JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Argus Panoptes]

If FC-1 gets western missiles and avionics then what is the point in selling a Product which means you are essentially offering/selling Airframe to the customers slashing you own profits?...does it make sense? Absolutely Not!

The deal should be similar to US...No tampering with the Aircraft; missiles/radars and any other upgrades should come from China. We want FC-1 to be recognized internationally as A Competition not slashing profits by offering them to integrate western avionics/weapons.

If Argentina gets FC-1 with israeli radar and python/derby missiles then it would be no different then A-4 where in any war/conflict with UK; israelis might cripple them so will US without any spares. So China needs to offer a complete product/package. US is not going to provide AMRAAMs, would israelis sells Rafael Derby to Argentina i doubt so even if they do then be prepared israelis to check out FC-1.

No matter how the JF-17 is optioned and marketed, its chances for any export successes are slim to none.

 

[Luftwaffe]

No matter how the JF-17 is optioned and marketed, its chances for any export successes are slim to none.

That remains to be seen but as of now for the next couple of years there aren't going to be any exports any time sooner.

Even though there is a market niche, The reason is those countries that wants to replace "certain types" have no cash with small budget they'd drag older aircrafts for a few more years rather than purchasing new.

Also Egypt's FC-1 purchased might have gone on back burner for a long time 5-7 years as they've exhausted $3.2B [no US did not pay from their own pocket its Egypt's own money] on 20 F-16s without BVR AMRAAMs although their poor decision yet they are in control nothing China-Pak could do [as much as we like to know good news unfortunately non to hear anytime soon], that was supposed to be one of the largest exports orders which has gone cold for the time being.

 

[Manticore]

here is the note of Jane's played by the French industrial group intelligence ADIT

I got this from interdefensa

 

[fatman17]

^i have suggested many a times that the only way the FC-1 will be exported is if it has a robust chinese power-plant. until then there will be interest but no takers. the chinese are in a better position than PAC-Kamra to cater to such future orders. PAC will be busy with manufacturing the JFT for the PAF for some years to come. PAC will get share of the export proceeds whenever they happen.....but happen they will.....it is a perfect fit for 3rd world / developing countries to replace their 60's era aircraft with a aircraft which is comparable in capability with the F-16 and the MiG-29.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

I got this from interdefensa

What does this mean, in the top portion of the middle column:

"PAC now assumes the burden of upgrading the aircraft alone, with China having quietly left the program in 2012."

Bad news, if true.

 

[muse]

^i have suggested many a times that the only way the FC-1 will be exported is if it has a robust chinese power-plant. until then there will be interest but no takers. the chinese are in a better position than PAC-Kamra to cater to such future orders. PAC will be busy with manufacturing the JFT for the PAF for some years to come. PAC will get share of the export proceeds whenever they happen.....but happen they will.....it is a perfect fit for 3rd world / developing countries to replace their 60's era aircraft with a aircraft which is comparable in capability with the F-16 and the MiG-29.

JFT was always supposed to PAF specific - it was always a mistake to suggest that we should bank on the export potential of this ship - we simply do not have and neither to the Chinese, the kind of savvy it takes to move this ship into the international market.

Why ios it necessary to mktg this ship internationally? Why is this such a big deal now? perhaps the point that Argus has presented that CAC is out of this and PAC is under great pressure, may have something to do with this.

None of this mean that the ship should lose it's rationale to the PAF

 

[Argus Panoptes]

^i have suggested many a times that the only way the FC-1 will be exported is if it has a robust chinese power-plant. until then there will be interest but no takers. the chinese are in a better position than PAC-Kamra to cater to such future orders. PAC will be busy with manufacturing the JFT for the PAF for some years to come. PAC will get share of the export proceeds whenever they happen.....but happen they will.....it is a perfect fit for 3rd world / developing countries to replace their 60's era aircraft with a aircraft which is comparable in capability with the F-16 and the MiG-29.

No Sir, the JF-17, although good on its own, is not in the same tier of capabilities as the F-16 and the MiG-29. It is clearly a cut below.

 

[muse]

No Sir, the JF-17, although good on its own, is not in the same tier of capabilities as the F-16 and the MiG-29. It is clearly a cut below.

What makes it a cut below?

 

[Argus Panoptes]

What makes it a cut below?

The JF-17 is inferior in most categories of performance to the F-16 and MiG-29. It offers less power, less load, and less performance. It is below the JAS-39 Gripen in some categories too, although comparable in others.

 

[Manticore]

The JF-17 is inferior in most categories of performance to the F-16 and MiG-29. It offers less power, less load, and less performance. It is below the JAS-39 Gripen in some categories too, although comparable in others.

performance and categories are very vague terms -- jf-17 is a bvr capable light fighter not a medium weight fighter -- some deficiencies you mentioned are due to the small size of the fighter .. which might fit into paf training/doctrine while other deficiencies might be due to the engine, jft being a modular design might be able to incorporate/swap a better engine if given the opportunity -- when members compare jft to the f16 they compare the overall capabilty that too with a blk30 fighter, not blk52s -- the particular capabilty a country wants to exploit might be fully exploited in jf-17 thus making jft an ideal option for her

 

[Argus Panoptes]

performance and capabilties are very vague terms -- jf-17 is a bvr capable light fighter not a medium weight fighter -- some deficiencies you mentioned are due to the small size of the fighter .. which might fit into paf training/doctrine while other deficiencies might be due to the engine, jft being a modular design might be able to incorporate/swap a better engine if given the opportunity -- when members compare jft to the f16 they compare the overall capabilty that too with a blk30 fighter, not blk52s

The JF-17 is a capable aircraft on it own, for sure. It does what is is designed to do perfectly well. I was only speaking in comparative terms in response to FM17's claim, even against Blk30 aircraft.

 

[muse]

performance and capabilties are very vague terms -- jf-17 is a bvr capable light fighter not a medium weight fighter -- some deficiencies you mentioned are due to the small size of the fighter .. which might fit into paf training/doctrine while other deficiencies might be due to the engine, jft being a modular design might be able to incorporate/swap a better engine if given the opportunity -- when members compare jft to the f16 they compare the overall capabilty that too with a blk30 fighter, not blk52s

Anti: Can a light fighter be a Multi-Role aircraft, Ought it be?

 

[Manticore]

Anti: Can a light fighter be a Multi-Role aircraft, Ought it be?

PAF is happy with the avioncs ,weapons, dog fighting ability/angle of attack due to lerx in prototype04

I've read that generally wing loading higher/lower matters for specialized ground/air attack fighters ---- in a multirole fighter,wing loading has to be carefully selected based on the role employed by the consumer/designer i.e paf

PAF has not officially disclosed the wing loading but did disclose the landing and take off distances in dubai airshow, this might help the experts to reach conclusions on wing loading

@gambit
I am no expert


regarding delta fighters like m2k I've read that they have higher drag so need a more powerful engine

One of the most critical areas of aerodynamic design is the wing loading factor of any given aircraft. This variable is the corner stone on which the character of each aircraft design is founded. Wing loading is a function of loaded weight and total wing area and is expressed in pounds per square foot (lbs/ft2) or kilograms per square meter (kg/m2). To calculate wing loading figures, the all-up loaded weight of the aircraft is divided by the total area of its wings. The larger the wings in relation to the overall weight of the aircraft, the lower its wing loading factor and vice versa.

This relationship has a fundamental effect on how aircraft engineers achieve their design requirements. For instance, aircraft with low wing loading values, i.e., those with large wing surfaces in relation to their maximum weight, feature better performance at lower speeds. They generally have higher lift capability with lower takeoff and landing speeds and better performance during climb and cruise phases of flight. They are also more maneuverable throughout their speed range, particularly at the lower speeds. High speed aircraft such as fighters will, however, generally have smaller wing profiles and larger wing loading figures giving them better performance at high speeds.

High speed fighter aircraft also have to take off and land and are often called on to perform at lower speeds where stability and maneuverability are critical. This wide range of wing load requirements have led to several lateral developments in fighter design which included the F-16 and MiG 29 blended fuselage/wing configurations and the variable sweep wings on the F-14. This allows for lower wing loading values with its related improvement in low speed performance while maintaining the small wing profile necessary for supersonic flight. The use of leading and trailing edge devices such as slats and Fowler flaps also allow the overall wing area and profile to be adjusted to lend stability and performance during low speed phases of flight. This is an essential wing design feature on aircraft with wide operational speed envelopes such as large commercial jets.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-wing-loading.htm

 

[fatman17]

What does this mean, in the top portion of the middle column:

"PAC now assumes the burden of upgrading the aircraft alone, with China having quietly left the program in 2012."

Bad news, if true.

no its not. when the PLAAF eventually decides to induct the FC-1, they will be the first to ask the PAF for blk-2 specifications just like the upgrades suggested by PAF on the A-5 Fantan, F-6 and the F-7PG. all were adapted more or less by the PLAAF for their aircraft......some of the modifications done on the JFT like DSI inlets etc were also implemented on the J-10A/B and other prototype chinese aircraft. PAFengineers have quietly shown the chinese how to modify their aircraft with western innovations which are available to the PAF.

 

[fatman17]

why are the russians so concerned about the export potential of the FC-1/JFT because it will cut into their nice little arab/3rd world market for MiG-29s because the chinese aircraft offers a similar and comparable performance and option with price the most attractive USP. $15-20m v. a MiG-29 at almost double the price.