Eerrrm…guys, Modern Military Aviation anyone? Discussing geopolitics in these forums is always a slippery slope. :confused:

since you are new here
no such thing as 1000 post life span. it is a 20 page life span.

My long tasty friend, since you’ve been here way too long, according to Grey Area from the PAF thread;

Given that the length of a thread in pages is actually dictated by the user setting for the number of posts to display on a page – this thread is only 17 pages long for me, for example – we prefer to use the limit of 1,000 postings.

At 661 posts, there’s plenty of life in this thread yet. 🙂

GA

Hotdogs with an expired user date are not recommended :p

It may be a less risky project based on the Z9, or could be targeted for the export market?

However, more recent and consistent reports suggests that the J10B is being developed as part of the J20 project, with the J10B being used to test out much of the avionics and radar for the J20 to run parallel with the J20 aerodynamic tests to speed up development.

If the J10B is stuff full of J20 core avionics and subsystems, I dare say there is a very good chance that these will be firmly off the export market.

That means that this specifically developed J10 version will likely need a totally new set of avionics and subsystems.

It is likely that the FC20 will be mainly the J10A’s avionics, maybe with some J10B goodies like integrated EW pods and AESA thrown in. It may even use the J10B airframe, but it will be a very different beast to what the J10B will be in PLAAF service, as is the long established pattern with Chinese defense exports.

The J10B seems like an odd choice to test the avionics and radar of the J20. Considering the size of the J20, will its intended future radar fit into the nose of a J10B? I would have thought the J11 or other Flanker derivative would be more suited to test the avionics, subsystems and radar of the J20, considering the similar size of the 2 aircraft?

However, the J10B may benefit from the latest avionics, radar and other technologies being designed for the J20. Not necessarily the exact same systems, but a downsized radar and other systems to fit into the J10B airframe. A process similar to the J10 radar and avionics being downsized for the JF17.

I think there’s no doubt the FC20 will be different to PLAF J10Bs, as you say consistent with previous Chinese aircraft exports. And if there are any technologies which the Chinese deem as too sensitive, they won’t be exported, pretty much the case anywhere else around the world.

So, you honestly believe it’s simply poor “marketing” that’s holding the Dhruv back from winning more international orders?

Interesting.

There may be other factors besides poor marketing that’s restricting Dhruv sales in the international market. All I’m saying is that on paper at least, there doesn’t appear to be any reason why it shouldn’t achieve some success in the competative internaional market. I think most of the orders to date have comprised only single digit numbers, or very low double digit numbers at the most. If there are concerns by potential customers over its “made in India status”, these could be put aside due to the fact that it was designed and developed with the assitance of the then MBB (now Eurocopter), based on the earlier BK 117. Besides, I think HAL’s primary focus is the domestic market, any limited sales to export customers or friendly states is simply a bonus.

Silk, I can’t really speak for the PAF or IrAF, or ever recall owning an airforce with the IAF as my foe, but in my opinion, I doubt whether the PAF would spend a significant amount of resources on a limited number of high end J-20s, which may provide limited use in any conflict.

Regarding the twin egine issue, the PAF has shied away from twin engine heavy fighter bombers for simpler maintenance. Yes, I know they’ve operated twin engine aircraft before, such as the F-6 and A-5, but they suffered quite poor attrition and maintenance issues with those and had to make significant upgrade modifications. That may have been an issue with those particular aircraft, but the PAF hasn’t really moved away from single engine fighters. Initial acquisition costs would also be higher for twin engine aircraft.