Tempest II
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,414
- Reaction score
- 11
We have seen the JF-17/FC-1 tested along side the J-10B and J-20. Resources and learnings have been shared. The fact that the JF-17 is where it is in technology and capability is not because the Chinese cannot put more. I believe the desired cost on the plane is what is limiting what it comes with. I believe that is why on more than half of the slides by the chief designer, you had one or two extra “options” to beef up the capabilities AT EXTRA COSTS, i.e. the message is "the capabilities are there, but we are trying to tailor the machine to your pocket and requirements".
You have poor countries whose threats are Mig-21s and F-5s and the FC-1 is FIT FOR PURPOSE! … … Why are the medium tech products the best selling? Why do Toyota and Honda outsell the BMW, Merc, Lexus, etc?... … or Nokias and Blackberrys outselling Virtue … … and Seiko and Swatch doing well along side Rolex or Reymond Weil … … There is a difference between marketing and selling … … not everybody needs the Gripen … … likely WANT it … … but not NEED it!
Defence needs are dynamic and certainly what Pakistan need when they proposed the Super-7 is not exactly what they need today. The world and its threats have evolved so the JF-17 have evolved too.
So the Gripen has more comprehensive EMP protection, what is the likelihood that Sudan will need that. The Gripen is designed for at least 6,000 hours airframe life. South African Gripens are flying less than 50 hours per year = 120 years of life. That is a waste of money. Even if you double the flying hrs to 100 you still have 60 years of life. Why not have an OPTIMISED design for your needs, say 3,000 hours and the few frames that make it to 20 years, they go for rebuilds anyway.
If a third world country faces NATO or the USA, it does not matter if they have a squadron of FC-1, Gripens, Fulcrums, Flankers, Rafale or Eurofighters = they will all be looking for cover in deserts and jungles. You might actually be better off with FC-1 because for any of the Western fighters NATO/USA will have all the codes and performance data for your fighters.
Streatching my thinking a little bit ... ... this customisation strategy could be why Klimov's brochure gives a range for the maximum thrust on the RD-93. If the RD-93 was being offered in one version, then you would have one maximum thrust. So, they could also be offering a beefed up, more expensive 96kN RD-93 alongside the classic and economical 84kN one.
You have poor countries whose threats are Mig-21s and F-5s and the FC-1 is FIT FOR PURPOSE! … … Why are the medium tech products the best selling? Why do Toyota and Honda outsell the BMW, Merc, Lexus, etc?... … or Nokias and Blackberrys outselling Virtue … … and Seiko and Swatch doing well along side Rolex or Reymond Weil … … There is a difference between marketing and selling … … not everybody needs the Gripen … … likely WANT it … … but not NEED it!
Defence needs are dynamic and certainly what Pakistan need when they proposed the Super-7 is not exactly what they need today. The world and its threats have evolved so the JF-17 have evolved too.
So the Gripen has more comprehensive EMP protection, what is the likelihood that Sudan will need that. The Gripen is designed for at least 6,000 hours airframe life. South African Gripens are flying less than 50 hours per year = 120 years of life. That is a waste of money. Even if you double the flying hrs to 100 you still have 60 years of life. Why not have an OPTIMISED design for your needs, say 3,000 hours and the few frames that make it to 20 years, they go for rebuilds anyway.
If a third world country faces NATO or the USA, it does not matter if they have a squadron of FC-1, Gripens, Fulcrums, Flankers, Rafale or Eurofighters = they will all be looking for cover in deserts and jungles. You might actually be better off with FC-1 because for any of the Western fighters NATO/USA will have all the codes and performance data for your fighters.
Streatching my thinking a little bit ... ... this customisation strategy could be why Klimov's brochure gives a range for the maximum thrust on the RD-93. If the RD-93 was being offered in one version, then you would have one maximum thrust. So, they could also be offering a beefed up, more expensive 96kN RD-93 alongside the classic and economical 84kN one.