JF-17 Thunder still under evaluation by the PLAAF

[PakShaheen79]

At the Dubai air show, US officers, in response to the "low cost" mantra, were quoted as saying that you could shoot down 5 JFT for the cost of one F16 - so which would Air forces want to equip themselves with?

Anyway, you suit yourself - however, you will hear less and less of this "low cost" stuff, because we are not selling low cost, but rather "high effectiveness"

Sir, What is the basis of saying so? Uh, I know ... certainly those 5 JFT will be flying without any weapon. I am not saying that is impossible. We know what F-16s are capable of but everything has a limit. Till date, no American fighter has faced a worthy opponent having similar systems on board. BVR has been the corner stone of F-16 success but scenario is changing fast and this itself explains the rationale of JSF and F-22 like projects.

Rest, Cost does matter no matter how rich the nation is. JSF project was envisioned with this in mind to develop a similar system for all forces to cut maintenance cost and hazards. Even PLAAF is evaluating FC-1/JFT despite having CASH. Certainly, low cost - High effectiveness was the term used by former Air Chief in Dubai and i am still unable to understand how Americans made this 5-1 scenario out of that. seriously, it is quiet funny actually.

lets see, 5 x 30million = 150million and a F16 at 80million -- are you good at math??

Let's see, 5 JFT can be at 5 different places in the sky and a F-16 can be only at one place in a given time. How would you compensate that difference?

 

[DrSomnath999]

^^^common sense how many snipers we have in comparision to soldiers in battle unit ????
well snipers are more effective killers than ordinary soldiers in long range they can kill more enemies than normal soldiers why???
due to ability to kill at long range ,but if that same sniper fight in close combat warfare the result would be different.

exactly today's aerial warfare is more BVR warfare than withinvisual range warfare
so a fighter plane like F 16 with exceptional BVR capabilty & electronic warfare capabilty can kill 5 J 17 easily in BVR warfare ,but
yes in withinvisual range warfare the number can make a diffrence
but nowadays BVR warfare is common aerial warfare

 

[muse]

Sir, What is the basis of saying so?

Shaheen - a basic premise: When you are selling anything, you present what the customer is looking for - No air force is looking to buy cheap stuff cheap - What all Air Forces regardless of their budget - and all Air Forces has budgetary constraints - are looking for is providing for effective defense or a mission capable "system", not just a platform - so when selling anything you accentuate all the many ways the "system" meets or exceeds your requirement - affordability only comes into play as a kicker, a deal closer - if you start with affordability, all you are saying is "Saasta maal saastey mey bikraha hai" -- is that really how we should be branding this "system"?

That's basically what the Americans were saying about our marketing strategy.

5 JFT can be at 5 different places in the sky and a F-16 can be only at one place in a given time. How would you compensate that difference?

So JFT are designed to operated alone, by themselves?? Is this yet another novelty of the system?? Think more, feel less.

 

[fatman17]

JFT is not under chinese consideration but FC-1 is. plus the chinese want to 'ramp-up' the availability of J-10's/J-11's in large numbers before investing in the FC-1 which will replace their J-7's and A-5's. so it is a matter of priority not capability of the FC-1.

 

[PakShaheen79]

So JFT are designed to operated alone, by themselves?? Is this yet another novelty of the system?? Think more, feel less.

And how you conclude that? I responded to price comparison of one F-16 and 5 JFT. As far as facing each other in 1-5 scenario it all depends on the situation in which that combat takes place. So, let's not that judgmental.

Rest no body is saying that JFT is only cheap and does not offer any other thing. "Capability at an affordable price" -- is the real tag line.

@Sir Fatman

Sir, don't- you think that their considering FC-1 is indicative of some promise of this fighter in 21st century. I don't buy this argument that FC-1 is something very different than JFT, right now. In future, well how knows they might.

^^^common sense how many snipers we have in comparision to soldiers in battle unit ????
well snipers are more effective killers than ordinary soldiers in long range they can kill more enemies than normal soldiers why???
due to ability to kill at long range ,but if that same sniper fight in close combat warfare the result would be different.

exactly today's aerial warfare is more BVR warfare than withinvisual range warfare
so a fighter plane like F 16 with exceptional BVR capabilty & electronic warfare capabilty can kill 5 J 17 easily in BVR warfare ,but
yes in withinvisual range warfare the number can make a diffrence
but nowadays BVR warfare is common aerial warfare

I think you have responded to your question as well.

in JFT and F-16 case, both are BVR capable. So it all boils down to under what circumstances the engagement is taking place.

 

[Edevelop]

^^^common sense how many snipers we have in comparision to soldiers in battle unit ????
well snipers are more effective killers than ordinary soldiers in long range they can kill more enemies than normal soldiers why???
due to ability to kill at long range ,but if that same sniper fight in close combat warfare the result would be different.

exactly today's aerial warfare is more BVR warfare than withinvisual range warfare
so a fighter plane like F 16 with exceptional BVR capabilty & electronic warfare capabilty can kill 5 J 17 easily in BVR warfare ,but
yes in withinvisual range warfare the number can make a diffrence
but nowadays BVR warfare is common aerial warfare

Tell me the radar range of both of these, ECM, RCS, and types of armament on board it can carry
There is a reason why PAF for now has chosen JF-17 Block 1 as a frontline fighter over F-16 Block 40 and called it 'better'....

 

[SBD-3]

Shaheen - a basic premise: When you are selling anything, you present what the customer is looking for - No air force is looking to buy cheap stuff cheap - What all Air Forces regardless of their budget - and all Air Forces has budgetary constraints - are looking for is providing for effective defense or a mission capable "system", not just a platform - so when selling anything you accentuate all the many ways the "system" meets or exceeds your requirement - affordability only comes into play as a kicker, a deal closer - if you start with affordability, all you are saying is "Saasta maal saastey mey bikraha hai" -- is that really how we should be branding this "system"?

That's basically what the Americans were saying about our marketing strategy.



So JFT are designed to operated alone, by themselves?? Is this yet another novelty of the system?? Think more, feel less.

Muse sahib, I think the capabilities are judged by customers than the seller. Its all about value for money, and thats whats there on the website of AVIC excellent performance to cost ratio. Actually the word came from Ch Ahmad Mukhtar (After what Gilani said in his interview, can you expect better english from CH AM?). with increasing costs JSF is becoming more and more prohibitive for all its partners. I dont see world going for expensive platforms unless the recession is over (which is not what we can expect for quite some time). JFT has an excllent chance to make its way into considerable airforces around the world. Even Azarbaijan compared JFT with their Mig-29 and conculded that JFT either matched or outperformed their fulcrums. If JFT can match falcon and flucrum, i dont see a reason it would not be able to enter not only as a backbone but also as a front liner.

 

[muse]

Muse sahib, I think the capabilities are judged by customers than the seller. Its all about value for money, and thats whats there on the website of AVIC excellent performance to cost ratio. Actually the word came from Ch Ahmad Mukhtar (After what Gilani said in his interview, can you expect better english from CH AM?). with increasing costs JSF is becoming more and more prohibitive for all its partners. I dont see world going for expensive platforms unless the recession is over (which is not what we can expect for quite some time). JFT has an excllent chance to make its way into considerable airforces around the world. Even Azarbaijan compared JFT with their Mig-29 and conculded that JFT either matched or outperformed their fulcrums. If JFT can match falcon and flucrum, i dont see a reason it would not be able to enter not only as a backbone but also as a front liner.

You may need some sales/mktg experience if you think the seller of a complex "system", allows a potential customer to define the package the seller is selling.

Value for money? Bang for the buck? -- sure - but I don't see is "buy a cheap acft for cheap" -- the emphasis is on what konds of capabilities the "system" brings, not on how little it costs, you know, " you get what you pay for"

 

[Manticore]

the main aspect is ''cost effectiveness , comparable capability, cutting edge tech at affordable cost '' not cheapness .. a word used by our illiterate media & politicians --- our learned members should use words carefully as this is an international forum .. probably one of the few forums which gives jft info without bias

 

[muse]

What the Air Marshall has to say about it is very different from what the forum members have had to say about it - from these people all we hear is that the JFT is "low cost" ( read YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR)

If that is what you wish to convey, by all means..

But if it's not, then be mindful of how you want to position this "system" -- see that's an entirely different way of seeing this effort, a "system" - here we are talking of capabilities, relationship over a long period of time, technology, upgrades, local assembly/manufaqcturing, not "low cost", buy cheap aircraft for cheap, saave??

 

[araz]

You may call me crazy for dragging the Thunder in to PLA Navy carrier. Briefly,one of the simmering issue at present is how far J-10 can be improved and upgraded. J-10 is reaching a point where further upgrades may not be possible even though it is a great aircraft. JF-17 is not only inexpensive but has a lot of room to grow. A lot of talks and rumors are circulating, not necessarily that they are all true but they point to ideas that may or could be incorporated. I may state a few of them:

1. The single tall vertical tail may make way for twin tail to make it more stealthy. Also as Chinese have not designed and produced a twin tail yet, there seems to be a desire by the Chinese to introduce their own designed twin tail and introdece it for FC-1/JF-17
2. Twin tail will also reduce the weight
3.Change the circular rcs to diamond shaped cross section to improve stealthiness.
5. Keep the iconic DSI but make modify it due to changes in the nose
6. Increase the rounded edges on the wing. This will not only enable Thunder to perform better at low speed and at low altitude flying
This will also increase the wing tank capacity and increase range
7.Change the spine design and raise the cockpit for a better flight vision
8.Increase the take off weight.

Rest later. My eyes are hurting now.

Thank you so much for the respect shown by many on this forum and others. I am grateful. It is a bonus for old peorson like me to enjoy it at a time when respect for elders by youngsters is wanning in the new world.



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...ole-fighter-thread-4-a-451.html#ixzz1wY3D4Gbk

These are the comments which i want you all to read very carefully. Pshamim saheb is a very experienced aviator. If he is sayng what he is in this post, it tells us something about JFT. It has growth potential, which J10 appears not to have. Now if that is the case then the chinese would have to induct JFT if not now then a little later.For those people who are deriding JFT as a light fighter, they should read up on its ferrying range . The armament carrying capacity may be small, but no one goes into battle field, carrying a full load of weapons,Planes are configured and loads are thought out carefully to get the maximum effectiveness while sacrificing minimal amounts of maneouverability. Secondly when we talk about This V?S that we fail to understand the presence of multiple fighters and also now AWACs which will be guiding the war. As such a lot of the advantage of the heavy weight aircrafts is compromised. Secondly you need to look at turnaround time and time between sorties, as this would be another important factor in an aerial war.
So my friends i think aerial war is not a simple this V?S that affair, it is a multivariate affair with all aspects coming into play . You needto evaluate JFT in the light of all of these factors and you will not find it wanting.
Finally whether China will induct JFT or not depends on the requirements of the PLAAF. No amount of coaxing on our part will help. they need to make up their own minds. the fact that inspite of having a "better plane they continue to evaluate and incorporate changes tells one something . However for the purposes of sale and acceptance, the acceptance of JFT by PLAAF will help alot. We all know many a planes that have gone by without recognition inspite of being real marvels, just because their parent air Force did not induct them.
Araz

 

[Storm Force]

Muse

I have to agree with your POINT in this thread.

ANY AIRFORCE when considering a NEW FIGHTER PLANE will want to ensure this can provide them with enough combat capability to see off their adversary..

At this moment in time PLAAF feel their threats are better met by FLANKER/J10 combo.....

PS there is a large market for JFT but i feel this will happen with future blocks of JFT which will be more mature and combat ready than todays JF17

 

[Yang Xi Gua]

Briefly,one of the simmering issue at present is how far J-10 can be improved and upgraded. J-10 is reaching a point where further upgrades may not be possible even though it is a great aircraft.

even F-15 is still being upgraded and improved after decades of operation. F-15SE is a case in point. J-10B is many times the capability of J-10A

3.Change the circular rcs to diamond shaped cross section to improve stealthiness.

a diamond shape is not good for aerodynamics

JFT is not under chinese consideration but FC-1 is

it would likely be designated J-12 if put into Chinese service

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

even F-15 is still being upgraded and improved after decades of operation. F-15SE is a case in point. J-10B is many times the capability of J-10A

CHINA is not amreeka
J10 is Not F15

@Topic Why a big country like China with a defense budget over 100 Billion + need a fighter like Jf17 ? I do Not doubt the capabilities of jf17 (excellent replacement for PAF f7's and other old gen birds) BUT atleast get real. Jf17 fulfills the requirement of PAF as a point defence fighter tell me why the earth Chinese need a point defence fighter ?

 

[Yang Xi Gua]

CHINA is not amreeka

what do you mean by that?

Why a big country like China with a defense budget over 100 Billion + need a fighter like Jf17 ?

it doesn't which is why it operates J-10s