China To Induct JF-17 Thunder into Its Air Force: President Mamnoon Hussain

[Superboy]

FC-1. /10char.

FC-1 stands for fighter export - 1. It can't be FC-1 obviously.

 

[VCheng]

FC-1 stands for fighter export - 1. It can't be FC-1 obviously.

So why would they export the same basic plane and then import it from Pakistan as the JF-17? FC-1 stands for Fighter Chengdu One, doesn't it?

 

[Developereo]

After the tianamen square fiasco, China has no pragmatic path but the only path left for it. The problem with the spratleys has left China in a lurch. It literally cannot force itself even on minnows like Vietnam and Philippines.

The reality is not so simple. Russia is also a supplier to Vietnam.

It's not a simple Russia-China v/s Vietnam-USA confrontation.

Russia is just as eager as -- more so -- than China to keep American influence at bay in East Asia. A strong China is in Russia's interest, up to a point. Top of the line technologies have always been off-limits for exports, and Russia will continue to sell to China in line with the changing geopolitics of the region.

Again, China is a great example----you cannot fight your today's war with weapons that you are going to get in a decade from now.

As I wrote before, diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie until you can find a big stick. All the disputed territories have been around for thousands of year, and will remain around for thousands more. Just because some country lays a claim to them is not the end of the world.

There is nothing that says China has to fight a war today, and not later, at a time of its own choosing.

its blatant copying of Russian designs scared away the Russians from offering any future cooperation in terms of TOT or mere end user sale.

As I wrote, top of the line technology was never on the table to begin with, and Russia continues to supply weapons tech to China.

Russia doesn't want America defeating China and dominating East Asia any more than China does.

a usual line used by the "grieved party" in the playground face offs used to be

"when I will grow up I will beat you up, or when my brother comes I will tell him and he will come and beat you"
the antagonist used to slap or kick even harder saying "yea we will see about that"

A better analogy would be a weakling who never goes to the gym and brags, "my buddy will beat you up" -- only to turn around and find that his "buddy" has disappeared or, worse, has switched sides.

Once again, you guys keep assuming that China desperately wants a military confrontation in East Asia -- I believe China is playing a much more subtle game.

 

[Superboy]

So why would they export the same basic plane and then import it from Pakistan as the JF-17? FC-1 stands for Fighter Chengdu One, doesn't it?

I thought C stands for chu = export.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

China is not playing a game. That is what it has. It is woefully ill equipped for a super power to take on its neighbors.

If China had the military power, the opponents would not even had whimpered. But it's got no power. It is all about timing. China got caught with its pants down with issues with its neighbors.

 

[Akasa]

Perhaps as aggressor role similar to how the USAF used F-5 in limited numbers?




J-10A is aerodynamically inferior to JF-17. J-10B is on par with JF-17 in terms of aerodynamics.

 

[Pakistanisage]

China is likely to induct some JF-17 Block IIIs when the WS-17 engine is ready for operational service。

Don't think China would go for a fighter without AESA henceforth。

Did you mean WS-13 engine was ready and mature ?

I have not heard about a WS-17 for the JF-17.

Can you please update us if there are any changes.

 

[Akasa]

Hi,

China is not playing a game. That is what it has. It is woefully ill equipped for a super power to take on its neighbors.

If China had the military power, the opponents would not even had whimpered. But it's got no power. It is all about timing. China got caught with its pants down with issues with its neighbors.

On what grounds do you base your argument? When has China got caught "with its pants down"?

I thought C stands for chu = export.

It means "China".

The reality is not so simple. Russia is also a supplier to Vietnam.

It's not a simple Russia-China v/s Vietnam-USA confrontation.

Russia is just as eager as -- more so -- than China to keep American influence at bay in East Asia. A strong China is in Russia's interest, up to a point. Top of the line technologies have always been off-limits for exports, and Russia will continue to sell to China in line with the changing geopolitics of the region.

It's not so simple. Russia has had some nasty border disputes with China and it seems that the only bonding force keeping the two countries together is the mutual distrust of the US.

As I wrote before, diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie until you can find a big stick. All the disputed territories have been around for thousands of year, and will remain around for thousands more. Just because some country lays a claim to them is not the end of the world.

There is nothing that says China has to fight a war today, and not later, at a time of its own choosing.

Diplomacy is a way of getting what a country wants without resorting to force. China may be forced to give up some of its territorial claims until it is confident enough that it can thoroughly and gradually push the US out of East Asia.

As I wrote, top of the line technology was never on the table to begin with, and Russia continues to supply weapons tech to China.

Russia doesn't want America defeating China and dominating East Asia any more than China does.

That's a very old perception. Other than engines, there is nothing major that Russia is selling to China in this day and age.

A better analogy would be a weakling who never goes to the gym and brags, "my buddy will beat you up" -- only to turn around and find that his "buddy" has disappeared or, worse, has switched sides.

Once again, you guys keep assuming that China desperately wants a military confrontation in East Asia -- I believe China is playing a much more subtle game.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

 

[Akasa]

Here Ill have to disagree.. the latest in tech from where? china?
Let me give you an example.. I worked as a part signal processing programmer , part tester for a firm. Here we had US Harris radios( as a Benchmark..but less sophisticated on paper) .. Turkish ones.. and Chinese ones co-developed.
each ran very similar software as a test.. yet.. the Turkish ones performed the best, followed by the US ones.. and the Chinese ones, even though they supposedly had more power and performance than the US radios.. were unreliable and rarely met performance standards.

Now here is the question... why?
Because Chinese design is bad? NO
It is a simple issue with the production mentality and production quality control. The Turkish Radios had for e.g. ten faults in every 30 tests.... the Chinese had 27 in the same. Just because production quality was bad.. chipsets did not match.. the housings were not the same.. it was rubbish.

And how exactly do civilian radios pertain to Chinese AESA radars, which are built by state-sponsored corporations, when it comes to extrapolation of capabilities? What one finds on the Chinese civilian market, where profit and proliferation is of the utmost importance in the eyes of the CEOs of self-supported corporations, would be markedly different from that of a state-owned company, whose products are sold to those willing to pay the full price and whose success is solely weighed on performance.

Yet, there were other systems brought in from China for another project.. and they ran almost as good as their western counterparts? Why? because perhaps the production control. and quality control on that factory had made it to the standards expected by most militaries today...and that is slowly hitting the PLAAF as well. They have realized that "one mission aircraft" are not the way to go. Equipment has to be reliable, it has to work exactly as advertized and has to protect the user. Which is why slowly but surely Chinese are catching up. In some cases with strict QC the Chinese surprise.. coming up with equipment that matches or outperforms its western counterparts.

However, they are not there yet. Things still fail more on Chinese systems than on western ones.. Its not that they are less sophisticated.. its that they dont live up to that sophistication. The J-10B may have a longer ranger and superior AESA radar on paper.. but the product RIGHT NOW.. at this moment...offers worse resolution than the APG-68-V(9) on the Block-52. How can I guess this? Because that is the story with all Chinese advancements.. they do worse before they actually get better.

So, your argument is that because some other Chinese products did not perform up to expectations, their Air Force equipment would suffer the same debilitation? Also, the Chinese AESA industry is built by two competing corporations, with the history of their radars going back two decades; the J-10B isn't the first Chinese aircraft to receive an AESA. Given the numerous years of research and development it wouldn't be logical to think that the Chinese haven't already passed the "do worse" step.

As my final word on this, I will state that once the Chinese do master something.. say pulse Doppler mechanically steered radar.. it performs just as well as its western counterpart. And as an adition to my paragraph above.. I can also guess that the KLJ-10.. gives equal performance in air to air as the APG-68, while lagging a bit behind in Air to ground..and almost as reliable and effective as one of the best mechanically steered radars available.

The KLJ-10 is actually one of the PLAAF's least favorite radars, appearing in the JH-7A and was replaced on the J-10A by another radar.

 

[Akasa]

Hi,

The problem is that China is spread too thin. If it had 400 to 500 su 30' s or j 11' s and another 400 to 500 J10's, things would be very interesting.

How? Besides peacekeepers and marines who conduct anti piracy missions, all of their forces are within their borders.

China can hardly deploy one third of its frontline aircraft, the rest will be covering its flanks. For the Taiwanese they know that they would only have a small window of opportunity to inflict as much damage on the Chinese aircraft before it's airfields are targeted by the ground strike missiles.

Is there any technical proof for this? If China can conduct war games using over 100 aircraft simultaneously why is it assumed that China can't do so with a larger force?

Truthfully--- China is in a woeful position. With India on one side, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam. China is not the monster that people claim it to be.

Maybe not, but considering the panicked political charm offensive that each of the aforementioned states are conducting on one another, it's not hard to deduce that they are indeed in realization that China isn't the "sick man of Asia" that it used to be.

The trick that the Chinese played on the Russians by not fulfilling the order of the aircraft has backfired for China. Power play and power positioning did not wait for China to achieve its military acquisitions. Countries like Philippines and Vietnam are not afraid to back down from China at this time. It is only the u s holding them back, because they don't want another conflict at this time.

There was no order in the first place, assuming you were referring to the Su-35. That was a rumor that was persistently reposted by Russian unofficial sources, each time with new albeit contradictory information, which was ultimately denied by both Chinese and Russian government sources.

Irfan,

The comment about the blk 52 f 16 was just meant to show that even Pakistani frontline is more advanced than anything that China has and all this hype that China has created, they are still woefully equipped.

How, especially when it is widely known that Pakistan is looking for an upgraded J-10A variant?

J-10B: 1152-module AESA radar, RAM, solid state electronics, composites, IRST, sensor fusion
J-15: 1760 module AESA radar, RAM, composites, WS-10AH engine, new cockpit, MAWS, more powerful computer, IRST
J-16: 1760 module AESA radar, RAM, composites, WS-10A engine, MAWS, new ECM equipment
J-11B: Type 1473 radar or AESA with upgrade, RAM, composites, MAWS, IRST

And we haven't even touched on ECM and EW aircraft, of which the PLAAF takes the most serious, as well as bombers.

Unless the Block 52 can achieve the performance of a F-22, all this hype that you created is woeful.

TRUE, thats where China is at the moment. its a long hard road.



logically yes , if the answer to first question is yes.
hence we got the Mix of American and European aircrafts and systems
and even our Chinese aircrafts have a mix of Western avionics input in them to compensate for that technology/ standard drawback.

What China has so far exported to Pakistan, as one should note, is not representative of what China produces herself for her own air force.

a line from old man and the sea is..."dont whine over what you dont have and what you could have done IF you had what you wanted but make do with what you have at the moment."

what does the above quote mean here? any Airforce like China or Pakistan has to compliment its indigenous industry and programs with the producers that have years of experience of producing benchmark products that are industry standard.


Indian Tejas is just such example although India already has a healthy mix of Russian and Western advanced systems.

China's indigenous military technology have been investing in such experience for decades now. Their avionics systems for the J-20 was first unveiled in 2009; that is a clear indication that they had a long and rich supply chain which took them decades to build.

 

[Akasa]

I love you too baby
read Oscars post above


wise man is correct
but wise man doesnt realise that the current production capacity doesnt allow the Chinese to fill their fleet with their newer jets at a pace that can offer a face saving possibility in any near conflict.

PLAAF has the J-11B, J-10B, JH-7B, J-15, and J-16 in simultaneous induction; that doesn't suggest that the PLAAF is ought to tackle a numerical problem..

Yes, the PAF F-16AM/BM outclasses the J-10A in terms of avionics and capabilities.. and in terms of radar resolution and sophistication the J-11/Su-30MKK as well. However, that does not leave the aircraft useless nor does it make them any less a threat. The problem is with their numbers.. and its not about the number of airframe they can churn out.. but rather the lack of powerplants to get those airframes in the air. The Chinese want powerplant independence but as such their local industry is unable to provide anything comparable that is RELIABLE enough.

How exactly do the F-16As outclass the J-10A in avionics and capabilities? The J-10As are fitted with a new long range radar and unless there are specifications for both it would be unwise to make a comparison. The J-10A's delta canard layout and higher thrust to weight ratio would put it at a serious kinematic advantage over the F-16A.

The J-11A and Su-30MKKs were purchased in response to F-15s. The J-11B on the other hand features technologies that are commonly seen on "4.5" gen aircraft such as a possible AESA, RAM, composites, IRST, MAWS, and LCD cockpit, none of which is shared by the F-16A.

The question is of numbers.. numbers that are short due to lack of engine tech.. and not otherwise. I see no place for arguing the pros and cons of the communist/capitalist hybrid China is... as its defense budget is still quite a bit.

There's a bit of misjudgment in that sentence. True, China does face engine problems. True, China probably will continue importing foreign engines. But they don't have to. Their WS-10A is already in service and having them serve on all air superiority planes is a matter of time.

 

[Akasa]

the Mig 29s have been repeatedly outclassed in Iraq war and the war in former Yugoslavia. thats no ridicule
the Russian war planes have been beaten by the better planes pure and simple its not the fault of the victor if they faced a shabby air force. the Chinese produce has yet to claim a real air victory.

Wrong. Air combat is probably the arm of warfare that is almost always decided by the better skilled. A PLAAF J-7 was able to defeat Su-27SK in exercises. How one manages to use his or her aircraft to the fullest extent is the deciding factor between victory and loss.

And also, all this talk about "combat proven" is irrelevant as it does not change the capabilities of any aircraft.

I agree F-16 block 52 can pretty much dominate anything that Chinese can through at it no disrespect meant but please ... air war is not about being politically correct.

Uh, no it can't, not with its current stage of technology and certainly not with the rapid appearance of Chinese J-10Bs, J-11Bs, J-15s, and J-16s.

and their Achilles heel is the communist party, I know it will butt hurt my Chinese friends but the things you just listed state the obvious that over ambitious and border line lunacy sometimes rules the collective logic of the party members I can give many examples but I dont need to do so. the situation is not as dire as is in failed states like ours but time is of the essence and thats what is not on Chinese side. apologies for the lack of term but the shameless and blatant copying of entire Russian Sukhoi's hasn't helped, I dont know if Russians will be too keep to sell their 4.5 generation jets now as they did earlier.

The Chinese didn't copy anything illegally. The J-11B utilizes all domestically-developed subsystems which ultimately gave it an enormous edge over the "original" J-11As and Su-27SKs. That is also why the plane can only sport Chinese weapons. The Russians threatened to sue but in the end no such thing materialized, and it doesn't take an expert to deduce why.

China was never interested in Russian 4.5 generation jets, according to both Russian and Chinese governments. The reports of a "Su-35 purchase" stemmed from a years old rumor, the rehashed versions of which contradict themselves.

I feel compelled to put some cold bandages on the hurt egos so I will finish with this that the West has been appreciative of J-10s and J-10 Bs Super J-10s as they call them but even the second tier aircrafts like F-16s , Hornets etc can easily take them.

Unless both Hornets and F-16s have upgrade schemes like AESA, composites, RAM, IRST, MAWS, solid state electronics, and 132 kN engines, no, their odds against the J-10/Bs aren't great.

 

[Developereo]

The biggest advantage that the US and West have over China is, not just the higher manufacturing standards, but the fact that Western tech and personnel are battle hardened.

All the simulations and testing are no match for actual combat experience and feedback.

 

[Akasa]

Oscar,

Two thirds of Chinese aircraft in their Air Force don't have any roles to fill in this day and age. They are just simply and purely redundant and they are for show. China cannot get rid of them, because it has nothing else to fill in with large numbers until they increase the production line.

They keep flying those aircraft, but they are flying pigeons and be taken out in a turkey shoot.

Sure, but the Chinese also have 200 J-11As, 140+ J-11Bs, 280 J-10As, 16 J-10Bs, 12 J-16s, 16 J-15s, 120 JH-7As, 90+ Su-30MKK that are not "pigeons".

5th gen is not the answer. Neither can China afford the numbers nor the maintenance costs for the numbers required. 4 and 4.5 gen are the answer with a better EW package and with more potent bvr and wvr and off bore sight missile that can counter the fifth gen technology.

And PLAAF has that as well; the J-10B, J-11B, J-15, J-16 ring a bell?

One more thing I would want to add is----China should have ordered more su30 s from Russia. Where it is at today, and it's current relations with its neighbors, chinese Air Force is woefully short of high end aircraft. Actually for a country of its size, the Chinese air force is in a pathetic position.

Su-30s would be extremely redundant given the vast number of fighters that already match or exceed its performance, and unlike the Russian jets, are compatible with Chinese weapons..

I believe that their mentality of copying the Russian design and living on it would take them down in an immediate conflict.

How exactly would an airframe have any effect on a war regarding the origin of its design?

I believe that the Chinese have literally blundered into a sort of a dead end due to over optimistic estimate of their manufacturing and aircraft building capabilities.

The only thing that blundered into a sort of a dead end is this argument.

The biggest advantage that the US and West have over China is, not just the higher manufacturing standards, but the fact that Western tech and personnel are battle hardened.

All the simulations and testing are no match for actual combat experience and feedback.

That is true. And it's probably the reason why the Chinese are putting its strength behind upgrading its existing and new fighters with fancy 4.5 and fifth generation gadgets.

Hi,

Isn' t filling the 'inventory' in itself is filling in the niche. China can produce only so many J10's. the current capabilities of the current JF 17 are almost twice as good as some of those old dinosaurs that the Chinese Air Force is flying.


As I had stated many a moons ago that the Chinese Air Force was developing the j 10 and paf was developing the JF17--- this would also have started an internal competition between the two aircraft developers.

The JF-17 and J-10 were for the most part developed by the same company.

a JF 17 with an sd10 b an aesa radar , a c602 naval strike missile would be a tremendous asset.

Pakistanis are too keen to see the sale of this aircraft----to those---just keep in mind the sale of Rafale to India. It is one of the best aircraft of the industry and yet it took at the death to get some orders to keep the race of this aircraft alive.

Mirage f1 was a great aircraft but it never took off in number of sales.

Unless they are depending on the sale of fifth generation fighters or are ordering a huge number of J-10As, the J-10Bs are the most suitable option for this threat.

 

[SQ8]

And how exactly do civilian radios pertain to Chinese AESA radars, which are built by state-sponsored corporations, when it comes to extrapolation of capabilities? What one finds on the Chinese civilian market, where profit and proliferation is of the utmost importance in the eyes of the CEOs of self-supported corporations, would be markedly different from that of a state-owned company, whose products are sold to those willing to pay the full price and whose success is solely weighed on performance.



So, your argument is that because some other Chinese products did not perform up to expectations, their Air Force equipment would suffer the same debilitation? Also, the Chinese AESA industry is built by two competing corporations, with the history of their radars going back two decades; the J-10B isn't the first Chinese aircraft to receive an AESA. Given the numerous years of research and development it wouldn't be logical to think that the Chinese haven't already passed the "do worse" step.



The KLJ-10 is actually one of the PLAAF's least favorite radars, appearing in the JH-7A and was replaced on the J-10A by another radar.

There were MILITARY GRADE Radios....from the same factory that does work for the PLA. And yes, my argument is exactly that...however you seem to have missed the point entirely. QC and reliability is the big issue here.. and not performance.