Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The F-110 engines will be used for flight and structural tests, and for the production of prototypes and block-0/ part of B-1 after the prototype. Apart from that, there is no other F110 agreement or procurement. The engines to be used within the scope of Phase-1 should be seen as an interim solution that will probably giving a couple years of advantage to the project. Neither the Turkish Air Force nor other potential operator countries are planning to produce the final configuration with these engines. Azerbaijan will probably be the second operator country of KAAN, and I did not write this as a prediction. This is information. Could there be engine supply problems in the future, yes. Are engine indigenization efforts lagging behind, yes. However, this is the general strategy, and the risk management of this is of course a subject worth discussing.
The first 20 aircraft to be delivered to the air force are planned to be delivered with the F110. My point above is that FOC and final configuration is not planned with the F110.hmm... Interesting, I always thought Initial production was going to be with F110s, and then Block 2 would be with the TEI engine.
As far as I know, changing the radar system of an aircraft and switching to a different architecture is much more complicated than it seems. Aside from the basic parameters such as power requirements, power supply and cooling etc., there are tons of sub-systems communicating with the radar interface, protocols, countless detailed work both on the software side and on the electronics, mechanical and cabling side. In short, for the Murad-AESA integration to the JF-17, PAC, TAI, and Aselsan will have to work intensively together. Either Pakistan will open all systems of this aircraft to the Turks, or the Turks will open the AESA radar to PAC. Whichever country will carry out the integration and testing activities... Both assets very strategic for its owners.JF17C with its AESA radar is the definitive JF17 jet - the focus for PAF has to be to move to a stealth platform. They can continue to churn out JF17Cs as and when they need until a new platform is available.
Doesn't matter.and you are a Moron! Did I go personal with you? Your turkish education has only taught you to go personal with anyone whoever disagree with your turkish sh-t?
On the other note, Hurjet "Planned" version which "will be"! . Who gives a damn to planned version. The original comment says "is" similar. That's why I replied what I replied.
It can't be that bad, but as I said, Hürjet will be Turkey's JF-17 anyway and there's no way in hell Turkey would buy something with chinese components in it.He is not that impressed by JF17 avionics must have looked old from 1970's from what he used to seeing in F35 or F16 C/D
Of course, Turkey does not buy JF17. Because Turkey wants to buy J-10.Doesn't matter.
There's F-5 and there's T-38, there's the T-50 and FA-50. There's the trainer and combat version of all planes in this class. JF-17 itself was offered to Turkey as a trainer back in the day. You're an idiot for not being able to connect the dots. And you're an idiot in general.
It can't be that bad, but as I said, Hürjet will be Turkey's JF-17 anyway and there's no way in hell Turkey would buy something with chinese components in it.
F-16 comparisons would be unfair as it's a different class of jet.
Doesn't matter.
There's F-5 and there's T-38, there's the T-50 and FA-50. There's the trainer and combat version of all planes in this class. JF-17 itself was offered to Turkey as a trainer back in the day. You're an idiot for not being able to connect the dots. And you're an idiot in general.
Is the Turkey F16 C/D stronger than the Taiwan F-16V?Well, certainly I struck a nerve there. You certainly are getting ready to make a fool out of yourself on a failed argument. Its hilarious that's the best you could do? A full load of crappy argument you came up to defend the great Hurjet? Hurjet could be a very good plane but only a trainer. Its NEVER same as JF-17s or any other combat aircraft, Here's Why:
JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D or in any other case those dual seat versions have nearly the same performance parameters. Those "trainer" versions are basically mutlirole combat fighters and can carry out missions. Their performances are as spectacular as their single seat variants. Those original aircraft versions were never designed to be trainer to begin with.
So, either its JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D all have nearly same performance capabilities and same designs. So, if Hurjet is also of same league and its only just a dual seat version of a combat aircraft then let's see how its performance will be as a combat aircraft:
Hurjet Specs ( and I wrote some of JF-17s specs in red just for comparison):
View attachment 965067
I mean who can be foolish enough to compare a purpose built trainer (Hurjet) with combat aircrafts. As, I said I have nothing against Hurjet, it could be a very good trainer but it is NOT a combat aircraft. It's really is astonishing that some of these Turkish salesman got even the audacity to compare their trainer with modern combat aircrafts. I have not even mentioned the BVRs, the High offbore sight missiles, the anti-ship capabilities or all the other features. But no, this guy is persistent to call Hurjet as "similar platform" to JF-17s.
Now go back facing mirror and say the word "idiot".
I don't give a shit, won't even read.Well, certainly I struck a nerve there. You certainly are getting ready to make a fool out of yourself on a failed argument. Its hilarious that's the best you could do? A full load of crappy argument you came up to defend the great Hurjet? Hurjet could be a very good plane but only a trainer. Its NEVER same as JF-17s or any other combat aircraft, Here's Why:
JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D or in any other case those dual seat versions have nearly the same performance parameters. Those "trainer" versions are basically mutlirole combat fighters and can carry out missions. Their performances are as spectacular as their single seat variants. Those original aircraft versions were never designed to be trainer to begin with.
So, either its JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D all have nearly same performance capabilities and same designs. So, if Hurjet is also of same league and its only just a dual seat version of a combat aircraft then let's see how its performance will be as a combat aircraft:
Hurjet Specs ( and I wrote some of JF-17s specs in red just for comparison):
View attachment 965067
I mean who can be foolish enough to compare a purpose built trainer (Hurjet) with combat aircrafts. As, I said I have nothing against Hurjet, it could be a very good trainer but it is NOT a combat aircraft. It's really is astonishing that some of these Turkish salesman got even the audacity to compare their trainer with modern combat aircrafts. I have not even mentioned the BVRs, the High offbore sight missiles, the anti-ship capabilities or all the other features. But no, this guy is persistent to call Hurjet as "similar platform" to JF-17s.
Now go back facing mirror and say the word "idiot".
Of course, Turkey does not buy JF17. Because Turkey wants to buy J-10.
The utility is the eventual bring up of all JF-17s to this block 3 or block 3 prime standard. There is a limit to how much China is willing to support an aircraft program that they do not operate.Yes, that is what I understood from your post. Although I have no idea about the utility of this Turkofied block 3. I do not see the PAF purchasing any. It could be produced for export if there is demand for it.
I would argue that, it is specifically because sensors and networks plays a bigger and bigger role, it makes greater sense to invest in longer ranged, more versatile platforms instead of a smaller, restrictive airframe. It would be a shame if a jet enjoys very impressive sensors and EW systems to make it competitive in an action zone, but because its restrictive size does not have the range to reach it, have little action time before bingo fuel, or cannot employ its full multi-role potential because of limited hardpoint options.We're entering an age where sensors and network is much more important than kinematic performance so yes. It would be definitely worth it.
35-45 million to my guesstimateAny info or your estimation on what the unit cost is for Block-3 with the development and certification processes included?
You have no idea how scarily accurate that question is. PAF's perspective: technically yes, contractually no. And you know how much Pakistanis care about contracts (nothing to be proud of).As far as I know, changing the radar system of an aircraft and switching to a different architecture is much more complicated than it seems. Aside from the basic parameters such as power requirements, power supply and cooling etc., there are tons of sub-systems communicating with the radar interface, protocols, countless detailed work both on the software side and on the electronics, mechanical and cabling side. In short, for the Murad-AESA integration to the JF-17, PAC, TAI, and Aselsan will have to work intensively together. Either Pakistan will open all systems of this aircraft to the Turks, or the Turks will open the AESA radar to PAC. Whichever country will carry out the integration and testing activities... Both assets very strategic for its owners.
At this point, I wonder to what extent CAC, which has a crucial role in the design and development of the JF-17, is competent to sell or share the aircraft with third parties? Pakistan is marketing this platform to third countries, but can it also open this aircraft to third parties for secondary development processes?
There are also equations related to cost-effectiveness. Aselsan can take the aircraft to a completely different point, what I mean is not about 'good or bad', it can be a more hybrid fighter jet that have both worlds. However, continuing with the institutions involved in the project since the blueprints of the aircraft will offer significant cost and time advantages.