might be the best bet if he's around?

I'd suggest they would be no LESS capable than the Block 52+ fighters, (at least in air to air) that Pakistan already has on order. It would seem to be a pointless acquisition otherwise and given the known relative capability of the F-16 Block 52, that's an impressive capability...

[SABRE]

Can any body tell me why PAF is not going for twin engine fighter like typhoon or J-11?

1. The easy answer should be "cost effectiveness." PAF has always been challenged by budget constraints.

2. Post modern air power is more dependent on aircraft's avionics and weapon system then the aircraft itself (open for debatable). Whether its single engine F-16 or twin-engine F-15 both can (& usually do) carry same or similar avionics and weapons (i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM). Major advantage I see in twin-engine aircraft is that it has greater payload and can fly longer distance. But its the ability of an aircraft to strike deep rather then fly deep which is becoming more important. Because of this most modern air forces strive to achieve StandOff capability.

3. Post modern air forces (ground and sea forces as well) also require force multipliers (i.e. AWACS and A2A Refuelers) and non-aircraft based defences (ground or sea based air defence i.e. SAMs). These force multipliers and alternative defensive measures compensate the air crafts limited capabilities. An Su-30 may have a radar with greater range compared to F-16 but when an F-16 gets its data from an AWACS its seeking capability is boosted even further. These multipliers and defenses carry away significant chunk of budget as well, thus a moderate air force like PAF economizes by inducting less costly single engine air craft to boost numbers.

I think this is what Aussie Digger was trying to tell you (?).

[Feanor]

I'd suggest they would be no LESS capable than the Block 52+ fighters, (at least in air to air) that Pakistan already has on order. It would seem to be a pointless acquisition otherwise and given the known relative capability of the F-16 Block 52, that's an impressive capability...

That would be a lot more impressive then my reading has led me to think.

[sunny1987]

1. The easy answer should be "cost effectiveness." PAF has always been challenged by budget constraints.

2. Post modern air power is more dependent on aircraft's avionics and weapon system then the aircraft itself (open for debatable). Whether its single engine F-16 or twin-engine F-15 both can (& usually do) carry same or similar avionics and weapons (i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM). Major advantage I see in twin-engine aircraft is that it has greater payload and can fly longer distance. But its the ability of an aircraft to strike deep rather then fly deep which is becoming more important. Because of this most modern air forces strive to achieve StandOff capability.

3. Post modern air forces (ground and sea forces as well) also require force multipliers (i.e. AWACS and A2A Refuelers) and non-aircraft based defences (ground or sea based air defence i.e. SAMs). These force multipliers and alternative defensive measures compensate the air crafts limited capabilities. An Su-30 may have a radar with greater range compared to F-16 but when an F-16 gets its data from an AWACS its seeking capability is boosted even further. These multipliers and defenses carry away significant chunk of budget as well, thus a moderate air force like PAF economizes by inducting less costly single engine air craft to boost numbers.

I think this is what Aussie Digger was trying to tell you (?).
Thanks a lot dears to reply me. i am now satisfied . Now can anybody now tell me about the maximum bvr missile range of IAF su-30 and PAF Falcons. because unless you dont have the strike capability of shooting of an aircraft beyond visual range then it is of no use that is what i think

[Feanor]

The maximum range has little relevance to real life engagements. Not to mention that the "brochure" maximum range and the practical maximum range are two different things. Both are contingent on the target you're dealing with, and additionally depend on a number of things such as AEW support, ECM or jamming support, etc. I don't think there is an easy answer to these questions.

[SABRE]

Thanks a lot dears to reply me. i am now satisfied . Now can anybody now tell me about the maximum bvr missile range of IAF su-30 and PAF Falcons. because unless you dont have the strike capability of shooting of an aircraft beyond visual range then it is of no use that is what i think


The longer range BVRAAM in IAF inventory is R-77 with 90Km range. PAF has ordered AIM-120C-5 which has about 105Km range. The difference makes hardly any difference. I think practically both missiles will need 50Km to 60Km distance to make proper targeting and killing.

[surb]

The longer range BVRAAM in IAF inventory is R-77 with 90Km range. PAF has ordered AIM-120C-5 which has about 105Km range. The difference makes hardly any difference. I think practically both missiles will need 50Km to 60Km distance to make proper targeting and killing.
And if fc-20 carrying sd-10 missile have to face the flanker what will be the distance for proper targeting almost ensuring a kill?

[SABRE]

And if fc-20 carrying sd-10 missile have to face the flanker what will be the distance for proper targeting almost ensuring a kill?

I haven't got much of a knowledge on SD-10. Its range is about 70 to 80Km according to reports, more likely 70Km. It too will need to be at 50 to 60Km distance to make an assured kill. Flanker might also need to get into that range with its R-77. Many modern BVRAAMs have range around 60 to 80Km instead of 100+.

[aaaditya]

The maximum range has little relevance to real life engagements. Not to mention that the "brochure" maximum range and the practical maximum range are two different things. Both are contingent on the target you're dealing with, and additionally depend on a number of things such as AEW support, ECM or jamming support, etc. I don't think there is an easy answer to these questions.

but doesnt the max range have relevance to the end game dynamics of the bvr missile,for example lets assume that a 60 kms max range missile is fired against a target at a range of 55 kms,this missile would already be at the outer limits of its endurance and would not have enough energy left for the kill should the target be highly manouverable like the su-30,at the same time a missile with a 100kms range fired against athe same target at 55 kms would still have enough margin to sustain its kinematic performance agaist the target and better chances of acheiving a kill even though the target is highly manouverable like the su-30.

[Feanor]

Yes. My point was contingent on the fact that the maximum range of the missiles from both sides was in the same ballpark. Otherwise you are absolutely correct.

[Aussie Digger]

And if fc-20 carrying sd-10 missile have to face the flanker what will be the distance for proper targeting almost ensuring a kill?

For a very high Pk (probability of kill) value, you want to be close. The longer the range a missile is fired at, the lesser the Pk tends to be.

This holds true for EVERY combat aircraft, not just Western aircraft, despite what some may portray...

I would suggest that BVR capabilities of R-77 equipped SU-30 aircraft and AIM-120C5 equipped Block 52 F-16's are going to be relatively similar.

The radar range advantages held by the Sukhoi SU-30 over the F-16 should be offset by it's very large radar cross section and the capabilities inherent in the Electronic warfare system of the Block 52 F-16.

They are going to be so similar in fact, that factors OTHER than the relative capability of individual aircraft are going to make a larger difference in any conflict involving these two types, than any performance advantage held by these respective fighters.

Again, systems matter people. That fighter radar X can search 300k's whilst fighter radar Y can only search 280k's is largely irrelevant.

The German Air Force generally had the superior aircraft in WW2, particularly towards the end of the war. How well did they do?

The Red Baron generally had inferior aircraft in WW1. How well did HE do?

[localhost127]

i have a couple questions about bvr-missiles if anyone has a moment for clarity:

-for semi-active bvr-missiles, when does the seeker go active? what is the ideal range for a seeker to go active? if it is receiving mid-course updates from the launch platform, and suddenly those updates are gone (e.g. launch platform goes evasive and no longer has the radar situated on the target), would the missile seeker automatically go active then? or does the seeker stay silent until a pre-determined distance when it becomes ideal (and necessary) for the missile seeker to go active for end-game high-resolution target vector data.

-if a bvr-missile is launched from a reasonably long distance out from target (say, 60km), and the missile is hemorrhaging kinetic energy by the time it reaches the target ... if the target was maneuverable it could evade the missile at end-game. however, how does the target platform know how close the missile is? if he is aware (RWR) that he is being targeted (when the missile active seeker goes live), he knows it is close ... but there is a big difference in making hard, evasive maneuvers that wont do much when the missile is still 20km out, vs when the missile is 5km out (and he has a better chance to evade). what information is available to the pilot to know when is the best time (window) to make such maneuvers - say, from a country that doesn't have the luxury of AWACS, so the targeted platform doesn't know how far away (or good estimate) how far away the launch platform is to calculate the time-to-impact for himself.

any helpful links for further reading on the subject would be helpful as well
thanks,

[sunny1987]

Thats great that PAF and IAF have almost smae range of bvr missile. but i have read on wikipedia about the brahmos supersonic cruise misslie that has range of 300 km installed on Su-30mki termed as AWACS killer

[Bonza]

Thats great that PAF and IAF have almost smae range of bvr missile. but i have read on wikipedia about the brahmos supersonic cruise misslie that has range of 300 km installed on Su-30mki termed as AWACS killer

Brahmos is a land attack missile, so it's not going to be killing any AWACS platforms unless they're parked on a runway. You might be thinking of the Novator K-100 (previously R-172) missile, which has been billed as an "AWACS killer" (though it's utility in the role has yet to be established) and has a range (publicly declared range, anyway) in the region you mentioned. I believe India has expressed interest in the missile but don't know anything further than that, and from what I understand it is not yet in production.

[Feanor]

Bonza hit the nail on the head. The K-100 it seems is being developed for the PAK-FA, and probably FGFA. But it will be quite a few years before it enters service, never mind gets delivered to line units of export customers.

[sunny1987]

yeh sorry it was that missile, so you say that it is not operational for mki yet.

[Feanor]

It's not operational on anything yet. ;)

[Aussie Digger]

Thats great that PAF and IAF have almost smae range of bvr missile. but i have read on wikipedia about the brahmos supersonic cruise misslie that has range of 300 km installed on Su-30mki termed as AWACS killer

The K-100 "AWACS killer" is the weapon I believe you are referring to.

Plain and simple it is a myth. It has been in development "for ever" and has not ever been deployed by anyone.

The reason is simple.

Even with ramjet propulsion, the weapon has to glide for a significant proportion of it's flight. In order to achieve such a long range it needs a very clean missile body, ie: no fins, which means the missile is very non-maneuverable.

It also needs to fly at VERY high altitudes, some say up to 100,000 feet to achieve it's range performance.

Furthermore, it needs it's own very powerful active radar system to be operational at all, which means that EVERYONE will know that this thing is coming.

So what this weapon provides is a very high speed missile, that is "gliding" for the majority of it's flight profile, at an extremely high altitude with a VERY visible active radar emission and very large thermal bloom from it's very powerful rocket motor operating at high altitude, before descending in a "top attack" profile.

In short, every aircraft in a theatre WILL know when this thing has been launched, everyone WILL know it's performance, it WILL be the focus of jamming and due to it's lack of maneuverability and extended flight time (despite it's speed) every aircraft, including large jets like AWACS, AAR etc, should be able to out-maneuver the thing.

The Americans had a similar weapon 35 years ago. It was called the AIM-54 Phoenix. It's limitations were realised and it was intended to fly towards and attack massed bomber formations, in the manner described above.

It's performance against an individual platform was very ordinary, which is why the US has not deployed any similar weapons since the threat of attack by mass bomber fleets disappeared...

The USA has many missiles that would perform a similar role, including Patriot PAC-3 and ESSM, but the effort isn't worth the result. The Air Power Australia argument that K-100 type missiles render "small" fighters impotent and spell the end of Western Airborne ISR superiority is utter nonsense.

Even if current weapons are insufficient, a PAC-3 Patriot or ESSM missile adapted for fighter carriage would provide a standoff range capability that matches or exceeds the K-100 itself and with hardpoints designed for 2000lbs weapons carriage, lofting these sorts of missiles would present no problem.

That they see no need for carriage of such long ranged weapons, shows this "threat" as it really is...

Hence why not even Russia employs this type of weapon, despite having developed it for the last 20 odd years...

[Feanor]

Perhaps the development taking place currently is meat to mitigate the flaws in regards to flight pattern, and signal management. Initially the first sighting of the K-100, it was considered a Buk-M missile, modified for air-launch. Yet it's been a while, and since then it seem to look rather different. The project could very well morph into a new LRAAM meant for 5th generation fighter jets.

[vladimir_7]

The K-100 "AWACS killer" is the weapon I believe you are referring to.

Plain and simple it is a myth. It has been in development "for ever" and has not ever been deployed by anyone.

.

Some times back even PAK FA was a myth for u guys... later on .. when prototype came to existent...it become some wht inferior.. don't know how and why... regarding k-100... on some forums even pics are available... i think i have seen on Pakdef...and .. no price for guessing that even indian Nuclear Submarine .. Arihant... is considered as just "TEST Vehicle".. reason unknown to me till date...

I really want to know sir make u to believe the very existent of missile if some one is not good in Kotler kind of marketing or not intended to do the same.

[surb]

I am still a bit confused.Is PAF considering J-10b or J-10a in their shopping list?The article by Feanor says FC-20 will be available for PAF till 2014/2015.If i am not wrong FC-20 is j-10b ;will it be available till 2014 or our first induction will be j-10a followed by j-10b?

[Aussie Digger]

Some times back even PAK FA was a myth for u guys... later on .. when prototype came to existent...it become some wht inferior.. don't know how and why... regarding k-100... on some forums even pics are available... i think i have seen on Pakdef...and .. no price for guessing that even indian Nuclear Submarine .. Arihant... is considered as just "TEST Vehicle".. reason unknown to me till date...

I really want to know sir make u to believe the very existent of missile if some one is not good in Kotler kind of marketing or not intended to do the same.


Just like PAK-FA the Russian "AWACS" killer has been in development for ever.

Despite this, it is not operational nor is the weapon even deployed by a single Country, including Russia AFAIK.

As I've outlined before, I suspect there is a very good reason for this. Such weapons have proven ineffective against individual platforms and as I also mentioned earlier, such a missile is hardly a new thing, having been deployed but later withdrawn by others such as the USA.

Russia is not standing still with missile development, plenty of R-77 variants have ht the market, but this one seems to be such a low priority. Given my responses, I don't wonder why...

[Feanor]

The PAK-FA was actually not a long-running project at all. It was selected over the MiG concept in 2002, and by early 2010 it's flying. Given the relatively low volumes of funding, and the poor state of Russian aero-space in general, it's a pretty fast project. The "AWACS-killer" on the other hand is indeed a very long running project. It remains to be seen whether anything comes of it.

EDIT: To bring this a little back on topic, basically within the next decade, the PAF only has to worry about advanced R-77 variants.

[SABRE]

I am still a bit confused.Is PAF considering J-10b or J-10a in their shopping list?The article by Feanor says FC-20 will be available for PAF till 2014/2015.If i am not wrong FC-20 is j-10b ;will it be available till 2014 or our first induction will be j-10a followed by j-10b?

I am speculating it to be J-10B. J-10A production might cease by the end of this year or early next year in favor of J-10B, unless J-10A is set asides for export version. But let me assert again I am just speculating.

[thunder299]

J-10 is mutirole and day nite interceptor......it also performs MATV .....great jet.:)

[thunder299]

I am still a bit confused.Is PAF considering J-10b or J-10a in their shopping list?The article by Feanor says FC-20 will be available for PAF till 2014/2015.If i am not wrong FC-20 is j-10b ;will it be available till 2014 or our first induction will be j-10a followed by j-10b?
First J-10 according to PAF will be inducted in mid of 2012

[WebMaster]

Mani and thunder99,

Please make sure you read what you writing in replies. This isn't a "chatroom" or unmoderated discussion board. Use proper language and spelling and grammer and AVOID one-line replies!

Read the rules:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Thank you!

[Aussie Digger]

The PAK-FA was actually not a long-running project at all. It was selected over the MiG concept in 2002, and by early 2010 it's flying. Given the relatively low volumes of funding, and the poor state of Russian aero-space in general, it's a pretty fast project. The "AWACS-killer" on the other hand is indeed a very long running project. It remains to be seen whether anything comes of it.

EDIT: To bring this a little back on topic, basically within the next decade, the PAF only has to worry about advanced R-77 variants.

That depends whether you consider PAK-FA as a separate program or a continuation of the SU-27 program....

:D

[Feanor]

That depends whether you consider PAK-FA as a separate program or a continuation of the SU-27 program....

:D

I think we can agree that it's more then a redesigned Flanker. The basic aero-dynamic layout may have been retained, but the airframe is different, all the avionics are new (and the radar in question isn't an upgrade of the previous one) the OLS is new, and even the engines (for all the discussion currently) are going to be different.

Let me put it this way. If the JSF program, to raise funds lets say, used late-model F-16s as testbeds for some of it's sensor, and engine, improvements; would you consider the JSF a continuation of the F-16? I mean the basic aero-dynamic layout is not THAT different. :) Lets say we retrofitted EO-DAS to an F-16 airframe, along with a radar that will later evolve into the F-35 radar, and a new engine, that will serve as the baseline for the F-35 engine.

I mean ultimately, there's only so much money Sukhoi has to play with. And the MoD funding for the PAK-FA was poor, and came late. So of course they had to cut corners, and extend some of the upgrades to late-model Flankers to help pay for the PAK-FA. From what I recall even some of the RAM coating used on the Su-35 may go into the PAK-FA.

[Aussie Digger]

I think we can agree that it's more then a redesigned Flanker. The basic aero-dynamic layout may have been retained, but the airframe is different, all the avionics are new (and the radar in question isn't an upgrade of the previous one) the OLS is new, and even the engines (for all the discussion currently) are going to be different.

Let me put it this way. If the JSF program, to raise funds lets say, used late-model F-16s as testbeds for some of it's sensor, and engine, improvements; would you consider the JSF a continuation of the F-16? I mean the basic aero-dynamic layout is not THAT different. :) Lets say we retrofitted EO-DAS to an F-16 airframe, along with a radar that will later evolve into the F-35 radar, and a new engine, that will serve as the baseline for the F-35 engine.

I mean ultimately, there's only so much money Sukhoi has to play with. And the MoD funding for the PAK-FA was poor, and came late. So of course they had to cut corners, and extend some of the upgrades to late-model Flankers to help pay for the PAK-FA. From what I recall even some of the RAM coating used on the Su-35 may go into the PAK-FA.

The wing and tail roots look to be exactly the same dimensions as the SU-27 airframe, the landing gear is the same, the engines are the same, the internal cannon location is the same (and a derivative of the existing cannon is planned)...

If it looks like a duck, etc...

I'm not saying it's simply a re-designed SU-27 airframe, but plenty of SU-27 design ideas have gone into the PAK-FA and it is built by the same manufacturer...

It is no secret that F-35 shares many common design ideas with the F-22.

Btw, L-M did use the F-16 to test the air inlet for an early version of the X-35's planned supersonic diverterless inlet... But it shares more in common with the F-22, than F-16, except for the same number of engines... :)

[Feanor]

The wing and tail roots look to be exactly the same dimensions as the SU-27 airframe, the landing gear is the same, the engines are the same, the internal cannon location is the same (and a derivative of the existing cannon is planned)...

You're oversimplifying in my opinion. If you'd like we can continue the discussion in the PAK-FA thread. I think there's plenty to talk about, just don't want to derail this thread any more.

[tphuang]

How does the radar and avionics on it compare across the board to other fighters? I mean the radar is an MSA, that only tracks 10 targets. That's comparable to the updated N001 on the MKKs they got.
hmm, depending on whether you are talking about J-10B or J-10A. B certainly has a whole host of new electronic goodies that seems to be on par with what you would see on super hornets and the latest variants of eurocanards. As for J-10A, I don't think you need a slotted array radar to track too many targets. If you look at what J-10 carries on an average mission, it's unlikely it is asked to attack more than 2 targets. Just stick with STT mode, you get the furthest range on that. We don't really have the range at different modes, but it's clear from reading PLA papers that J-10A can consistently pick up MKKs than vice versa at an earlier point.

The longer range BVRAAM in IAF inventory is R-77 with 90Km range. PAF has ordered AIM-120C-5 which has about 105Km range. The difference makes hardly any difference. I think practically both missiles will need 50Km to 60Km distance to make proper targeting and killing.
I was thinking more like 30 km, although the newer AMRAAMs apparently have longer NEZ than that.
I am still a bit confused.Is PAF considering J-10b or J-10a in their shopping list?The article by Feanor says FC-20 will be available for PAF till 2014/2015.If i am not wrong FC-20 is j-10b ;will it be available till 2014 or our first induction will be j-10a followed by j-10b?
don't think the configuration is finalized.

[Toptob]

I am still a bit confused.Is PAF considering J-10b or J-10a in their shopping list?

Is it feasible that Pakistan wil mix and match systems from different suppliers like they are with the jf-17? That could probably give more integration with their other (western) assets like the F-16's AEW's and scout helicopter assets?

I think that would negate the need for calling it J-10 A or B.

Or are the J-10's going to replace the F-16's? Not likely though because they just received new ones. So what is the position of the J-10 in the strategy of the PAF?

[surb]

Is it feasible that Pakistan wil mix and match systems from different suppliers like they are with the jf-17? That could probably give more integration with their other (western) assets like the F-16's AEW's and scout helicopter assets?

I think that would negate the need for calling it J-10 A or B.

Or are the J-10's going to replace the F-16's? Not likely though because they just received new ones. So what is the position of the J-10 in the strategy of the PAF?
J10's role will be pretty simple in PAF :
1-Air superiority & augmentation of air defense along with F16s
2-Negation of any threats froms MKI
3-Deep strike when ever required.
PAF is heading towards JF-17,J10 & F16 combination so no question of replacing F16s with J-10.:)

[yasar]

[Qdoes UOTE=surb;189958]how many two seat version j-10 PAF is getting ;any rumors...[/QUOTE]

does PAF capable 2 coupe IAF night capabilities shown in VAYO SHAKTI can any body reply to it

[dragonfire]

[Quotes UOTE=surb;189958]how many two seat version j-10 PAF is getting ;any rumors...

does PAF capable 2 coupe IAF night capabilities shown in VAYO SHAKTI can any body reply to it

Be specific in your input requirements, what exact input do you require. Also it is advisable not to engage in - a vs. b - discussions. Please read the forum rules and make your stay here pleasant

Cheers
DF

[SABRE]

does PAF capable 2 coupe IAF night capabilities shown in VAYO SHAKTI can any body reply to it

If you are asking whether PAF has night combat capability then the answer is "yes."